Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:16:42.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cultivation of maize for fodder and ensilage Part II. The effect of changes in plant density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. S. Bunting  and
L. A. Willey
E. S. Bunting
Affiliation:
A.R.G. Unit of Experimental Agronomy, Oxford
L. A. Willey
Affiliation:
National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The evidence from these combined variety × plant density experiments, together with the additional data on varieties previously reported (Bunting & Willey, 1958), suggests that, for fodder or ensilage production in Britain, the varieties we have designated as ‘medium’ (i.e. within the range represented by the hybrids Wis. 275 and Wis. 341 A), sown to give a final density of 9–12 plants/sq.yd. would be most suitable. Higher plant populations probably give slightly higher yields, but the differences will rarely be of practical importance and are likely to be offset by the greater incidence of lodging and the consequent increase in harvesting difficulties.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 1959 , pp. 313 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Allen, N. N., Bohstedt, C., Neal, N. P., Peterson, P. H., Strommen, A. M. & Witzel, S. A. (1951). Cir. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 337.Google Scholar
Armsby, H. (1891). Bull. Penn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 15.Google Scholar
Becker, W. R. (1956). Rep. 9th Hybrid Maize Meeting F.A.O. Rome.Google Scholar
Brandon, J. F. (1937). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 29, 584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Blackman, G. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Willey, L. A. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bushnell, J. (1940). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 32, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E., Foot, A. S. & Rowland, S. J. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, F., Tomforde, A. & Mahmoud, A. (1937). Bull. B. Agric. Soc. Egypt. no. 28.Google Scholar
Gudknecht, H. & Gysel, A. (1954). Mitt, schweiz. Landurirtschajtshast. Berne, 2, 69.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1953). Agric. Progr. 28, 109.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1957). Private communication.Google Scholar
Shubeck, F. E. & Caldwell, A. C. (1955). Bull. Minn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 214.Google Scholar
Stringfield, G. H. & Thatcher, L. E. (1947). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39, 995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar