Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T09:00:16.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield and quality components in maize grown for silage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Thomson  and
H. H. Rogers
A. J. Thomson
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge
H. H. Rogers
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Results from three trials are presented. The main variables were date of harvest, plant density and variety. Measurements were made of whole-crop yields and yields from plant fractions (leaf, stem, cob). Quality components—digestibility, acid-pepsin solubility, water-soluble carbohydrates, nitrogen and ash—were estimated for whole crop and fractions. There were successive samplings for quality components.

Whole-crop yield from fractions and yield of quality components increased with density. Whole-crop yield differed significantly with harvesting date as did all fractions except cob, although the proportion of cob increased with time. The earlier harvesting date gave greater yields of quality components.

There was no effect of density on the dry-matter content but later harvesting resulted in higher dry matter.

The only quality component affected by density was nitrogen content but there were large effects of harvesting date on digestibility and the acid-pepsin components.

Regressions were computed for quality components on dry-matter proportion of cob and the dry-matter content of the whole crop. Regressions were significant for the acid-pepsin soluble components and the water-soluble carbohydrate component on the proportion of cob. Regressions of digestibility and pepsin-soluble components (total and organic) on dry-matter content were significant.

The implications of these findings to the breeding of maize varieties are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , December 1968 , pp. 393 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, R. A., Hentges, J. F., Robertson, W. K., Barden, G. A. & Mccall, J. T. (1963). Composition and digestibility of corn silage as affected by fertilizer rate and plant population. J. Anim. Sci. 22, 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2. Ruminants. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Bryant, H. T., Blaser, R.E., Hammes, R. C. & Huber, J.T. (1966). Evaluation of corn silage harvested at two stages of maturity. Agron. J. 58, 253–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1966). Maize—an alternative fodder crop in Britain. Outl. Agric. 5, 104–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1968). The influence of date of sowing on development and yield of maize in England. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71, 117–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Willey, L. A. (1959). The cultivation of maize for fodder and ensilage. II. The effect of changes in plant density. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 313–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, J. W. (1963). Digestibility tests on varieties of fodder crops in trial. J. natn. Inst. agric. Bot. 9, 395–401.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, N. D. & Becker, W. R. (1960). The digestibility and feeding value of green and ensiled maize fodder. [InDutch]. Versl.landbouwk. Onderz. 14, pp. 48.Google Scholar
Feher, K. (1962). Influence of the maize stem upon the quality of silage fodder and the economics of transport. [In German.] TagBer. dt. Akad. LandwWiss. Berl. 47, 207–10.Google Scholar
Harris, C. E. (1965). The digestibility of fodder maize and maize silage. Expl Agric. 1, 121–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E. (1965). Effect of environment, weather and sowing date on yields of silage- and fodder-maize. Albrechi-Thaer-Arch. 9, 197–212.Google Scholar
Huber, J. T., Graf, G. C. & Engel, R. W. (1965). Effect of maturity on nutritive value of corn silage for laotating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 48, 1121–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. R., Mcclure, K. E., Johnson, L. J., Klosterman, E. W. & Triplett, G. B. (1966). Corn plant maturity. I. Changes in dry matter and protein distribution in corn plants. Agron. J. 58, 151–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. R., Balwani, T. L., Johnson, L. J., Mcclure, K. E. & Dehority, B. A. (1966). Corn plant maturity. II. Effect on in vitro cellulose digestibility and soluble carbohydrate content. J. Anim. Sci. 25, 617–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattei, F. (1967). Influence of sowing density and nitrogen manuring on the productivity of fodder maize. Italia agric. 104, 771–9.Google Scholar
Nehring, K. & Laube, W. (1958). The composition and fodder value of maize silage and green maize. [In German.] Dt. Landwirt. 9, 483–8.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F. (1967). The intake of conserved forages. Fodder Conservation. Br. Orassld Soc, Occasional Symposium, No. 3, pp. 20–8.Google Scholar
Owen, F. G. (1967). Factors affecting nutritive value of corn (maize) and sorghum silage. J. Dairy Sci. 50, 404–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrakieva, I. & Načdenov, T. (1965). Effect of spacing and stage of development at harvesting on maize yield and nutritive value of the silage. Zhivt. Nauki. 2, 611–21.Google Scholar
Reames, C. E. et al. (1961). A comparison of the digestibility of Atlas sorgo silages with corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 44, 693–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, H. H. (1967). Breeding for maximum production. Fodder Conservation. Br. Orassld Soc. Occasional Symposium, No. 3, pp. 66–73.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. H. & Whitmore, E. T. (1966). A modified method for the in vitro determination of herbage digestibility in plant-breeding studies. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 21, 150–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutger, J. N. & Crowder, L. V. (1967a). Effect of high plant density on silage and grain yields of six corn hybrids. Crop Sci. 7, 182–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutger, J. N. & Crowder, L. V. (1967b). Effect of population and row width on corn silage yields. Agron. J. 59, 475–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirlaw, D. W. G. (1963). Maize variety plots at Houghall 1962. J. Durham Sch. Agric. 4, 52–8.Google Scholar
Shirlaw, D. W. G. & Johnson, I. S. (1962). A note on maize variety plots at Houghall. J. Durham Sch. Agric. 3, 79–87.Google Scholar
Willey, L. A. & Dent, J. W. (1962). The assessment of silage maize varieties in Britain. Eucarpia (Rome), pp. 31–8.Google Scholar
Wytham Maize Silage Variety Trial. Field Laboratory, University Field Station, Oxford. (Mimeo, 1967).Google Scholar
Zuber, M. S., Smith, G. E. & Gehrke, C. W. (1954). Crude protein of corn grain and stover as influenced by different hybrids, plant population and N levels. Agron. J. 46, 257–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zürn, F. (1965). Ten years variety and fertilizer trials with maize for silage and fodder-beet at Steinach, Germany. Bayer, landw. Jb. 42, 477–86.Google Scholar