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

Abstract

Forage maize was harvested on three occasions from three genotypes (Inra 200, LG11 and Anjou 210), grown at three plant densities (5-0, 9-8 and 13-5 plants/m 2 ). Three replicate silos were filled with 8 kg fresh crop per treatment, sealed, and stored for 100 days.Crops from all treatments fermented to give predominantly lactic acid, low values for pH (average 3-9, range 3-7-4-1), with no butyric acid. Apparent loss of watersoluble carbohydrates during storage appeared to be directly related to their content at harvest.Genotype and plant density had relatively little effect on the composition of the silage, or on digestibility in vitro. Later harvest was reflected in increased contents of dry matter and starch, and in restricted fermentation. The content of digestible organic matter in the D.M. was decreased by later harvest.

The development of plant components and their effects on the composition of fresh and ensiled forage maize: 3. The effect of grain content on milk production

“…Nevertheless, the increased milk production recorded in this trial, coupled with the more rapid rise in wholecrop D.M. content and the smaller loss of watersoluble carbohydrates during the ensiling process (Phipps & Weller, 1979;Wilkinson & Phipps, 1979), all show that a high grain content in forage maize is a desirable attribute. These findings do not mean that plant density should be decreased in order to produce a high grain content.…”

“…(Thomson & Rogers, 1968;Daynard & There is evidence to suggest that during the Hunter, 1975;Bunting, 1975Bunting, , 1976Phipps & ensiling process more carbohydrates are lost from Weller, 1979). Even when dwarf-and multi-a crop with a low grain content, which could result tillering hybrids were compared with normal in a silage of lower nutritive value than that made hybrids, the grain content of the fresh crops did from a crop with a high grain content (MeAllan & not appear to be related to digestibility values Phipps, 1977;Wilkinson & Phipps, 1979). (Byers, Kendall & Ormiston, 1965;Freyman et al Feeding trials have been conducted with both 1973).…”

Effect on yield and dry‐matter distribution of the stay‐green characteristic in cultivars of forage maize grown in England

“…The increase in the content of ear DM in the total plant DM with advancing date of harvest (Table 7) probably reflected the polymerization of water‐soluble carbohydrate photosynthate as starch in the grain, which is associated with an increase in the content of DM in the whole plant (Wilkinson and Osbourn, 1975; Wilkinson and Phipps, 1979). The higher mean content of ear DM in the whole plant DM of the C cultivars compared with the SG cultivars suggests that, at least under UK conditions, C cultivars of forage maize are more likely to have a superior feeding value for ruminants than SG types.…”

The development of plant components in isogenic sterile and fertile forage maize and their effects on carbohydrate composition, nutritive value, in vivo digestibility values and animal performance with fresh and ensiled crops

“…Prior to ensiling, the non-structural carbohydrate of fertile maize consists largely of starch whereas that of sterile maize is predominantly soluble sugars. On ensiling, it has been shown that the nonstructural carbohydrate constituents of maize have a pronounced effect on the extent and pattern of fermentation (Wilkinson & Phipps, 1979), and the decline in the nutritive value was less for crops with a high starch (high grain) than for those with a high soluble sugar (low grain) concentration.…”