Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:12:07.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The growth of maize

IV. Dry-matter yields and quality components for silage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. O. Iremiren  and
G. M. Milbourn
G. O. Iremiren
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
G. M. Milbourn
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Total dry-matter yield of maize silage rose asymptotically as density was increased up to 17 plants/m2. Over the range 11–17 plants/m2, which is generally higher than is used in the U.K., the increase in yield was 1–1·6 t dry matter/ha which can justify the higher seed cost and although there was no adverse affect on time of maturity the risk of lodging increased at the highest density. During the harvest period whilst whole crop dry-matter percentage was rising from 23 to 28%, the ear dry-matter content rose steadily from 29 to 35%, whereas the leaf and stem dry-matter content remained essentially constant and only dried out at a later stage after a frost.

Caldera 535 had a higher leaf area index and net assimilation rate than the earlier variety Julia which it outyielded by 15%. The additional yield was mainly stem tissue and the greater vegetative production caused an 11-day delay in reaching the silage stage of maturity (25% crop D.M.). NO differences occurred between density treatments and varieties in the forage quality components considered, namely percentage drymatter digestibility, modified acid-detergent fibre, crude protein and ash. Thus in U.K. conditions, total dry-matter yield exerts an overriding influence on the yields per unit area of these quality constituents. This contrasts with reports from the U.S.A. in which a reduced grain/stover ratio adversely influences silage quality.

Removal of the whole ear (including husk and rachis) at an early stage in ear development resulted in a 50% reduction in the final dry-matter yield. In the earless plants, leaf area and net assimilation rate was lower, but the dry-matter content of the leaves and stem was considerably higher, and a marked purple coloration developed indicative of excess starch concentration. These results emphasize the need in maize silage not only for an adequate leaf canopy, best obtained early in the growing season by using high planting density and subsequently by using late maturing varieties, but also for sufficient sink capacity in the ear as well as in the stem fraction.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , June 1978 , pp. 569 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Adelana, B. O. & Milbourn, G. M. (1972). The growth of maize. I. The effect of plant density on yield of digestible dry matter and grain. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 78, 65–71.Google Scholar
Allison, J. C. S. & Weinmann, H. (1970). Effect of absence of developing grain on carbohydrate content and senescence of maize leaves. Plant Physiology 46, 435–6.Google Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1971). Plant density and yield of shoot dry material in maize in England. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77, 175–85.Google Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1975). The question of grain content and forage quality in maize: comparisons between isogenic fertile and sterile plants. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Willey, L. A. (1959). Problems involved in the cultivation of maize for fodder and ensilage. I. The choice of variety. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 52, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungan, G. H., Lang, A. L. & Pendleton, J. W. (1958). Corn plant population in relation to soil productivity. Advances in Agronomy 10, 435–73.Google Scholar
Genter, C. F. & Camper, H. M. (1973). Component plant part development in maize as affected by hybrids and population density. Agronomy Journal 65, 669–71.Google Scholar
Iremiren, G. O. (1977). Studies on the growth and development of maize for silage. Ph.D. thesis, London University.Google Scholar
King, C. C., Thompson, D. L. & Burns, J. C. (1972). Plant component yield and cell contents of an adapted and tropical corn. Crop Science 12, 446–9.Google Scholar
Marten, G. V. & Westerberg, P. M. (1972). Maize fodder-influence of barrenness on yield and quality. Crop Science 12, 367–9.Google Scholar
Nevens, W. B. & Dungan, G. H. (1942). Yields of corn hybrids harvested for silage and best time to harvest. Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin no. 494.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H. (1975). Anote on the effect of density and row width on the yield and quality of forage maize. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 567–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutger, J. N. (1969). Relationships of corn silage yields to maturity. Agronomy Journal 61, 68–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, A. & Fujita, K. (1970). Studies on the nutriophysiology of the maize plant. 7. Analysis of dry matter production from the source-sink concept. Journal of the Society of Soil and Manure 41, 509–13.Google Scholar
Thomson, A. J. & Rogers, H. H. (1968). The yield and quality components in maize grown for silage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 71, 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar