Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:44:20.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield, nutritive value and ensilage characteristics of whole-crop maize, and of the separated cob and stover components – nitrogen, harvest date and cultivar effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2012

J. P. LYNCH ,
P. O'KIELY  and
E. M. DOYLE
J. P. LYNCH
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre (AGRIC), Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland School of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. O'KIELY*
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre (AGRIC), Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
E. M. DOYLE
Affiliation:
School of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: padraig.okiely@teagasc.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objectives of the present study were to determine the effects of nitrogen (N) application rate, harvest date and maize cultivar on the yield, quality and the subsequent conservation characteristics of whole-crop, cob and stover silages. The experiment was organized in a spilt-plot design, with harvest date (15 September, 6 October and 27 October) as the main plot, and a three (maize cultivars: Tassilo, Andante and KXA 7211)×two (N application rate: 33 and 168 kg N/ha) factorial arrangement of treatments as the sub-plot, within three replicate blocks, and was conducted at Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland in 2009. The three harvest dates represented early, normal and late harvests, respectively, for a midland site in Ireland. Of the three maize cultivars selected, cvars Tassilo and Andante represent conventional cultivars sown by commercial livestock farmers in Ireland, while cvar KXA 7211 is categorized as a high biomass cultivar. No effect of N application rate was observed on the dry matter (DM) yield, nutritive value or ensiling characteristics of maize whole-crop or cob. Whole-crop and stover harvested on the later date had a lower digestible DM (DDM) content and the silages underwent a more restricted fermentation, compared to silages produced from herbage harvested on earlier dates. Cob silages produced from crops harvested on 15 September had lower DDM content and higher DM loss during ensiling than later harvest dates. Despite higher whole-crop DM yields, the later maturing cultivar KXA 7211 did not improve the DM yields of cob and also resulted in increased DM losses from the ensilage of cob, when compared with the other cultivars. In addition to the DM yield and nutritive value of forage maize at harvest, the subsequent fermentation profile during ensilage influences the optimum choice of cultivar and date for crop harvest in a maize silage production system.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 151 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 347 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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

Allen, M. S., Coors, J. G. & Roth, G. W. (2003). Corn silage. In Silage Science and Technology (Eds Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E. & Harrison, J. H.), pp. 547–608. Agronomy Monograph No. 42. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
ANKOM (2006 a). Acid Detergent Fiber in Feeds Filter Bag Technique. Ankom Technology Method 8. Macedon, NY: Ankom Technology.Google Scholar
ANKOM (2006 b). Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds Filter Bag Technique. Ankom Technology Method 6. Macedon, NY: Ankom Technology.Google Scholar
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (1990). Official Methods of Analysis. First supplement to the 15th edition, method 990–03. Arlington, VA: AOAC.Google Scholar
Cox, W. J. & Cherney, D. J. R. (2001). Row spacing, plant density, and nitrogen effects on corn silage. Agronomy Journal 93, 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, J. G. (1998). Improving the Yield and Quality of Forage Maize. End of Project Report 4162. Oak Park, Carlow, Republic of Ireland: Teagasc.Google Scholar
Danner, H., Holzer, M., Mayrhuber, E. & Braun, R. (2003). Acetic acid increases stability of silage under aerobic conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69, 562–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Driehuis, F., Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H. & Spoelstra, S. F. (1999). Anaerobic lactic acid degradation during ensilage of whole crop maize inoculated with lactobacillus buchneri inhibits yeast growth and improves aerobic stability. Journal of Applied Microbiology 87, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Easson, D. L. & Fearnehough, W. (2000). Effects of plastic mulch, sowing date and cultivar on the yield and maturity of forage maize grown under marginal climatic conditions in Northern Ireland. Grass and Forage Science 55, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, A. D. & Gilliland, T. J. (2011). Yield and quality of forage maize grown under marginal climatic conditions in Northern Ireland. Grass and Forage Science 66, 214–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filya, I. (2004). Nutritive value and aerobic stability of whole crop maize silage harvested at four stages of maturity. Animal Feed Science and Technology 116, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, T. F., Gardiner, M. J., Comey, A. & Radford, T. (1983). Soils of Co. Meath. Dublin, Republic of Ireland: An Foras Taúntais.Google Scholar
Finneran, E., Crosson, P., O'Kiely, P., Shalloo, L., Forristal, D. & Wallace, M. (2012). Stochastic simulation of the cost of home-produced feeds for ruminant livestock systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 150, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, D. A. & Fitzgerald, D. L. (2004). Meteorological measurements. In Climate, Weather and Irish Agriculture (Eds Keane, T. & Collins, J. F.), pp. 9–24. Dublin: Agmet.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. J. & Murphy, J. J. (1999). A comparison of low starch maize silage and grass silage and the effect of concentrate supplementation of the forages or inclusion of maize grain with the maize silage on milk production by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 57, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hameleers, A., Leach, K. A., Offer, N. W. & Roberts, D. J. (1999). The effects of incorporating sugar beet pulp with forage maize at ensiling on silage fermentation and effluent output using drum silos. Grass and Forage Science 54, 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, C. W., Kezar, W. & Vinande, R. (1989). Yield, chemical composition and ruminal fermentability of corn whole plant, ear, and stover as affected by maturity. Journal of Production Agriculture 2, 357–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. M., Harrison, J. H., Davidson, D., Mahanna, W. C., Shinners, K. & Linder, D. (2002). Corn silage management: effects of maturity, inoculation, and mechanical processing on pack density and aerobic stability. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 434–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keady, T. W. J., Lively, F. O., Kilpatrick, D. J. & Moss, B. W. (2007). Effects of replacing grass silage with either maize or whole-crop wheat silages on the performance and meat quality of beef cattle offered two levels of concentrates. Animal 1, 613–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keane, G. P. (2002). Agronomic factors affecting the yield and quality of forage maize in Ireland: effect of sowing date and plastic film treatment. Grass & Forage Science 57, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, G. P., Kelly, J., Lordan, S. & Kelly, K. (2003). Agronomic factors affecting the yield and quality of forage maize in Ireland: effect of plastic film system and seeding rate. Grass and Forage Science 58, 362–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, J. R., Ketterings, Q. M. & Cherney, J. H. (2008). Effect of nitrogen application on yield and quality of silage corn after forage legume-grass. Agronomy Journal 100, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, S. E., Axelsson, L. T. & McFeeters, R. F. (1990). Anaerobic L-lactate degradation by Lactobacillus plantarum. FEMS Microbiology Letters 66, 209–214.Google Scholar
Little, E. M., O'Kiely, P., Crowley, J. C. & Keane, G. P. (2008). Forage maize yield and maturity: interaction of harvest date, plastic mulch and cultivar (abstract). In Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum 2008, Tullamore, Co. Offaly, 12–13 March 2008, p. 118. Tullamore, Co. Offaly, Ireland: Agricultural Research Forum.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. P., O'Kiely, P. & Doyle, E. M. (2010). Yield and chemical composition of contrasting maize cultivars at sequential stages of maturity (poster presentation). In Advances in Animal Biosciences: Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science and the Agricultural Research Forum, p. 322. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Masoero, F., Gallo, A., Zanfi, C., Giuberti, G. & Spanghero, M. (2011). Effect of nitrogen fertilization on chemical composition and rumen fermentation of different parts of plants of three corn hybrids. Animal Feed Science and Technology 164, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCleary, B. V., Solah, V. & Gibson, T. S. (1994). Quantitative measurement of total starch in cereal flours and products. Journal of Cereal Science 20, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P., Henderson, A. R. & Heron, S. J. E. (1991). The Biochemistry of Silage. Marlow, Bucks, UK: Chalcombe Publications.Google Scholar
McGeough, E. J., O'Kiely, P., Foley, P. A., Hart, K. J., Boland, T. M. & Kenny, D. A. (2009). Methane emissions, feed intake and performance of finishing beef cattle offered maize silages harvested at four different stages of maturity. Journal of Animal Science 88, 1479–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muchow, R. C. (1998). Nitrogen utilization efficiency in maize and grain sorghum. Field Crops Research 56, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muck, R. E. (2010). Silage microbiology and its control through additives. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 39, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Kiely, P. & Moloney, A. P. (1995). Performance of beef cattle offered differing ratios of grass and maize silage. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 34, 76.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P. & Muck, R. E. (1998). Grass silage. In Grass for Dairy Cattle (Eds Cherney, J. H. & Cherney, D. J. R.), pp. 223–252. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P. & Wilson, R. K. (1991). Comparison of three silo types used to study in-silo processes. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 30, 53–60.Google Scholar
Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H., Krooneman, J., Gottschal, J. C., Spoelstra, S. F., Faber, F. & Driehuis, F. (2001). Anaerobic conversion of lactic acid to acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol by Lactobacillus buchneri. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 67, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pahlow, G., Muck, R. E., Driehuis, F., Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H. & Spoelstra, S. F. (2003). Microbiology of ensiling. In Silage Science and Technology (Eds Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E. & Harrison, J. H.), pp. 31–94. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Philippeau, C. & Michalet-Doreau, B. (1997). Influence of genotype and stage of maturity of maize on rate of ruminal starch degradation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 68, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle 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. British Society of Animal Science 71, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H. & Weller, R. F. (1979). The development of plant components and their effects on the composition of fresh and ensiled forage maize: 1. The accumulation of dry matter, chemical composition and nutritive value of fresh maize. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 471–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Playne, M. J. & McDonald, P. (1966). The buffering constituents of herbage and of silage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 17, 264–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. G. & Murray, R. S. (2001). The volatility of components of grass silage on oven drying and the inter-relationship between dry-matter content estimated by different analytical methods. Grass and Forage Science 56, 405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranfft, K. (1973). Gas chromatography of short chain acids in ruminal fluids. Archives Tierernahrung 23, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. R. (1986). Influence of harvest date on the nutritive value and ensiling characteristics of maize stover. Animal Feed Science and Technology 14, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (2002). SAS User's Guide, 9.1 edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Sheaffer, C. C., Halgerson, J. L. & Jung, H. G. (2006). Hybrid and N fertilization affect corn silage yield and quality. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 192, 278–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statutory Instruments 101 (2009). European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2009. Dublin: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Thomas, T. A. (1977). An automated procedure for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 28, 639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travers, G. (1999). Nitrogen dynamics in grass and grass/clover swards grazed by beef cattle. PhD thesis, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.Google Scholar
Trindade, H., Coutinho, J., Jarvis, S. & Moreira, N. (2009). Effects of different rates and timing of application of nitrogen as slurry and mineral fertilizer on yield of herbage and nitrate-leaching potential of a maize/Italian ryegrass cropping system in north-west Portugal. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Symposium: carbohydrate methodology, metabolism and nutritional implications in dairy cattle methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, K., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A. P. & Boland, T. M. (2008 a). Intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation and performance of beef cattle fed diets based on whole-crop wheat or barley harvested at two cutting heights relative to maize silage or ad libitum concentrates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 144, 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, K., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A. P. & Boland, T. M. (2008 b). Intake, performance and carcass characteristics of beef cattle offered diets based on whole-crop wheat or forage maize relative to grass silage or ad libitum concentrates. Livestock Science 116, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. & Phipps, R. H. (1979). The development of plant components and their effects on the composition of fresh and ensiled forage maize: 2. The effect of genotype, plant density and date of harvest on the composition of maize silage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, M. K. (1975). Microbiological screening of food preservatives, cold sterilants and specific antimicrobial agents as potential silage additives. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 26, 229–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolford, M. K. (1984). The Silage Fermentation. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar