Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T19:53:24.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American hybrid maize for silage in the south of England Part II. Composition, nutritive value and losses in the silo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. E. Castle ,
A. S. Foot  and
S. J. Rowland
M. E. Castle
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
A. S. Foot
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
S. J. Rowland
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The results are given of an investigation of the successful production, and of the chemical composition and feeding value, of maize silage made from early maturing varieties of hybrid maize grown for three consecutive years in the south of England. The maize was ensiled at a stage when the cob contributed approximately 50% of the total crop and the dry-matter content of the crop varied from 16·3 to 27·2%. The mean crude protein content of the dry matter of the silage was 9·5% (range 7·9–11·2%). Average weight losses in the silo were fresh matter 25%, dry matter 30%, crude protein 25%, and soluble carbohydrates 40%.

In three controlled feeding trials with cows and heifers in milk, maize silage was found to be equal in nutritive value to a ration of mangolds and oat and tare silage when fed on an equal dry-matter basis. The silage was very palatable and a daily ration of 50 lb. was consumed.

It is concluded that although maize silage compares favourably with an average crop of cereal -legume silage in feeding value, its adoption on a wide scale cannot be recommended in view of the relatively low yield of dry matter per acre, the high costs of production and the appreciable silo

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 42 , Issue 1-2 , January 1952 , pp. 175 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Amos, A. (1929). Agriculture, 35, 1020.Google Scholar
Anon. (1949). Bull. no. 40, Commonwealth Bureau of Pastures and Field Crops.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E., Foot, A. S. & Rowland, S. J. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, W. S. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1949). Feeds and Feeding. New York: The Morrison Publishing Co., Ithaca.Google Scholar
Oldershaw, A. W. (1924). Agriculture, 31, 640.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. (1939). The Science and Practice of Conservation: Grass and Forage Crops. London: Fertil. Feed. St. J.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. (1948). Nut. Abst. and Rev. 18, (1), 1.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Amos, A. (1924). J. Agric. Sci. 14, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Amos, A. (1928). J. Agric. Sci. 18, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar