Cited by 31Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgricultural Engineering and MechanizationAgricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement

The effect of wide swathing on wilting times and nutritive value of alfalfa haylage

Open access
Kung, L., Stough, E.C., McDonell, E.E., Schmidt, R.J., Hofherr, M.W., Reich, L.J., Klingerman, C.M.·2010·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

On 3 consecutive cuttings, alfalfa from a single field was mowed with a John Deere 946 mower-conditioner (4-m cut width; Moline, IL) to leave narrow swaths (NS) ranging from 1.2 to 1.52 m wide (30-37% of cutter bar width) and wide swaths (WS) ranging from 2.44 to 2.74 m wide (62-67% of cutter bar width). Samples were collected from windrows and dry matter (DM) was monitored during wilting until a target of 43 to 45% DM was obtained. Forage from random windrows (n=4-6) was harvested by hand, chopped through a forage harvester before being packed in replicated vacuum-sealed bags, and allowed to ensile for 65 d. There was no swath width x cutting interaction for any parameter tested. Over all cuttings, the resulting silage DM was not different between the NS silage (43.8%) and the WS silage (44.9%). However, wide swathing greatly reduced the time of wilting before making silage. The hours of wilting time needed to reach the targeted DM for the NS silage compared with the WS silage at cuttings 1, 2, and 3 were 50 versus 29, 54 versus 28, and 25 versus 6, respectively. At the time of ensiling, the WS silage had more water-soluble carbohydrates (5.1%) than did the NS silage (3.7%). The WS silage had a lower pH (4.58) than did the NS silage (4.66), but swath width did not affect fermentation end products (lactic acid, acetic acid, and ethanol). The NS silage had more NH(3)-N (0.26%) than did the WS silage (0.21%). Wide swathing did not affect the concentration of ash or the digestibility of NDF, but it lowered the N content (NS=3.45%; WS=3.23%) and increased the ADF content (NS=39.7%; WS=40.9%) of the resulting silage. Wide swathing can markedly reduce the time that alfalfa must wilt before it can be chopped for silage, but under good conditions, as in this study, the resulting silage quality was generally not improved.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.2009-2451

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cherney, D. J., and J. Cherney. 2006. Wide swathing to facilitate the drying of cut forage in the field. Abstract #73-18 in Proc. ASA- CSSA-SSSA Intl. Mtgs. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
  2. Kilcer, T. F. 2006. Wide-versus narrow-swath harvesting-Feed- quality aspects. Pages 206-213 in Proc. Silage for Dairy Farms, Camp Hill, PA. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kung, L., Stough, E. C., McDonell, E. E., Schmidt, R. J., Hofherr, M. W., Reich, L. J., & Klingerman, C. M.
Affiliations
University of Delaware (US)
Corresponding author
Kung, L.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2010-04
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
1770-1773
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151776627
Cited by
31
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement
Keywords
alfalfa haylage, swath width, silage nutritive value, forage chopping, water-soluble carbohydrates, silage pH, ammonia nitrogen, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber digestibility, dry matter content, cutting frequency, forage quality, nitrogen content, lactic acid, acetic acid, ethanol, silage additives
MeSH terms
Medicago sativa, Animals, Animal Feed, Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Cattle, Fermentation, Food Handling, Food Microbiology, Humidity, Nutritive Value, Particle Size, Silage, Temperature, Wind

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