View
226
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Maximizing Corn SilageMaximizing Corn SilageYield and QualityYield and Quality
Greg W. RothGreg W. RothAssociate ProfessorAssociate Professor
Department of Crop andDepartment of Crop andSoil SciencesSoil SciencesPenn StatePenn State
2003 4 State Forage Conference
Set your own objectivesSet your own objectivesfor yield and qualityfor yield and quality
uu Forage qualityForage qualityneeds of livestockneeds of livestock
uu Ability toAbility tosegregate silagessegregate silages
uu Ability to produceAbility to producefeed on your landfeed on your land
uu Cost andCost andavailability of otheravailability of otherfeedsfeeds
CP NDF NDFD Starch Milk/TonAverage 8.9 47.2 62.1 25.0 3372Min 6.8 38.4 51.0 6.5 2846Max 10.5 59.7 73.0 40.6 4066Std dev 0.9 5.0 5.1 7.5 276NRC 8.8 45.0 58.0 30.0 3318
Penn StatePenn StateCorn Silage Initiative- 2001Corn Silage Initiative- 2001
Capital Region Dairy Team
Corn silage quality variation
Manage the crop to meetManage the crop to meetyour own objectivesyour own objectives
uu ProductionProductionuu HarvestingHarvestinguu StorageStorage
Silage Yield and Quality is afunction of three key
components of the process:
Production: Planting PracticesProduction: Planting Practices
Early planting improves both theyield and quality of corn silage
Planting Date Effect on SilagePlanting Date Effect on SilagePlanting Date Effect on Silage
22.6
21.220.3 20.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Yie
ld(T
/A)
30-Apr 15-May 30-May 15-Jun
Planting Date Lancaster- 1997
0.4 T/week
Planting Date Effects on QualityPlanting Date Effects on QualityPlanting Date Effects on Quality
3032343638404244464850
30-Apr 15-May 30-May 15-Jun
Planting Date
%
NDF
In situ Digest.
Lancaster- 1997
Optimize the plant populationOptimize the plant population
On good soils the optimum plantpopulation is 30,000+ plants/acre
Population Effects on YieldPopulation Effects on Yield
20212223242526272829
24 30 36 42
Plant Population (1000)
Sila
ge
Yie
ld(T
/A)
1998
1999
Mean
Centre County, PA/1999 and 2000
Population Effects onPopulation Effects onDigestibilityDigestibility
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
24 30 36 42
Plant Population (1000)
Wh
ole
Pla
nt
IVD
C
1998
Mean
1999
Mean: IVDC= 70.1- 0.119xPop
Centre County, PA/1999 and 2000
Optimum PopulationOptimum Population
2021222324
2526272829
24 30 36 42
Plant Population (1000)
Sil
age
Yie
ld(T
/A)
1998
1999
Mean
Centre County/1999 and 2000
Optimum Milk/acre
Fertility ManagementFertility Management
Penn State RecommendationsPenn State Recommendations
230230110110150150SilageSilage(21 T/A)(21 T/A)
30305050130130GrainGrain(125(125 bubu/A)/A)
K2OK2OLbs/ALbs/A
P2O5P2O5Lbs/ALbs/A
NNLbs/ALbs/A
Soil testing Optimum P, K
Hybrids
•Maturity•Yield Potential•Forage Quality
•NDF•NDFD•Starch•Milk/ton
Brand/Hybrid Dry Matter Silage Yield CP NDF Starch Sugar NFC Ash Fat Lignin NEl IVTD NDFD Milk/ton Milk/acre% Tons/acre % % % % % % % % Mcal/lb % % lbs/ton lbs/acre
Mycogen TMF108 40.1 15.8 8.0 42.7 33.8 8.1 44.0 3.5 2.7 3.6 0.72 78.7 50.6 3235 17799Dekalb DKC59-08 38.6 16.7 7.9 39.0 37.3 8.4 50.1 3.6 2.9 2.8 0.78 78.7 44.8 3158 18758Dekalb DKC60-09 36.4 16.5 8.2 40.7 34.0 10.0 46.0 3.8 2.6 3.4 0.74 80.5 51.8 3324 19299Pioneer 34M95 36.2 16.0 7.8 44.0 31.5 10.2 45.8 3.6 2.6 3.4 0.74 84.1 64.2 3747 20473Pioneer 34M94 35.6 15.5 7.7 45.3 30.3 10.6 42.5 3.5 2.7 3.7 0.71 80.9 58.4 3490 19148Chemgro 7253 RR 35.5 15.9 8.0 42.8 31.5 11.0 44.9 3.7 2.6 3.7 0.72 81.8 57.4 3480 19921Pioneer 34B23 34.9 17.2 8.0 44.5 29.2 12.0 42.3 3.9 2.8 3.9 0.70 79.9 54.7 3385 19553NK Brand N70-D5 34.7 15.8 8.1 41.0 33.1 12.0 46.1 3.7 2.5 3.5 0.73 81.5 54.6 3468 19232Wolf River Valley 2114 34.7 16.1 8.5 45.4 28.1 12.7 39.5 3.7 2.6 4.0 0.68 79.1 54.2 3283 17945Dekalb DKC58-78 34.5 14.9 8.0 41.0 33.9 9.0 46.5 4.2 2.6 3.1 0.74 80.5 52.4 3362 18475Pioneer 34B24 34.3 16.6 7.9 42.2 30.7 13.4 44.7 3.8 2.7 3.8 0.72 78.4 48.5 3168 18291Agway AG6001 34.1 16.4 8.5 42.6 31.8 10.3 44.7 4.0 2.7 3.7 0.73 80.2 53.4 3391 19472Agway AG6191 33.6 15.0 8.2 43.9 30.3 10.7 43.0 4.1 2.6 3.7 0.71 78.4 51.5 3221 16641Hytest HT 7706 32.9 15.1 8.0 43.0 31.6 11.0 45.2 3.8 2.6 3.6 0.73 79.5 51.7 3347 17396Dekalb DKC61-25 32.8 15.3 8.0 43.1 29.8 12.9 43.7 3.9 2.5 3.7 0.71 78.6 50.9 3211 17247Golden Harvest H-9233 31.2 14.5 7.8 42.8 31.7 10.7 45.4 4.1 2.5 3.5 0.73 79.0 50.2 3298 17139MEAN 35.0 15.8 8.0 42.7 31.8 10.8 44.7 3.8 2.6 3.5 0.72 80.0 53.1 3348 18549LSD 0.10 1.2 NS NS NS NS 1.0 NS NS NS NS 0.08 2.3 3.9 187 NSHybridxLocation Sig. NS Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. NS NS NS NS NSCV (%) 4.4 11.4 4.6 8.8 11.4 12.0 8.2 8.3 8.1 9.6 13.9 3.5 9.2 6.9 13.9
*Silage yields are expressed on a 35%DM basis- all other parameters are expressed on a dry matter basis.
Silage Hybrid EvaluationSilage Hybrid Evaluation
http://cornandsoybeans.psu.edu
Early Hybrids 2002 average of two locations
Yield vs. Quality: Early HybridsYield vs. Quality: Early Hybrids
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800
Milk/ton
Yie
ld (T
/A)
Above Average YieldAbove Average Milk/ton
Below Average YieldAbove Average Milk/ton
Above Average YieldBelow Average Milk/ton
Below Average YieldBelow Average Milk/ton
Yield vs. Quality: Early HybridsYield vs. Quality: Early Hybrids
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
38.0 39.0 40.0 41.0 42.0 43.0 44.0 45.0 46.0
NDF (%)
Yie
ld (
T/A
)
Above Average YieldAbove Average NDF
Below Average YieldAbove Average NDF
Above Average YieldBelow Average NDF
Below Average YieldBelow Average NDF
21000
23000
25000
27000
29000
31000
2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100
Milk per Ton (lb/T)
Milk
per
Acr
e (l
b/A
)
Dent n= 24Dent Mean
Bt n= 11Bt MeanBt,LLIMI
RR n= 3RR Meanleafy n= 4leafy Mean
NDbmr
Highyield
Highyield&
quality
Highquality
n= 47
Figure 1. Wisconsin Corn Hybrid Performance Trial Results from the Southern Zone,Late Maturity Trial at Arlington and Lancaster - 2001
Bt and RR hybridsBt and RR hybrids
Narrow RowsNarrow Rows
30 inch rows/planter 15 inch rows/planter
Yield Response to Row SpacingYield Response to Row Spacing
10
12
1416
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Yie
ld (
T/a
cre
)
B95 B96 B97 L95 L96 Le94 Le95 M95 Q94 R95 RS94 Mean
30
15
Narrow rows: No impact on forage quality traits.
Pennsylvania 1994-1996+1.4 T/A
Yield Response to Row SpacingYield Response to Row Spacing
10
15
20
25
30
35
Yie
ld (
T/a
cre
)
1997 1998 1999 1997 1998 1999 1998 1999 1997 1998 1998 1999 Mean
30
15/20
Wisconsin 1997-1999 +1.6 T/A
Narrow Rows and Later PlantingNarrow Rows and Later PlantingNarrow Rows and Later Planting
1516171819202122232425
30-Apr 15-May 30-May 15-Jun
Planting Date
Yie
ld (
To
ns/A
)
30 inch15 inch
Lancaster- 1997 and 1998
Crop RotationsCrop Rotations
Soil Management for SilageSoil Management for Silage
uu Manage and monitorManage and monitorcompaction duringcompaction duringharvest and manureharvest and manurespreadingspreading
uu Cover crops essentialCover crops essentialfor long termfor long termproductivityproductivity
uu Consider no-tillConsider no-tilluu Consider tillage orConsider tillage or
deep tillage ifdeep tillage ifcompaction is presentcompaction is present
Maximizing CornMaximizing CornSilage ProductionSilage Production
uu Early planting and adequate populationsEarly planting and adequate populationsuu Soil fertilitySoil fertilityuu Row spacingRow spacinguu HybridsHybridsuu Crop rotationsCrop rotationsuu Soil managementSoil managementuu Weed and Insect managementWeed and Insect management
HarvestingHarvesting
Dry Matter Measurementsat Harvest are Essential
Rate of Moisture DeclineRate of Moisture Decline
303540
455055
6065
707580
14-Aug 21-Aug 28-Aug 4-Sep 11-Sep 18-Sep
Normal
Drought Stunted
Late Planted
Lancaster, 2001
HarvestWindow
Predicting HarvestPredicting Harvest
uu Chop representativeChop representativesample at early dentsample at early dent
uu Measure DMMeasure DMuu Estimate harvestEstimate harvest
date using 0.6%/daydate using 0.6%/daydrydowndrydown raterate
uu Re-evaluate prior toRe-evaluate prior toharvestharvest
Forage Particle SeparatorForage Particle SeparatorGuidelinesGuidelines
Upper Sieve: 3-8%Middle Sieve: 45-65%Lower Sieve: 30 to 40%Bottom Pan: < 5%
Heinrichs and Konoff, 2002
Processing silageProcessing silage
uu Processing increasesProcessing increases•• Starch digestibilityStarch digestibility•• Ability to pack silageAbility to pack silage•• Milk production (inMilk production (in
some trials)some trials)•• Potential to harvestPotential to harvest
longer particle sizelonger particle size
uu Processing reducesProcessing reduces•• Sorting of cobsSorting of cobs
Feeding Trials with Processed Silage
Crop ProcessingCrop Processing
uu __ inch TLC inch TLCuu 1 to 3 mm1 to 3 mm
recommended rollrecommended rollclearanceclearance-- Varies withVaries withWP and kernel moistureWP and kernel moisture
uu > 95% Kernel> 95% Kernelbreakage, and nobreakage, and nocobs > 1/8th ringcobs > 1/8th ring
Cut height effects on silage yield and qualityCut height effects on silage yield and quality(summarized from 7 studies)(summarized from 7 studies)
8.18.1-8.7-8.76.76.72.32.33.93.92.72.7-8.3-8.34.14.1-5.0-5.0
40.240.238.038.033.533.57.17.152.152.10.740.747.37.3
343034302504025040
37.237.241.641.631.431.46.96.949.949.90.710.718.08.0
329432942635326353
DM,%DM,%NDF, %NDF, %Starch, %Starch, %CP %CP %IVNDFD, %IVNDFD, %NELNELTon/ac, DMTon/ac, DMMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/acMilk, lb/ac
ChangeChange(%)(%)
High CutHigh Cut(20.0(20.0 ++ 3.4 3.4””))
Low CutLow Cut(7.1(7.1 ++ 3.2 3.2””))
ItemItem
Cut height effects on silage yield and qualityCut height effects on silage yield and quality(summarized from 7 studies)(summarized from 7 studies)
8.18.1-8.7-8.76.76.72.32.33.93.92.72.7-8.3-8.34.14.1-5.0-5.0
40.240.238.038.033.533.57.17.152.152.10.740.747.37.3
343034302504025040
37.237.241.641.631.431.46.96.949.949.90.710.718.08.0
329432942635326353
DM,%DM,%NDF, %NDF, %Starch, %Starch, %CP %CP %IVNDFD, %IVNDFD, %NELNELTon/ac, DMTon/ac, DMMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/acMilk, lb/ac
ChangeChange(%)(%)
High CutHigh Cut(20.0(20.0 ++ 3.4 3.4””))
Low CutLow Cut(7.1(7.1 ++ 3.2 3.2””))
ItemItem
Cut height effects on silage yield and qualityCut height effects on silage yield and quality(summarized from 7 studies)(summarized from 7 studies)
8.18.1-8.7-8.76.76.72.32.33.93.92.72.7-8.3-8.34.14.1-5.0-5.0
40.240.238.038.033.533.57.17.152.152.10.740.747.37.3
343034302504025040
37.237.241.641.631.431.46.96.949.949.90.710.718.08.0
329432942635326353
DM,%DM,%NDF, %NDF, %Starch, %Starch, %CP %CP %IVNDFD, %IVNDFD, %NELNELTon/ac, DMTon/ac, DMMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/acMilk, lb/ac
ChangeChange(%)(%)
High CutHigh Cut(20.0(20.0 ++ 3.4 3.4””))
Low CutLow Cut(7.1(7.1 ++ 3.2 3.2””))
ItemItem
Cut height effects on silage yield and qualityCut height effects on silage yield and quality(summarized from 7 studies)(summarized from 7 studies)
8.18.1-8.7-8.76.76.72.32.33.93.92.72.7-8.3-8.34.14.1-5.0-5.0
40.240.238.038.033.533.57.17.152.152.10.740.747.37.3
343034302504025040
37.237.241.641.631.431.46.96.949.949.90.710.718.08.0
329432942635326353
DM,%DM,%NDF, %NDF, %Starch, %Starch, %CP %CP %IVNDFD, %IVNDFD, %NELNELTon/ac, DMTon/ac, DMMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/acMilk, lb/ac
ChangeChange(%)(%)
High CutHigh Cut(20.0(20.0 ++ 3.4 3.4””))
Low CutLow Cut(7.1(7.1 ++ 3.2 3.2””))
ItemItem
Cut height effects on silage yield and qualityCut height effects on silage yield and quality(summarized from 7 studies)(summarized from 7 studies)
8.18.1-8.7-8.76.76.72.32.33.93.92.72.7-8.3-8.34.14.1-5.0-5.0
40.240.238.038.033.533.57.17.152.152.10.740.747.37.3
343034302504025040
37.237.241.641.631.431.46.96.949.949.90.710.718.08.0
329432942635326353
DM,%DM,%NDF, %NDF, %Starch, %Starch, %CP %CP %IVNDFD, %IVNDFD, %NELNELTon/ac, DMTon/ac, DMMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/acMilk, lb/ac
ChangeChange(%)(%)
High CutHigh Cut(20.0(20.0 ++ 3.4 3.4””))
Low CutLow Cut(7.1(7.1 ++ 3.2 3.2””))
ItemItem
Cut height effects on silage yield and qualityCut height effects on silage yield and quality(summarized from 7 studies)(summarized from 7 studies)
8.18.1-8.7-8.76.76.72.32.33.93.92.72.7-8.3-8.34.14.1-5.0-5.0
40.240.238.038.033.533.57.17.152.152.10.740.747.37.3
343034302504025040
37.237.241.641.631.431.46.96.949.949.90.710.718.08.0
329432942635326353
DM,%DM,%NDF, %NDF, %Starch, %Starch, %CP %CP %IVNDFD, %IVNDFD, %NELNELTon/ac, DMTon/ac, DMMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/acMilk, lb/ac
ChangeChange(%)(%)
High CutHigh Cut(20.0(20.0 ++ 3.4 3.4””))
Low CutLow Cut(7.1(7.1 ++ 3.2 3.2””))
ItemItem
Cut height effects on silage yield and qualityCut height effects on silage yield and quality(summarized from 7 studies)(summarized from 7 studies)
8.18.1-8.7-8.76.76.72.32.33.93.92.72.7-8.3-8.34.14.1-5.0-5.0
40.240.238.038.033.533.57.17.152.152.10.740.747.37.3
343034302504025040
37.237.241.641.631.431.46.96.949.949.90.710.718.08.0
329432942635326353
DM,%DM,%NDF, %NDF, %Starch, %Starch, %CP %CP %IVNDFD, %IVNDFD, %NELNELTon/ac, DMTon/ac, DMMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/tonMilk, lb/acMilk, lb/ac
ChangeChange(%)(%)
High CutHigh Cut(20.0(20.0 ++ 3.4 3.4””))
Low CutLow Cut(7.1(7.1 ++ 3.2 3.2””))
ItemItem
Hi Chop Corn ProfitabilityHi Chop Corn Profitability
uu AnimalAnimalrequirementsrequirements
uu Ability toAbility tosegregatesegregate
uu Land baseLand baseuu ForageForage
storagestoragecapacitycapacity
Harvesting GuidelinesHarvesting Guidelines
uu Measure theMeasure themoisturemoisture
uu Monitor particleMonitor particlesizesize
uu ConsiderConsiderprocessingprocessing
uu Consider highConsider highchopchop
uu Adapt to farmAdapt to farmconditionsconditions
Storage SystemsStorage Systems
Bunker SilosBunker Silos
Watch for Holes!Watch for Holes!
Small Holes Can beSmall Holes Can beDevastatingDevastating
Poor quality silage, when mixedPoor quality silage, when mixedinto a TMRinto a TMR………………
uu Creates a poorCreates a poorquality TMRquality TMR
uu The cowThe cow’’s rumens rumenmicrobes will notmicrobes will notbe fooledbe fooled
Storage SummaryStorage Summary
uuGet the dry matter rightGet the dry matter rightuuConsider preservativesConsider preservativesuuPack pack packPack pack packuuCover-Cover- absolutely necessaryabsolutely necessaryuuSort spoiled silageSort spoiled silageuuFeed out to keep freshFeed out to keep fresh
Maximizing Yield and QualityMaximizing Yield and Quality
uu Decide on a strategy that fitsDecide on a strategy that fitsuu Plan your production accordinglyPlan your production accordinglyuu Produce and harvest your cropProduce and harvest your crop
according to the planaccording to the planuu Preserve your crop with good storagePreserve your crop with good storage
management practicesmanagement practicesuu Continually evaluate and fine tuneContinually evaluate and fine tune
your program with yield checks andyour program with yield checks andforage testingforage testing
Recommended