Comparison of Grain Yield and Whole-Plant Silage Production of Recommended Corn Hybrids

Vattikonda, M. R.; Hunter, Robert

doi:10.4141/cjps83-076

Cited by 42 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3163. Maize silage produced from plants containing a low proportion of grain had greater concentrations of ADF and NDF as reported by Vattikonda and Hunter (1983). Whereas Graybill et al (1991) reported that there was a considerable variation among hybrids for harvest index.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The highest DM yield was obtained from Arifiye (24.1 and 22.4 t/ha), while the lowest DM yield was obtained from Pioneer 3163 (19.9 and 19.8 t/ha) in the year 2001 and 2002, respectively. Hybrid differences in DM yield have been documented in many research works (Vattikonda and Hunter 1983, Graybill et al 1991, Cox et al 1994. As row spacing narrowed from 80 to 40 cm, the DM yield of the forage increased by 71% and 56% in 2001 and 2002, respectively; maximum DM yields were observed at 40 cm (28.7 and 25.7 t/ha) compared to 80 cm (16.7 and t/ha).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…However, in 2002, the DM content was closely negatively correlated with leaf content (r = -0.53**), stalk content (r = -0.74**) and positively correlated with ear content (r = 0.75**). Whole-plant DM content at harvest is important because of its effect on ensiling and animal intake (Vattikonda and Hunter 1983). Harvest index was negatively correlated with ADF (r = -0.38 and r = -0.47**) and NDF (r = -0.57** and r = -0.53**) in 2001 and 2002, respectively.…”

Section: Relationship Between Whole-plant Composition and Forage Qualmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…DM content of the early hybrids was nearly as high as that of the late ones. Whole-plant DM content at harvest is important because of its effect on ensiling and animal DM intake as reported by Vattikonda and Hunter (1983). Hunter (1986) reported that DM contents with a range of 280 and 300 g/kg might be considered a reasonable maturity target in the short-season areas of Europe.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of hybrid and row spacing on maize forage yield and quality

İptaş¹,

Acar²

2006

PLANT SOIL ENVIRON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to determine the effect of row spacing (40, 60 and 80 cm) on forage dry matter (DM) yield and quality of four hybrids grown in the years 2001 and 2002. The highest DM yield was obtained from the Arifiye (24.1 and 22.4 t/ha) while the lowest DM yield was obtained from Pioneer 3163 (19.9 and 19.8 t/ha) in the years 2001 and 2002, respectively. As row spacing increased, DM yield as an average of two years decreased from 27.2 to 16.6 t/ha. No differences were found among row spacing for DM content, harvest index (HI) and ear content. As row spacing increased, whole-plant acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content increased from 214 to 227 g/kg and from 420 to 451 g/kg during the year 2001, respectively. However, ADF content decreased from 281 to 267 g/kg and NDF contents decreased from 530 to 515 g/kg with increasing row spacing during the year 2002. In this study, hybrids showed distinct differences for crude protein, ADF and NDF contents in both years. Forage quality parameter including ADF and NDF of Pioneer 3163, TTM 8119 and Karadeniz Yildizi were higher than Arifiye hybrid.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Relationship Between Whole-plant Composition and Forage Qualmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of hybrid and row spacing on maize forage yield and quality

İptaş¹,

Acar²

2006

PLANT SOIL ENVIRON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In maize, it has been shown that grain and biomass yield display significant high main effects and genotype x environment interactions (Vattikonda and Hunter, 1983;Geiger et al, 1986;Kang and Gorman, 1989;Crossa et al, 1990;Dhillon et al, 1990;Magari and Kang, 1993). The objective of maize breeders is to produce highyielding and adapted genotypes for a wide range of environments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%