Evaluating performance of corn hybrids for silage production on … · Lauer © 1994-2009...

Lauer © 1994-2009University of Wisconsin – Agronomyhttp://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu

Evaluating performance of corn hybrids for silage production on Wisconsin farms

J.G. Lauer, R.D. Shaver, J.G. Coors, P. Hoffman and N. DeLeon

University of Wisconsin-Madison

XVth International Silage ConferenceMadison, WI

July 27-29, 20091


2

Rationale and Situation

• A one bushel increase by WI corn

farmers increases farm income $8

to $16 million dollars.

• In 2009, 524 corn hybrids were

tested at 13 locations (grain= 403,

silage= 199).

Objective

• To provide unbiased performance

comparisons of hybrid seed corn

available in Wisconsin.

Corn Agronomy Program

Chippewa Falls

Spooner

Rice Lake

Marshfield

Galesville

Fond du Lac

Arlington

Lancaster

Valders

85 and earlier

85-90

90-95

95-100

100-105

105-110

110-115

Coleman

2009 Silage Locations


Overview

• UW Silage Consortium

Established proof of concept

• Problems to overcome

NIR

Equipment

Presentation of data – MILK2006

• Repeatability

High v. Low Quality checks

Estimates

• Where are we going?

Starch digestibility

New NDFD procedure (Combs)

3


Desirable Forage Characteristics

• What makes a good forage? (Carter et al., 1991)

High yield

High energy (high digestibility)

High intake potential (low fiber)

High protein

Proper moisture at harvest for storage

• Ultimate test is animal performance

Milk2006 is our best predictor for performance (Shaver equation)

4


Conclusions from UW Corn Silage Research Consortium (Coors et al., 1995)

• Ranking among corn hybrids for silage yield and quality is repeatable.

• Range among commercial WI hybrids for silage NDF and digestibility is narrow.

• Highest grain yielding hybrids are not necessarily the highest silage yielding hybrids.

• High grain-to-stover ratios do not necessarily improve silage quality, but are desired to insure adequate fermentation and preservation

5


UW Corn Silage Research Areas“Where have we been?!”

• Breeding

(DeLeon, Coors)

• Hybrid evaluation

(Coors, Shaver and Lauer)

• Management for yield AND quality

Population (Cusicanqui)

Planting date (Darby)

Row spacing (Lauer)

Soil fertility (Bundy)

• Harvest

Timing (Darby)

Cutting height (Cusicanqui)

Special situations

Frost (Lauer)

Hail (Lauer et al.)

Grain equivalents / LDP (Lauer)

• Ensiling

Mycotoxins (Smiley)

Inoculants (Muck)

6


7

Equipment Development


8

R² = 0.914

6

8

10

12

4 6 8 10 12

Pre

dic

ted

fro

m G

lob

al

Measured in Lab

Crude protein (%)N= 754

2003 NIRS Global Equation Calibration

R² = 0.8930

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Pre

dic

ted

fro

m G

lob

al

Measured in Lab

Neutral detergent fiber (%)N= 754

R² = 0.7970

75

80

85

90

70 75 80 85 90

Pre

dic

ted

fro

m G

lob

al

Measured in Lab

In vitro digestibility (%)N= 533

R² = 0.915

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Pre

dic

ted

fro

m G

lob

al

Measured in Lab

Starch content (%)N= 255


Milk per Ton (lb/T)

2800 2900 3000 3100 3200

Mil

k p

er

Ac

re (

lb/A

)

24000

25000

26000

27000

28000

29000

30000

31000

32000

33000

6100VT2TMF2Q716

DKC61-69(VT3)

FS6299VT3FS60JV3

77125T

4822B

FS60AV3

3T-311VT3

645TS

0A-016

SP573VT3

A6474VT3

1X-911HxTLL

7K456

82K79GT

C649VT3

DKC63-42(VT3)

5X-512RRHxT

6069AS3GT

7T231

RK829VT3

TMF2P719

SB710RR

3A-313RR

6818VT3

EX27

32T84

FS61AV3

RK844VT33P-616RRYGPL

3T-514VT3

LG2552VT3

RFS610RR

7068Bt

A6459VT3

HiDF3110-6

HiDF3012-6

1X-716HxTLL

3T-310VT3EX35

TMF2Q733

NG6834

TMF2W726

6831TS

8221VT3

TMF2Q759

F2F725

F2F797

Southern Late Trial 2008

Silage Performance Index (Milk2006)


r-values Milk2006 Milk2000 Milk1995 Milk1991

NDF -0.46 -0.40 -0.94 -0.99

Starch 0.48 0.44 0.75 0.74

NDFD 0.49 0.70 0.16 -0.10

StarchD 0.30 0.21 -0.25 -0.27

10

Correlation coefficients (r) of silage traits with Milk per Ton estimatesN = 3727 treatment means


Trait NForage yield NDF NDFD Starch

Milk per Ton

Milk per

Acre

T/A % % % Lbs/T Lbs/A

Bmr 56 6.2 48.3 68.4 26.3 3380 21300

CB 343 7.9 46.5 60.2 30.5 3260 25600

CB, LL 142 7.9 46.6 60.2 30.5 3250 25700

CB, RR 161 7.8 46.1 60.0 31.4 3270 25600

CB,CR,RR 171 7.8 46.1 59.9 31.2 3270 25400

Leafy 96 7.8 48.2 59.3 27.5 3190 24900

RR 125 7.6 47.0 59.4 30.2 3220 24500

Normal 1304 7.6 47.1 60.0 29.7 3230 24500

LSD(0.05) 0.8 2.7 1.8 3.9 110 2500

Average hybrid 2665 8.0 46.7 59.8 30.6 3240 26000

11

What is an average hybrid?(1995-2008)


CohortForageyield NDF NDFD Starch

Milk per Ton

Milk per Acre

High 7.87 46.0 61.1 31.2 3290 25900

Low 8.12 48.2 60.8 28.6 3210 26100

Trial Mean 7.70 46.8 61.0 30.4 3260 25200

LSD (0.05) 0.14 0.42 NS 0.50 20 500

12

Performance of Silage Quality Check HybridsCriteria: 1) 5% Yield increase, 2) NDF= high v. low (1995-2006, n = 139 trials)


• Within a year, all production zones test the same set of hybrids at 2 or 3 locations (3 reps).

• Repeatability estimated using:

R = VG

VG + VGE/e + Ve/re

where VG, VGE, and VE refer to variance due to genotype, genotype by environment, and error. Coefficients e and r refer to the number of environments and replications.

13

Materials and Methods

Chippewa Falls

Spooner

Rice Lake

Marshfield

Galesville

Fond du Lac

Arlington

Lancaster

Valders

85 and earlier

85-90

90-95

95-100

100-105

105-110

110-115

Coleman


Trait North North Central South Central South Literature*

Early Early Late Early Late Early Late

Forage yield 0.32 0.59 0.54 0.66 0.60 0.58 0.66 0.58-0.78

Crude protein 0.45 0.65 0.59 0.66 0.59 0.66 0.71 0.69-0.81

NDF 0.61 0.50 0.59 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.58 0.65-0.77

IVTD 0.64 0.62 0.64 0.49 0.53 0.51 0.62 0.60-0.78

NDFD 0.76 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.70 0.71 0.74 0.36-0.84

Starch 0.60 0.58 0.69 0.66 0.69 0.62 0.72 0.74

M06t 0.56 0.56 0.63 0.44 0.53 0.45 0.62 0.72

M06a 0.26 0.50 0.51 0.54 0.49 0.44 0.55 --

*Values derived from Coors et al., 1996; Lorenz and Coors, 2007

14

Repeatability of Corn Silage Traits in Wisconsin Production Zones (1995-2008)


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Re

pe

ata

bil

ity

Milk per Acre Forage yield Milk per Ton NDFD Starch

15

Repeatability of Silage Traits in Northern Wisconsin


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Re

pe

ata

bil

ity

Milk per Acre Forage yield Milk per Ton NDFD Starch

21

Repeatability of Silage Traits in Southern Wisconsin

Late trial


• Average difference between top- and bottom-performing hybrid in a trial:

Forage yield = 3.1 T DM/A = 6.9 Mg DM ha-1

Milk per Ton = 477 lbs Milk/T DM = 238 kg Milk Mg-1

Milk per Acre = 11,500 lbs Milk /A = 12,900 kg Milk ha-1

• Quality traits, especially NDFD, are repeatable so farmers can make hybrid selection decisions.

There is a larger GxE effect on forage yield than on quality traits.

Thus, we need more testing sites to adequately test for yield relative to quality.

22

Economic savings –Why is hybrid testing important?


The End For Now – Questions? Thanks for your attention!

Photo by Justin Hopf

Kent KohnThierno DialloKeith HudelsonJohn GaskaTim WoodDwight MuellerDarwin FryeMike Bertram

Jorge CusicanquiHeather DarbyPalle PedersenTrenton StangerZhe YanJustin HopfSteve Wilkens

Jim CoorsRandy ShaverNatalia De LeonPat HoffmanJohnny PendletonPaul CarterRoger HiggsLarry BundyEd OplingerGreg RothPeter ThomisonRoger ElmoreKurt ThelenEmerson NafzigerChad Lee

Funding Sources: Wisconsin Corn Promotion Board, Wisconsin Corn Growers Association, Seed Companies, USDA-Hatch, National Crop Insurance Services

23

Evaluating performance of corn hybrids for silage production on … · Lauer © 1994-2009...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluating performance of corn hybrids for silage production on … · Lauer © 1994-2009...