1 / 41

Effects of Narrow Row Spacing on Corn Silage Yield and Growth

Effects of Narrow Row Spacing on Corn Silage Yield and Growth. Brian Jones Agronomy Extension Agent. Introduction. Interest in narrow row corn production increasing…for good reason

noah-lowe
Télécharger la présentation

Effects of Narrow Row Spacing on Corn Silage Yield and Growth

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Effects of Narrow Row Spacing on Corn Silage Yield and Growth Brian Jones Agronomy Extension Agent

  2. Introduction • Interest in narrow row corn production increasing…for good reason • Consistently yield 4-9% more than conventional (Roth, 1996; Cox et al., 1998; Cox and Cherney, 2001; Cox and Cherney, 2002; Widdicombe and Thelen, 2002) • Economic advantage (Hallman and Lowenberg-DeBoer, 1999; Cox et al., 1998) • Greater DM and milk yields (Cox and Cherney, 2001) • Greater N use efficiency (Cox and Cherney, 2002)

  3. Introduction • Most work has been done in grain • 6.5% yield increase under irrigation (Karlen and Camp, 1985) • Summary of studies in Corn Belt showed yield advantage (Finck, 2003, 2004, 2005) • Shown to have economic advantage in northern Corn Belt (Hallman and Lowenberger-DeBoer, 1999)

  4. Introduction – Narrow Row Effects On: • Silage Quality • Narrow rows had greater DM yield than conventional and no affect on IVTD (Cox et al., 2006) • Narrow row system did not impact forage quality (Widdicombe and Thelen, 2002) • Hybrid choice had more to do with forage quality (Dwyer et al., 1998)

  5. Introduction – Narrow Row Effects On: • Plant density • Optimum plant densities for silage yields the same between narrow and conventional (Cox et al., 1998; Cox et al., 2006) • Increasing densities lead to decreasing quality (Cox et al., 1998; Widdicombe and Thelen, 2002) • Hybrid choice (forage-specific) may withstand higher populations (Tollenaar, 1989)

  6. Introduction – Narrow Row Effects On: • Nitrogen Use Efficiency • Not necessary to increase N rates or plant population with narrow row corn (Cox and Cherney, 2001; Cox and Cherney, 2002) • N accumulation linear for narrow vs. quadratic for conventional (Cox and Cherney, 2001) • Greater grain yield response to narrow rows under N deficient conditions (Barbieri et al., 2000)

  7. Objective • To examine the effects of narrow row spacing on corn silage yield and growth characteristics under Shenandoah Valley conditions.

  8. Methods • Two year study conducted at Cave View Farms, Inc. in Weyers Cave • Strip plot design • Twin rows (7.5” on 30” centers) • Conventional (30”) • 2006 • 6 replications under irrigation • 2007 • 3 replications under irrigation • 3 replications with no irrigation • Each plot was 12 rows by 1000’

  9. Methods • Planting Dates: • May 2, 2006 • May 11, 2007 • Twin Rows (7.5”) • Great Plains GP1520 Precision Seeder with coulter unit • Single Rows (30”) • Great Plains 6030

  10. Methods • Hybrid Information • 2006 Irr: Pioneer 31R87 • 2007 Irr: Pioneer 31R87 • 2007 Non-Irr: Pioneer 31G71 • Seed Drop: • 31,400 (TR) • 31,300 (SR)

  11. Data Collection • Stand counts • 2006 • May 23; V2 Stage (21 DAP) • June 23; V8 Stage (52 DAP) • 2007 • July 11; V9 Stage (61 DAP) • Plant height to whorl (2006) • Insect and disease ratings

  12. Harvest • Harvested 9/15/06 and 9/18/07 • Six center rows from each plot • Entire length of plot; weighed on scales (+/- 10 lbs) • Sub-sampled for quality analysis

  13. Harvest

  14. Results: Plant Stand Counts • Stands equal between planters in both years • Achieved 90% of target with both units a a a a a a

  15. Consistent Plant Spacing • Picket-Fence Stands!! • EXTREMELY IMPORTANT • We will discuss this later

  16. Results: Plant Height • No significant difference in plant height in 2006 at V8 • Looking over field, TR appeared taller 2006 a a

  17. 7.5” Twin Row 30” Single Row

  18. Results: Pest pressure • No difference in insect pest pressure between the treatments • Visible weed pressure observed in the single rows

  19. 7.5” Twin Rows 7.5” Twin Rows 30” Single Rows

  20. PRE (4/25): 1.5 qt Lumax; 1.125 qt Aatrex; 1.5 qt Princep; 1.5 pt Gramoxone Inteon; 5.8 oz Asana • POST (6/5): 1.5 qt Prowl H2O; 0.75 qt Roundup O-Max • Difference in canopy development

  21. Water Use Efficiency 30” Single Rows 7.5” Twin Rows

  22. Results: Silage yield (35% DM) 18.9% 24.6 8.9% 11.8% 21.9 21.4 20.7 20.2 19.1

  23. Results: Silage yield (35% DM) p<0.10 a b

  24. Effects of Increasing Population

  25. 1 site, 1 year Small plots Greater variability We will repeat this on a larger scale Effects of Increasing Population

  26. Effects of Increasing Population

  27. QUESTIONS?

  28. Importance of Evenly Spaced Corn Plants Or…Why It Pays to Calibrate Your Corn Planter

  29. Picket-Fence Stands

  30. Sources of non-uniform spacing • Will always leadto lower yields. • Yield effect lesswell known. • Some argue crowdingwill cause barren plants • Some suggest will haveno effect? Crop Insights Vol 12, No.2

  31. Calibration affects yield • Study showed yield improvement of 4.2 bu/A from calibrating alone (Doerge and Hall, 2000) • Some locations exceeded 20 bu • Yield losses from 7 to 15 bu/A observed in Indiana (Nielsen, 1997) • Study from Pioneer (2001) improved plant spacing was 3.4 bu/A

  32. Calibration affects yield • Yield increase needed to offset cost of planter meter calibration for a 600 acre grower was 0.5 bu/A (Doerge and Hall, 2000) • VERY INEXPENSIVE WAY TO MANAGE RISK • Measuring stand uniformity important

  33. Measuring uniformity using SD • SD (standard deviation) common statistical tool, better than just looking at the average • Use spreadsheet to calculate

  34. Measuring uniformity using SD • Example: 7” 7” Average = 7” SD = 0

  35. Measuring uniformity using SD • Example: 8” 6” Average = 7” SD = 1

  36. Measuring uniformity using SD • Example: 12” 2” Average = 7” SD = 5 THE SMALLER THE SD THE MORE UNIFORM THE STAND

  37. 32”…etc 9” 20” Measuring uniformity using SD • Step 1: lay 20’ tape next to a row • Step 2: record the location of each plant • Step 3: collect and record from at least 4 locations 12 24 36 48 60 72 tape measure

  38. Measuring uniformity using SD 2-0 = 2 17-2 = 15 Average (SD – 2) * 4 = Loss

  39. Measuring uniformity using SD • An SD of 2 in. is the best we can hope for • Expected yield loss is 4 bu/inch

  40. When to calibrate? • If the SD is greater than 3, planter needs calibration • Yield increases from calibrations of planter meters was profitable 83 percent of the time • Must still operate at a reasonable speed

  41. QUESTIONS? THANK YOU

More Related