Selection for Silage Quality in the Wisconsin Quality Synthetic and Related Maize Populations

Abstract

Maize (Zea mays L.) silage is a high‐quality forage for ruminants, but there have been few significant breeding efforts specifically dedicated to improving maize forage yield or quality by breeders in the USA. The objective of this study was to evaluate the forage yield and quality of the Wisconsin Quality Synthetic (WQS) and related populations developed by the University of Wisconsin Maize Breeding Program for agronomic and nutritional attributes. Three cycles of divergent S1 recurrent selection have been completed for stover fiber, silica, and lignin concentration for populations WFISIHI (Wisconsin‐fiber‐silica‐high) and WFISILO (Wisconsin‐fiber‐silica‐low). The third cycle (C3) of WFISILO was crossed to two high‐quality inbred lines, Mo17 and H99, to create WQS C0, which then underwent two cycles of S2–topcross selection for improved forage yield and quality. All cycles of selection for WFISIHI, WFISILO, and WQS were evaluated for forage yield and quality at two field locations in Wisconsin in 2000 and 2001. Results for WFISIHI and WFISILO demonstrated that S1 selection for stover composition altered both stover and whole‐plant composition in the anticipated directions. Selection for whole‐plant yield and composition of S2–topcrosses was also effective for WQS, especially when using selection indices incorporating whole‐plant yield, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), crude protein (CP), and starch. WQS C2 whole‐plant and stover in vitro true digestibility (IVTD), whole‐plant and stover acid detergent lignin, and milk yield per megagram dry matter (DM) were similar to the brown‐midrib check hybrid, F657. WQS C2 whole‐plant and stover NDFD were lower than F657 but higher than other commercial check hybrids. In addition, WQS population testcrosses improved over cycles of selection for whole‐plant yield and most quality attributes. Our results indicate that it is feasible to develop silage maize germplasm with both high whole‐plant yield and excellent nutritional quality.

Cell Wall Composition and Ruminant Digestibility of Various Maize Tissues Across Development

“…Twenty hybrids were derived from a factorial mating design between five inbred lines derived from the Wisconsin Corn Silage and Biofeedstock Breeding Program [16,30] and four commercial inbred testers. The five Wisconsin inbred lines were W601S, W602S, W603S, W604S, and W605S, and the four commercial testers were HC33, LH244, LH332 (Holden's Foundation Seeds), and TR7245 (Thurston Genetics).…”

“…The detergentbased methods are a well-established method to measure composition concentrations. Forage quality laboratories and research groups routinely use these methods [1,3,5,6,8,16,22]. Development of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) calibrations based on the detergent-based methods can be used to predict these components in a high-throughput manner.…”

“…Variation exists for cell wall composition and digestibility traits at both the silage stage (approximately reproductive 3 (R3)) [16,27,28,43] and physiological maturity (reproductive 6 (R6)) [27,28]. It has also been shown that breeding for forage yield and quality (cell wall composition and digestibility) has increased milk yields on both a per unit land and per unit mass basis [23].…”

Produtividade e valor nutricional da silagem de híbridos de milho em diferentes alturas de colheita

“…Entretanto, Coors et al (1994) comprovaram que híbridos selecionados para alta produção de grãos podem não ser os de maior digestibilidade. Nesse contexto, tem sido demonstrada a existência de variação genética para qualidade nutritiva da forragem de milho (Argillier et al, 1998;Argillier et al, 2000;Frey et al, 2004).…”

Relative importance of per se and topcross performance in the selection of popcorn S3 families

“…Relative importance of per se and topcross performance in the selection of popcorn S 3 families (Goodman 2004, Tarter et al 2003; (v) in maize improvement for forage (Frey et al 2004), for nutritional grain quality (Thomison et al 2001(Thomison et al , 2002(Thomison et al , 2003 and targeting resistance to mites (Bynum et al 2004) and European corn borer (Bohn et al 2003, Papst 2004and (vi) in sweet corn improvement, considering vigor and adaptation degree (Malvar et al 2001). Duarte et al (2003) evaluated three elite inbred lines as testers of inbred lines, hybrids and populations.…”