Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T08:13:43.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The potential of maize as a forage crop in Scotland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. J. Potts ,
H. A. Waterson ,
J. B. A. Rodger  and
I. McMartin
M. J. Potts
Affiliation:
The West of Scotland Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW
H. A. Waterson
Affiliation:
The West of Scotland Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW
J. B. A. Rodger
Affiliation:
The East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Cleeve Gardens, Oakbank Road, Perth PHI 1HF
I. McMartin
Affiliation:
The North of Scotland College of Agriculture, Drummondhill, Stratherrick Road, Inverness IV2 4JZ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Between 1972 and 1976 a series of 15 trials was carried out at various climatically favoured sites throughout Scotland to assess the potential of new hybrid maize varieties of European origin under Scottish conditions. No meaningful differences were found between varieties in respect of dry-matter yield or maturity.

Seed rates ranged from 100 to 200 × 103 seeds/ha giving final stands from 40 to 194 × 103 plants/ha. Regression analyses for the variety Dekalb 202 included in 54 treatments indicated that the relationship between plant population density and dry-matter yield was partly linear with an important quadratic function, suggesting an optimum of 179 × 103 (± 80 × 103) plants/ha. Plant population density accounted for 65·9% (P < 0·01) of the variance in dry-matter yield but was not significantly related to dry-matter content.

Climatic variation between years had no overriding influence on growth and development. Dry-matter production for the variety Dekalb 202 sown in mid-May ranged from 2·86 (1972) to 14·54 t/ha (1975) with associated dry-matter contents of 15·1 and 24·1% respectively. In a few instances slightly higher dry-matter contents (maximum 28·6%) from mid-May sowings were associated with lower yields.

Neither date of sowing nor accumulated temperature to harvest measured as Ontario Heat Units was significantly related to yield but date of sowing accounted for 29·5% (P < 0·01) of the variance in dry-matter content. Accumulated Ontario Units at harvest were not significantly related to dry-matter content.

An interesting relationship between dry-matter yield and the date on which the crop had received 1379 Ontario Units was found. This relationship may be useful in selecting sites at which maize may be grown or to predict maximum potential final yield in any given season.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , December 1979 , pp. 567 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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. & Mtlbourn, G. M. (1972). The growth of maize. 1. The effect of plant density on yield of digestible dry matter and grain. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 78, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahloowalia, B. S. (1973). Forage productivity of maize populations and hybrids. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 12, 105–108.Google Scholar
Anon. (1972–1976). Agronomy Department: results of experiments 1972, 1973, 1975 and 1976. Bulletins of The West of Scotland Agricultural College.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R., Kleinendorst, A. & Looker, J. (1970). Growth response of maize plants to temperature. In Plant Response to Climatic Factors, pp. 169–174. Paris: Unesco.Google Scholar
Brown, D. M. (1969). Heat units for corn production in southern Ontario. Ontario Department of Agriculture and Food Information Leaflet, Agdex 111/31.Google Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1966). Maize-an alternative fodder crop in Britain. Outlook on Agriculture 27, 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1968). The influence of date of sowing on development and yield of maize in England. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 71, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1971). Plant density and yield of shoot dry material in maize in England. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1977). Maize physiology in relation to breeding for a northern climate. Annals of Applied Biology 87, 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Gunn, R. E. (1974). Maize in Britain – a survey of research and breeding. Report of the Plant Breeding Institute for 1973, pp. 32–74.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. (1977). The feeding value of maize: a review. Annals of Applied Biology 87, 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. (1977). The influence of temperature on the development and yield of maize in Britain. Annals of Applied Biology 87, 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Watson, J. N. (1973). The relationship between the DM content of herbage for silage making and effluent production. Journal of the British Qrassland Society 28, 135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, H. Z. & Zuber, M. S. (1972). Prediction of flowering dates in maize based on different methods of estimating thermal units. Agronomy Journal 64, 351–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungan, G. H., Lang, A. L. & Pendleton, J. W. (1958). Corn plant population in relation to soil productivity. Advances in Agronomy 10, 435–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, R. E. (1977). Breeding forage maize varieties for Britain. Annals of Applied Biology 87, 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iremiren, G. O. & Milbourn, G. M. (1978). The growth of maize. IV. Dry-matter yields and quality components for silage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. D. & McClure, K. E. (1968). Corn plant maturity. IV. Effects on digestibility of corn silage in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 27, 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H. & Pain, B. F. (1975). Levels of fertilizer for forage maize. ADAS Quarterly Review 18, 49–54.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H. & Weller, R. F. (1976). Effect of agronomic factors on the yield of maize and on its composition in relation to its use by ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 1, 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringfield, G. H. & Thatcher, L. E. (1947). Stands and methods of planting for corn hybrids. Journal of the American Society of Agronomists 39, 995–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiley, G. E. D. (1977). The agronomy of maize in Britain. Annals of Applied Biology 87, 276–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar