Growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under different row spacings
Corn (Zea mays L.) silage in the northeastern USA yields more in narrow (0.38 m) than conventional (0.76 m) rows. Dairy producers, however, have considered converting from conventional to twin rows (0.19 m on 0.76 m centers) because twin rows are more compatible than narrow rows for herbicide applic...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Agronomy journal 2006-01, Vol.98 (1), p.163-167 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 167 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 163 |
container_title | Agronomy journal |
container_volume | 98 |
creator | Cox, W.J Hanchar, J.J Knoblauch, W.A Cherney, J.H |
description | Corn (Zea mays L.) silage in the northeastern USA yields more in narrow (0.38 m) than conventional (0.76 m) rows. Dairy producers, however, have considered converting from conventional to twin rows (0.19 m on 0.76 m centers) because twin rows are more compatible than narrow rows for herbicide application on glyphosate-resistant corn. Two hybrids were planted in field-scale studies in New York in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under conventional, narrow, and twin row production systems. Narrow rows had greater dry matter yield (17.6 Mg ha(-1)) than twin (17.2 Mg ha(-1)) and conventional rows (16.6 Mg ha(-1)). Row spacing did not affect in vitro true digestibility. Narrow and twin rows had greater fixed and variable costs associated with equipment requirements. Partial budget analyses indicated greater expected increases in annual profit with the conversion from conventional to narrow rows for 262 ($18 201) and 525 ha ($38 317) or to twin rows for 262 ($8246) and 525 ha ($17 584) of corn silage. The use of glyphosate-resistant corn in twin rows may provide an advantage by delaying herbicide application until mid-June, thereby increasing the probability of a timely first harvest of perennial forages. Dry matter content at harvest averaged 326 g kg(-1) in narrow versus 314 g kg(-1) in twin rows, increasing the probability of corn silage harvest before a fall frost. Dairy producers should consider economics and timely harvests when considering corn silage row-spacing systems. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2134/agronj2005.0133 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_194537226</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>990465201</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4123-7c47014c0bd369ebb54e7d28b7e316f64e3f4fa589d063de3baccd6960ca9a423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLAzEURoMoWB9rlwbBXafePCbTWUkRrRZRfK2HTB41ZUxq0lL6701poUtXF3LPPR_5ELogMKCE8Rs5jcHPKEA5AMLYAeoRzsoCBC8PUQ8AaEFqQY_RSUozAEJqTnrobRzDavHdx2tnOt3Hv0vZucW6j6XX2Kjgw49TCQeLVYgeJ9fJqcFLr03E2llrovELnB04zaVyfprO0JGVXTLnu3mKvh7uP-8ei-fX8dPd6LlQnFBWVIpXQLiCVjNRm7Ytuak0HbaVYURYwQ2z3MpyWGsQTBvWSqW0qAUoWUtO2Sm62nrnMfwuTVo0s7CMPkc2-WslqygVGbrZQiqGlKKxzTy6HxnXDYFmU1uzr63Z1JYvrndamZTsbJReubQ_q_hQZHHmbrfcynVm_Z-2GY0ndDR-f32ZbN52SZdbg5Vhw-eUrw-aV0CgLIEB-wMBZYpJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>194537226</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under different row spacings</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Cox, W.J ; Hanchar, J.J ; Knoblauch, W.A ; Cherney, J.H</creator><creatorcontrib>Cox, W.J ; Hanchar, J.J ; Knoblauch, W.A ; Cherney, J.H</creatorcontrib><description>Corn (Zea mays L.) silage in the northeastern USA yields more in narrow (0.38 m) than conventional (0.76 m) rows. Dairy producers, however, have considered converting from conventional to twin rows (0.19 m on 0.76 m centers) because twin rows are more compatible than narrow rows for herbicide application on glyphosate-resistant corn. Two hybrids were planted in field-scale studies in New York in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under conventional, narrow, and twin row production systems. Narrow rows had greater dry matter yield (17.6 Mg ha(-1)) than twin (17.2 Mg ha(-1)) and conventional rows (16.6 Mg ha(-1)). Row spacing did not affect in vitro true digestibility. Narrow and twin rows had greater fixed and variable costs associated with equipment requirements. Partial budget analyses indicated greater expected increases in annual profit with the conversion from conventional to narrow rows for 262 ($18 201) and 525 ha ($38 317) or to twin rows for 262 ($8246) and 525 ha ($17 584) of corn silage. The use of glyphosate-resistant corn in twin rows may provide an advantage by delaying herbicide application until mid-June, thereby increasing the probability of a timely first harvest of perennial forages. Dry matter content at harvest averaged 326 g kg(-1) in narrow versus 314 g kg(-1) in twin rows, increasing the probability of corn silage harvest before a fall frost. Dairy producers should consider economics and timely harvests when considering corn silage row-spacing systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-1962</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0645</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2134/agronj2005.0133</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AGJOAT</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Madison: American Society of Agronomy</publisher><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Biological and medical sciences ; Corn silage ; crop quality ; crop yield ; economic impact ; forage crops ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; glyphosate ; harvest date ; herbicide resistance ; narrow rows ; plant growth ; profitability ; row spacing ; twin row spacing ; Zea mays</subject><ispartof>Agronomy journal, 2006-01, Vol.98 (1), p.163-167</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Agronomy</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Agronomy Jan/Feb 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4123-7c47014c0bd369ebb54e7d28b7e316f64e3f4fa589d063de3baccd6960ca9a423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4123-7c47014c0bd369ebb54e7d28b7e316f64e3f4fa589d063de3baccd6960ca9a423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2134%2Fagronj2005.0133$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134%2Fagronj2005.0133$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17486263$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cox, W.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanchar, J.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knoblauch, W.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cherney, J.H</creatorcontrib><title>Growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under different row spacings</title><title>Agronomy journal</title><description>Corn (Zea mays L.) silage in the northeastern USA yields more in narrow (0.38 m) than conventional (0.76 m) rows. Dairy producers, however, have considered converting from conventional to twin rows (0.19 m on 0.76 m centers) because twin rows are more compatible than narrow rows for herbicide application on glyphosate-resistant corn. Two hybrids were planted in field-scale studies in New York in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under conventional, narrow, and twin row production systems. Narrow rows had greater dry matter yield (17.6 Mg ha(-1)) than twin (17.2 Mg ha(-1)) and conventional rows (16.6 Mg ha(-1)). Row spacing did not affect in vitro true digestibility. Narrow and twin rows had greater fixed and variable costs associated with equipment requirements. Partial budget analyses indicated greater expected increases in annual profit with the conversion from conventional to narrow rows for 262 ($18 201) and 525 ha ($38 317) or to twin rows for 262 ($8246) and 525 ha ($17 584) of corn silage. The use of glyphosate-resistant corn in twin rows may provide an advantage by delaying herbicide application until mid-June, thereby increasing the probability of a timely first harvest of perennial forages. Dry matter content at harvest averaged 326 g kg(-1) in narrow versus 314 g kg(-1) in twin rows, increasing the probability of corn silage harvest before a fall frost. Dairy producers should consider economics and timely harvests when considering corn silage row-spacing systems.</description><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Corn silage</subject><subject>crop quality</subject><subject>crop yield</subject><subject>economic impact</subject><subject>forage crops</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>glyphosate</subject><subject>harvest date</subject><subject>herbicide resistance</subject><subject>narrow rows</subject><subject>plant growth</subject><subject>profitability</subject><subject>row spacing</subject><subject>twin row spacing</subject><subject>Zea mays</subject><issn>0002-1962</issn><issn>1435-0645</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLAzEURoMoWB9rlwbBXafePCbTWUkRrRZRfK2HTB41ZUxq0lL6701poUtXF3LPPR_5ELogMKCE8Rs5jcHPKEA5AMLYAeoRzsoCBC8PUQ8AaEFqQY_RSUozAEJqTnrobRzDavHdx2tnOt3Hv0vZucW6j6XX2Kjgw49TCQeLVYgeJ9fJqcFLr03E2llrovELnB04zaVyfprO0JGVXTLnu3mKvh7uP-8ei-fX8dPd6LlQnFBWVIpXQLiCVjNRm7Ytuak0HbaVYURYwQ2z3MpyWGsQTBvWSqW0qAUoWUtO2Sm62nrnMfwuTVo0s7CMPkc2-WslqygVGbrZQiqGlKKxzTy6HxnXDYFmU1uzr63Z1JYvrndamZTsbJReubQ_q_hQZHHmbrfcynVm_Z-2GY0ndDR-f32ZbN52SZdbg5Vhw-eUrw-aV0CgLIEB-wMBZYpJ</recordid><startdate>200601</startdate><enddate>200601</enddate><creator>Cox, W.J</creator><creator>Hanchar, J.J</creator><creator>Knoblauch, W.A</creator><creator>Cherney, J.H</creator><general>American Society of Agronomy</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200601</creationdate><title>Growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under different row spacings</title><author>Cox, W.J ; Hanchar, J.J ; Knoblauch, W.A ; Cherney, J.H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4123-7c47014c0bd369ebb54e7d28b7e316f64e3f4fa589d063de3baccd6960ca9a423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Corn silage</topic><topic>crop quality</topic><topic>crop yield</topic><topic>economic impact</topic><topic>forage crops</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>glyphosate</topic><topic>harvest date</topic><topic>herbicide resistance</topic><topic>narrow rows</topic><topic>plant growth</topic><topic>profitability</topic><topic>row spacing</topic><topic>twin row spacing</topic><topic>Zea mays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cox, W.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanchar, J.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knoblauch, W.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cherney, J.H</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Agronomy journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cox, W.J</au><au>Hanchar, J.J</au><au>Knoblauch, W.A</au><au>Cherney, J.H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under different row spacings</atitle><jtitle>Agronomy journal</jtitle><date>2006-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>98</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>163</spage><epage>167</epage><pages>163-167</pages><issn>0002-1962</issn><eissn>1435-0645</eissn><coden>AGJOAT</coden><abstract>Corn (Zea mays L.) silage in the northeastern USA yields more in narrow (0.38 m) than conventional (0.76 m) rows. Dairy producers, however, have considered converting from conventional to twin rows (0.19 m on 0.76 m centers) because twin rows are more compatible than narrow rows for herbicide application on glyphosate-resistant corn. Two hybrids were planted in field-scale studies in New York in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under conventional, narrow, and twin row production systems. Narrow rows had greater dry matter yield (17.6 Mg ha(-1)) than twin (17.2 Mg ha(-1)) and conventional rows (16.6 Mg ha(-1)). Row spacing did not affect in vitro true digestibility. Narrow and twin rows had greater fixed and variable costs associated with equipment requirements. Partial budget analyses indicated greater expected increases in annual profit with the conversion from conventional to narrow rows for 262 ($18 201) and 525 ha ($38 317) or to twin rows for 262 ($8246) and 525 ha ($17 584) of corn silage. The use of glyphosate-resistant corn in twin rows may provide an advantage by delaying herbicide application until mid-June, thereby increasing the probability of a timely first harvest of perennial forages. Dry matter content at harvest averaged 326 g kg(-1) in narrow versus 314 g kg(-1) in twin rows, increasing the probability of corn silage harvest before a fall frost. Dairy producers should consider economics and timely harvests when considering corn silage row-spacing systems.</abstract><cop>Madison</cop><pub>American Society of Agronomy</pub><doi>10.2134/agronj2005.0133</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-1962 |
ispartof | Agronomy journal, 2006-01, Vol.98 (1), p.163-167 |
issn | 0002-1962 1435-0645 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_194537226 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions Biological and medical sciences Corn silage crop quality crop yield economic impact forage crops Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology glyphosate harvest date herbicide resistance narrow rows plant growth profitability row spacing twin row spacing Zea mays |
title | Growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under different row spacings |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T11%3A47%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Growth,%20yield,%20quality,%20and%20economics%20of%20corn%20silage%20under%20different%20row%20spacings&rft.jtitle=Agronomy%20journal&rft.au=Cox,%20W.J&rft.date=2006-01&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=163&rft.epage=167&rft.pages=163-167&rft.issn=0002-1962&rft.eissn=1435-0645&rft.coden=AGJOAT&rft_id=info:doi/10.2134/agronj2005.0133&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E990465201%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=194537226&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |