Cited by 9Agricultural Engineering and MechanizationRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of Mechanical Conditioning on Wilting of Alfalfa and Italian Ryegrass for Ensiling

Abstract

Abstract Conditioning may greatly increase the drying rate of cut forage during the initial stages of drying. Such results may be particularly useful for silage systems (as opposed to haymaking). This study was conducted to determine the drying rate and losses in six field wilting trials on pure stands of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and Italian rye‐grass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) when treated with different types of mower‐conditioners (rubber rolls; plastic or steel flails). Drying was measured by calculating the water loss rate from two subsequent hourly weights of swath portions placed on trays. Dry matter (DM) losses were estimated on 1.2‐m lengths of swaths immediately after cutting. The steel flail conditioner provided faster drying than the other conditioning types for both crops. The effect of the rubber roll conditioner was limited due to the swath structure, especially with forage surface densities higher than 0.7 kg DM m−2. Tedding positively interacted with the conditioning treatment to increase the drying rate, especially when forage was conditioned with the rubber roll machine. Shatter losses from alfalfa were higher for the flail conditioner, ranging from 3.6 to 10.2%, and with greater loss of crude protein. The DM losses were always lower than 2.5% for Italian ryegrass. The most severe conditioning (steel flails) followed by tedding is appropriate for grass, as it significantly reduces the wilting time without affecting DM loss. However, a less severe conditioning (rubber rolls) without tedding is more appropriate for wilting alfalfa, to avoid excessive leaf and protein loss.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2134/agronj1999.00021962009100030016x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In alfalfa, DM losses due to mowing ranged from 0.3 to 1.4% for conventional mowers and from 3.4 to 11.7% for mower-conditioners.

    “Whereas in alfalfa, DM losses due to mowing ranged from 0.3 to 1.4% for conventional mowers and from 3.4 to 11.7% for mower-conditioners.”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Borreani et al., 1999

  • DM losses, especially leaves, were directly related to the forage DM content at the time of treatment and the severity of the conditioning.

    “Dry matter losses, especially leaves, were directly related to the forage DM content at the time of treatment and the severity of the conditioning.”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Borreani et al., 1999

  • Field respiration losses during drying followed the opposite trend to mechanical losses, with losses of 2.0, 1.5, and 1.2% for no, roll, and flail conditioning, respectively.

    “However, field respiration losses during drying followed the opposite trend with losses of 2.0, 1.5, and 1.2% for no, roll, and flail conditioning, respectively.”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Borreani et al., 1999

  • Borreani et al. (1999) found that DM losses at cutting were always lower than 2.0% for Italian ryegrass even in the more severe conditioning treatments.

    “Borreani et al. (1999), evaluating the conditioning effect on drying rate of Italian ryegrass and alfalfa forages in the field, found that DM losses at cutting were always lower than 2.0% for Italian ryegrass even in the more severe conditioning treatments.”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Borreani et al., 1999

  • Severe conditioning using steel flails led to a loss of more than 20% of the CP at mowing in alfalfa.

    “This led to a loss of more than 20% of the CP at mowing in alfalfa conditioned with more severe conditioning using steel flails.”

    From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Borreani et al., 1999

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Borreani, G., Tabacco, E., & Ciotti, A.
Affiliations
University of Turin (IT)
Corresponding author
Borreani, Giorgio
Venue
Agronomy Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-05
Volume
91
Issue
3
Pages
457-463
ISSN
  • 0002-1962 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0645
OpenAlex
W2078847916
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Agronomy Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement
Keywords
mechanical conditioning, wilting, alfalfa, Lolium multiflorum, silage, drying rate, dry matter loss, forage drying

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review