Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:08:29.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harvest date does not influence variety ranking in Belgian forage maize variety trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

J. SWANCKAERT ,
J. PANNECOUCQUE ,
J. VAN WAES ,
B. DE CAUWER ,
J. LATRE ,
G. HAESAERT  and
D. REHEUL
J. SWANCKAERT*
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 109, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Proefhoevestraat 22, 9090 Melle, Belgium
J. PANNECOUCQUE
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 109, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
J. VAN WAES
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 109, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
B. DE CAUWER
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Proefhoevestraat 22, 9090 Melle, Belgium
J. LATRE
Affiliation:
Department of Bio- and Food Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, University College Ghent, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
G. HAESAERT
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biosciences, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
D. REHEUL
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Proefhoevestraat 22, 9090 Melle, Belgium
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: Jolien.Swanckaert@ugent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Silage maize variety testing systems usually evaluate new varieties within properly defined maturity groups; within a maturity group, all varieties are harvested on a single harvest date. In a small country like Belgium where growing conditions are similar across the maize growing areas, all tested silage maize varieties, comprising different maturity groups, are harvested on a single date. Under this testing system, only few varieties are harvested at the physiological stage where they theoretically show their optimal performance. In the current research, eight silage maize varieties were monitored from 25 to 40% whole-crop dry matter (DM) content at three locations in Belgium during the period 2007–2009. The optimal harvest date was calculated as the date where whole-crop DM yield, ear DM yield and organic matter digestibility were maximal. The variety rank at the optimal harvest date was compared with the variety rank at any studied single harvest date. Harvest dates where the variety rank was not statistically different to the rank at the optimal harvest date were pooled in a ‘harvest window’. Based on the current data, the harvest window comprised a flexible harvest period of about 14 days. It was therefore concluded that applying a single harvest date is scientifically justified for the ranking of silage maize varieties in Belgium, when the whole-crop DM content is between 28·1 and 40·6% with a maximum difference of 7·2% between all compared varieties.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 154 , Issue 6 , August 2016 , pp. 1040 - 1050
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Argillier, O., Barriere, Y., Dardenne, P., Emile, J. C. & Hebert, Y. (1998). Genotypic variation for in vitro criteria and relationships with in vivo digestibility in forage maize hybrids. Plant Breeding 117, 437–441.Google Scholar
Arriola, K. G., Kim, S. C., Huisden, C. M. & Adesogan, A. T. (2012). Stay-green ranking and maturity of corn hybrids: 1. Effects on dry matter yield, nutritional value, fermentation characteristics, and aerobic stability of silage hybrids in Florida. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 964–974.Google Scholar
Bal, M. A., Coors, J. G. & Shaver, R. D. (1997). Impact of the maturity of corn for use as silage in the diets of dairy cows on intake, digestion, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2497–2503.Google Scholar
Barriere, Y., Argillier, O., Michalet-Doreau, B., Hebert, Y., Guingo, E., Giauffret, C. & Emile, J. C. (1997). Relevant traits, genetic variation and breeding strategies in early silage maize. Agronomie 17, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boon, E. J. M. C., Struik, P. C., Engels, F. M. & Cone, J. W. (2012). Stem characteristics of two forage maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars varying in whole plant digestibility. IV. Changes during the growing season in anatomy and chemical composition in relation to fermentation characteristics of a lower internode. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 59, 13–23.Google Scholar
Cone, J. W., Van Gelder, A. H., Van Schooten, H. A. & Groten, J. A. M. (2008). Effects of forage maize type and maturity stage on in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 55, 139–154.Google Scholar
Darby, H. M. & Lauer, J. G. (2002). Harvest date and hybrid influence on corn forage yield, quality, and preservation. Agronomy Journal 94, 559–566.Google Scholar
De Boever, J. L., Cottyn, B. G., De Brabander, D. L., Vanacker, J. M. & Boucque, C. V. (1997). Prediction of the feeding value of maize silages by chemical parameters, in vitro digestibility and NIRS. Animal Feed Science and Technology 66, 211–222.Google Scholar
De Boever, J. L., Vanacker, J. M. & De Brabander, D. L. (2002). Rumen degradation characteristics of nutrients in maize silages and evaluation of laboratory measurements and NIRS as predictors. Animal Feed Science and Technology 101, 73–86.Google Scholar
Ettle, T. & Schwarz, F. J. (2003). Effect of maize variety harvested at different maturity stages on feeding value and performance of dairy cows. Animal Research 52, 337–349.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analysis (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications). Handbook No. 379. Washington, DC: USDA Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
Hetta, M., Mussadiq, Z., Gustavsson, A. M. & Swensson, C. (2012). Effects of hybrid and maturity on performance and nutritive characteristics of forage maize at high latitudes, estimated using the gas production technique. Animal Feed Science and Technology 171, 20–30.Google Scholar
Jensen, C., Weisbjerg, M. R., Norgaard, P. & Hvelplund, T. (2005). Effect of maize silage maturity on site of starch and NDF digestion in lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 118, 279–294.Google Scholar
Johnson, L., Harrison, J. H., Hunt, C., Shinners, K., Doggett, C. G. & Sapienza, D. (1999). Nutritive value of corn silage as affected by maturity and mechanical processing: a contemporary review. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2813–2825.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Sutton, J. D., Beever, D. E. & Jones, A. K. (2000). The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows 3. Food intake and milk production. Animal Science 71, 401–409.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J. & Benson, G. O. (1997). How a Corn Plant Develops. Special Report No. 48. Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Schwab, E. C., Shaver, R. D., Lauer, J. G. & Coors, J. G. (2003). Estimating silage energy value and milk yield to rank corn hybrids. Animal Feed Science and Technology 109, 1–18.Google Scholar
Van Waes, J. (2009). Maize variety testing for registration on a national catalogue and the impact of new technologies. Maydica 54, 139–153.Google Scholar
Wiersma, D. W., Carter, P. R., Albrecht, K. A. & Coors, J. G. (1993). Kernel milkline stage and corn forage yield, quality, and dry-matter content. Journal of Production Agriculture 6, 94–99.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. & Hill, J. (2003). Effect on yield and dry-matter distribution of the stay-green characteristic in cultivars of forage maize grown in England. Grass Forage Science 58, 258–264.Google Scholar
Zscheischler, J., Estler, M. C., Staudacher, W., Gross, F., Burgstaller, G., Streyl, H. & Rechmann, T. (1990). Maize Handbook: Environmentally Friendly Cultivation, Cost-effective Utilization. Frankfurt Main, Germany: DLG-Verlag.Google Scholar