Corn Silage Hybrids for Best Performance

Corn Silage Hybrids for Best Performance

Joe LauerUniversity of Wisconsin

Lauer, © 1994-2002University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Th UW C Sil TThe UW Corn Silage Team

Dr. Jim CoorsCorn Breeder

Dr. Joe LauerC A iCorn Breeder Corn Agronomist

Dr. Randy ShaverD i N t iti i t


Dairy Nutritionist

D i bl F Ch t i tiDesirable Forage Characteristics

• What makes a good forage? (Carter et al., 1991)High yieldHigh energy (high digestibility)High intake potential (low fiber)High proteinProper moisture at harvest for storage

• Ultimate test is animal performanceMilk2000 is our best predictor for performance (SchwabMilk2000 is our best predictor for performance (Schwab - Shaver equation)


What Do We Want in Grain versus SilageWhat Do We Want in Grain versus Silage Hybrids?

Trait Grain Silage

Grain yield High Adequate

Forage yield Adequate High

Hybrid range 60 bu/A 8 000 lb Milk/AHybrid range 60 bu/A 8,000 lb Milk/A

Stalks Standability Digestibility

Leaves Unknown Digestibility

Kernel hardness Hard Soft

Plant drydown “Stay-green” Synchronous

Plant maturity “Full-season” 5-10 d longerLauer, © 1994-2002

University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Plant maturity Full-season 5-10 d longer

Corn SilageGrain = ~40-45% DM Stover= ~55-60% DM

Leaves= 15% DM

g

Stem= 10% DMCob+Shank+Husk=

20% DM20% DM

? Kinetics ?

80 to 100% digestible• Kernel maturity

40 to 55% digestible• Cell wall digestibility

• Starch digestibilityCell wall digestibility

8Whole-plant

Stovery = 0.76x + 2.90R² = 0.93

6

7

A)

Stover

5

ter y

ield

(T/A

4

age

dry

mat

t

y = 0.25x + 2.12R² = 0.93

3Fora

1

2

01900-1929 1930-1944 1945-1959 1960-1974 1975-1989 1990-present1900 1929 1930 1944 1945 1959 1960 1974 1975 1989 1990 present

Relationship between corn forage dry matter yield and era of release for whole-plant and stover.

80

Whole-plant

%)

Stover

y = 0.83x + 73R2 = 0 88

75

gest

ibili

ty (%

R 0.88

vitr

otr

ue d

ig

70

In v

651900-1929 1930-1944 1945-1959 1960-1974 1975-1989 1990-present

Relationship between corn forage in vitro true digestibility and era of release for whole-plant and stover. p

NIRS Global Equation Calibration for inNIRS Global Equation Calibration for in vitro True Digestibility (602 samples submitted)

85

90

tion 1990-1998

R2 = 0 93

75

80

obal

Equ

a R2 0.93n = 571

65

70

d fr

om G

lo(%

)

60

65

Pred

icte

d

5555 60 65 70 75 80 85 90IVTD

P

IVTD Measured in Lab (%)


( )

Wisconsin Corn HybridWisconsin Corn Hybrid Silage Performance Trials

1995-presentAshland o 1995 presentAshland o

o Marshfieldo Marshfield

Valders oo Galesville

o Arlington

Fond du Lac o

o Lancaster

2001 Wisconsin Corn Performance Trials -2001 Wisconsin Corn Performance Trials Silage Summary

1991 2000 2001 Percent1991-2000 2001 PercentLocation N Yield N Yield Change

T/A T/AArlington 463 9.5 75 10.5 + 11Lancaster 386 7.8 75 8.0 + 3

Fond du Lac 352 8.6 68 8.2 - 5Galesville 352 8 3 68 9 6 + 16Galesville 352 8.3 68 9.6 + 16

Marshfield 428 6.8 55 7.3 + 7Valders 387 6.7 57 4.1 - 39

Ashland 125 6 8 16 7 3 + 7Lauer, © 1994-2002


Ashland 125 6.8 16 7.3 + 7

Table 15. North Central Zone - Early MaturityTable 15. North Central Zone Early Maturity Silage Trial 2000

Kernel MAR VALYield Moist Milk CP ADF NDF IVD CWD Starch MILK PER Yield YieldYield Moist Milk CP ADF NDF IVD CWD Starch MILK PER Yield Yield

BRAND HYBRID T/A % % % % % % % % TON ACRE T/A T/ATrelay 2008 8.3 * 55.3 30 7.0 25 52 72 46 28 2670 22300 * 8.3 * 8.3 *Carhart's Blue Top CX8500A 7.4 58.7 50 7.3 24 49 73 46 29 2770 * 20700 7.9 * 7.0NK Brand N27-M3 7.0 59.2 30 7.1 24 48 74 45 31 2810 * 19800 7.4 6.7Pioneer 39D81 5.2 59.6 10 7.1 26 53 71 45 26 2620 13600 5.7 4.6Renk RK394 7.8 * 59.6 30 7.0 28 55 70 46 24 2580 20200 8.3 * 7.3

Dairyland Stealth 1280 7 7 * 59 9 30 7 1 25 52 72 45 28 2690 20800 8 3 * 7 1Dairyland Stealth 1280 7.7 * 59.9 30 7.1 25 52 72 45 28 2690 20800 8.3 * 7.185-DAY HYBRID TRIAL AVERAGE## 60.3LG Seeds LG2367 7.3 60.4 30 6.9 26 53 72 47 27 2700 19800 8.3 * 6.3Carhart's Blue Top CX290A 7.4 60.6 40 7.2 22 46 75 45 34 2900 * 21300 7.2 7.5 *Dairyland Stealth 1289 7 0 60 7 20 8 1 28 55 70 46 24 2570 18100 7 3 6 7Dairyland Stealth 1289 7.0 60.7 20 8.1 28 55 70 46 24 2570 18100 7.3 6.7

Brow n 2080 6.8 61.3 40 7.0 23 48 74 45 31 2830 * 19200 6.5 7.1Carhart's Blue Top CX1187A 6.9 61.4 30 7.2 25 51 73 46 29 2780 * 19200 6.8 7.090-DAY HYBRID TRIAL AVERAGE## 62.990 G ## 6 9Dekalb DKC39-45 7.1 63.8 40 6.8 23 47 74 45 31 2920 * 20600 6.7 7.4 *NK Brand N2555BT 7.1 64.2 40 7.4 26 51 72 45 27 2760 * 19800 7.7 * 6.6

Ramy Seed PG1455 8.6 * 64.6 60 7.3 25 50 73 46 28 2850 * 24500 * 8.7 * 8.4 *Golden Harvest H6675 8.2 * 66.4 40 7.7 25 50 72 44 26 2780 * 22900 * 8.4 * 8.1 *MEAN 7.3 61.1 40 7.2 25 51 72 46 28 2750 20200 7.6 7.1LSD(0.10)** 0.9 3.9 10 0.5 3 4 3 1 4 200 3100 1.1 1.1

Calculating Milk per TonCalculating Milk per Ton Milk per Acre = Yield x Milk per Ton

Milk1991 Milk2000Milk1991• Dry matter intake estimated

using NDF

Milk2000• Dry matter intake estimated

using NDF and Cell wall di tibilit

g• Net energy of lactation (Mcal/lb)

estimated using ADF

digestibilityBase dry matter intake adjusted 0.374 lb. per 1% unit change in CWD abo e or belo the trial

Milk1995• Dry matter intake estimated

CWD above or below the trial average CWD (Allen et al.)

• Starch digestibility is adjusted for dry matter content andDry matter intake estimated

using NDF• Net energy of lactation (Mcal/lb)

ti t d i IVD

for dry matter content and kernel processing

• Net energy of lactation (Mcal/lb) ti t d i ltiestimated using IVD estimated using multi-

component summative equation approach


2001 Wisconsin Corn Hybrid Performance STrial Results – Table 12 Southern Zone,

Late Maturity Trial at Arlington and Lancaster

31000 Highyield

High yield

&

27000

29000

e (lb

/A)

Hybrid n=47Dent Mean n=24

quality

25000

27000

k pe

r Acr Bt Mean n=11

leafy Mean n=4bmr

23000Milk High

quality

210002500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100

Milk per Ton (lb/T)


Milk per Ton (lb/T)

Dent (due to soft floury endosperm)

Floury endosperm.More “open” in

structure yet opaque in appearance

Vitreous endosperm.Also called horneous,

corneous or hard endosperm. P i t h i fli tappearance.

Dent corn has about equal proportions of horny to floury starch ( / l

Primary starch in flint corn.Source of dry milling grits. Tightly compacted and

translucent. (vs popcorn w/ mostly vitreous starch.

Higher in CP than floury starch.

More of this starch in mature high test weight

Pericarp(bran)mature, high test weight kernels.

The last starch laid down in the kernel during the last few

Germ scutellum and embryonic axis.

gweeks of development.

Hilum or abscission layer.Also Germ larger in short season corn and

in HOC (at the expense of starch). In HOC, each 1% unit increase in oil,

expect 1 3% unit lower starch

called black layer. Caused by collapse and

compression of several layers of cells at physiological maturityexpect 1.3% unit lower starch.

Diagram Source: Hoseney, 1986. Principles of Cereal Scienceand Technology. Am Assoc of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN

cells at physiological maturity.Cool weather can cause

premature BL.

Corn Silage Yield and Quality ChangesCorn Silage Yield and Quality Changes During Development

Milk per Acre (lb/A)Milk per Ton (lb/T)

200002000

Milk per Acre (lb/A)Milk per Ton (lb/T)Pioneer 3578Arlington, WI - 1993

150001500

100001000

0

5000

0

500 Milk per TonMilk per Acre

00Jul 11 V11

Jul 21 V14

Jul 31 R1

Aug 10 R2

Aug 20 R3

Aug 30 R4

Sep 10 R5

Sep 21 R5.5

Oct 5 R5.8

Harvest dateLauer, © 1994-2002


Harvest date

Corn Silage Drydown Rate inCorn Silage Drydown Rate inManitowoc County, WI.

80

%)

1996= -0.4 R2=0.77

75

stur

e (%

R2 0.771997= -0.6 R2=0.96

1998= -0.6 R2=0.91

1999= -0.7 R2=0.9270

age

moi 2000= -0.7 R2=0.89

2001= -0.4 R2=0.93

60

65

Fora

6022-Aug 29-Aug 5-Sep 12-Sep 19-Sep 26-Sep 3-Oct

Sample date


Relationship Between Forage Moisture andRelationship Between Forage Moisture and Kernel Milk Stage (1990 - 2000)

8080

e (%

)

70

moi

stur

e

60

le p

lant

m

n = 224550

Who

l n = 2245

400255075100

Dent Black layer Kernel milk stage


yg

In-season Guidelines for PredictingIn season Guidelines for Predicting Corn Silage Harvest Date

• N t h b id t it d l ti d t f fi ld• Note hybrid maturity and planting date of fields intended for silage.

• N t t li ( ilki ) d t• Note tasseling (silking) date. Kernels will be at 50% kernel milk (R5.5) about 42 to 47 days after silkingdays after silking.

• After milkline moves, use kernel milk triggers to time corn silage harvesttime corn silage harvest.

Use a drydown rate of 0.5% per day to predict date when field will be ready for the storage structure.y gSee http://cf.uwex.edu/ces/ag/silagedrydown/

• Do final check prior to chopping.Lauer, © 1994-2002


p pp g

Relationship between corn silage yield andRelationship between corn silage yield and plant density in WI

8 08.0

d (T

/A)

7.0

lage

yie

l

Average of six locations1994-1996

6.0Si

5.018000 24000 30000 36000 42000

Harvest plant density (number/A)


Harvest plant density (number/A)Cusicanqui and Lauer, 1999

Relationship between corn silage Milk perRelationship between corn silage Milk per Ton and plant density in WI

2000


2000

on (l

b/T)

1900

lk p

er T

oM

i

180018000 24000 30000 36000 42000




Relationship between corn silage Milk perRelationship between corn silage Milk per Acre and plant density in WI

15000

)

14500cre

(lb/A

)

14000lk p

er A

c

14000

Mil


1350018000 24000 30000 36000 42000




Relative change in silage yield & quality atRelative change in silage yield & quality at different cutting heights during 1996

100Silage yield Milk per Ton Milk per acre

95

nge

(%)

90

cent

Cha

n

85Perc

806 12 18

Cutting height (inches)


Cutting height (inches)Cusicanqui and Lauer, 1996

Corn Silage Yield Response to RowCorn Silage Yield Response to Row Spacing in WI (UW and On-Farm trials)

20

15

20

ch (%

)

UW trialsOn-Farm trials

n = 13

5

10

over

30-

inc

0

5

ge in

Yie

ld

10

-5

Cha

ng

-10

Yi ld E i (Hi h L )


Yield Environment (Highest - Lowest)Lauer, 1999

SSummary

• Many ways to achieve high quality corn silageMany ways to “skin the cat”Hybrid selection depends upon objectives of farmerManagement and hybrid selection go hand-in-hand

• Future directionStarch degradationgStover digestibility (digestion kinetics)Continued improvement of Milk2000Continued improvement of Milk2000Key: Animal feeding verification studies


Corn Silage Hybrids for Best Performance

Documents

Transcript of Corn Silage Hybrids for Best Performance