Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:05:04.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Grain Formation on Dry Matter Distribution and Forage Quality in Maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

E. S. Bunting
E. S. Bunting
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Post-anthesis trends in yield and forage quality of dry matter in components of the maize shoot were studied in experiments with barren and fertile plants grown at 10 plants/m2. In fertile plants, which had a maximum shoot DW 6 or 7% higher than barren ones, the stems (including leaf sheaths) yielded 5 t/ha (42% shoot DW) 30 days after flowering, declining to 3·5 t/ha (26% DW) at final harvest 60 days later. During this period the ear increased by more than 4 t/ha, from 23 to 50% of shoot DW, whereas in barren plants there was little change in DM distribution, with the stem representing about 48% shoot DW, leaf and husk together 40–45% and the ear (rachis only) less than 10%. DM percentage of shoots was similar in barren and fertile plants until maximum DW was attained about 60 days after flowering, after which fertile plants dried more rapidly. In vitro dry matter digestibility was as high in barren as in fertile plants, and the analytical data on forage quality do not suggest that it was positively associated with grain content.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 417 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Adelana, B. O. & Milbourn, G. M. (1972). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 78, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrieu, J. & Demarquilly, C. (1974). Ann. Zootech. 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, W. R. & De Haan, G. H. (1956). Versl. Cent. Inst. landbouwk. Onderz over 1955, 170.Google Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1975). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 85, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, D. G. & McCullough, M. E. (1971). Agron. J. 63, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daynard, T. B., Tanner, J. W. & Hume, D. J. (1969). Crop Sci. 9, 831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daynard, T. B. & Hunter, R. B. (1975). Can. J. Plant Sci. 55, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deinum, B. & Dirven, J. G. P. (1971). Neth. J. agric. Sci. 19, 264.Google Scholar
Focke, R., Franzke, W. & Winkel, A. (1966). Albrecht-Thaer-Archiv. 10, 585.Google Scholar
Genter, C. F. (1960). Corn and other crops for silage. Virginia Agr. Exp. Stn Bull. 516.Google Scholar
Genter, C. F., Jones, G. D. & Carter, M. T. (1970). Agron. J. 62, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, F. (1970). Das wirtschaftseinige Futter 16, 306.Google Scholar
Hanway, J. J. (1962). Agron. J. 54, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. J. & Campbell, D. K. (1972). Can. J. Plant Sci. 52, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Soest, P. J. (1968). In Forage Economics—Quality. Amer. Soc. Agron. Spec. Pub. 13.Google Scholar