Evaluating performance of corn hybrids for silage production on Wisconsin farms

Transcription

1 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 XV th International Silage Conference Madison, WI July 27-29,

2 2009 Silage Locations Corn Agronomy Program 85 and earlier Spooner Rice Lake Chippewa Falls Marshfield Coleman Valders 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). Galesville Objective Arlington Fond du Lac To provide unbiased performance comparisons of hybrid seed corn available in Wisconsin. Lancaster

3 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

4 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

5 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

6 Breeding (DeLeon, Coors) Hybrid evaluation (Coors, Shaver and Lauer) UW Corn Silage Research Areas Where have we been?! 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 7

8 Predicted from Global Predicted from Global Predicted from Global Predicted from Global 2003 NIRS Global Equation Calibration Crude protein (%) N= 754 R² = Measured in Lab In vitro digestibility (%) N= 533 R² = Measured in Lab Neutral detergent fiber (%) N= 754 R² = Measured in Lab Starch content (%) N= 255 R² = Measured in Lab

9 Silage Performance Index (Milk2006) HiDF Southern Late Trial 2008 TMF2Q733 DKC61-69(VT3) 77125T VT2 TMF2Q716 Milk per Acre (lb/a) VT3 TMF2W VT3 FS60AV3 1X-911HxTLL 3P-616RRYGPL FS60JV3 645TS 4822B EX27 RK844VT3 7K456 C649VT3 FS6299VT3 TMF2P719 5X-512RRHxT TMF2Q759RK829VT3 3A-313RR 82K79GT 32T84 HiDF AS3GT 3T-310VT3 A6459VT3 A6474VT3 7T231 DKC63-42(VT3) 3T-514VT3 EX TS F2F797 LG2552VT3 1X-716HxTLL SB710RR SP573VT3 F2F FS61AV3 3T-311VT3 0A RFS610RR Bt NG Milk per Ton (lb/t)

10 Correlation coefficients (r) of silage traits with Milk per Ton estimates N = 3727 treatment means r-values Milk2006 Milk2000 Milk1995 Milk1991 NDF Starch NDFD StarchD

11 Trait What is an average hybrid? ( ) N Forage yield NDF NDFD Starch Milk per Ton Milk per Acre T/A % % % Lbs/T Lbs/A Bmr CB CB, LL CB, RR CB,CR,RR Leafy RR Normal LSD(0.05) Average hybrid

12 Performance of Silage Quality Check Hybrids Criteria: 1) 5% Yield increase, 2) NDF= high v. low ( , n = 139 trials) Cohort Forage yield NDF NDFD Starch Milk per Ton Milk per Acre High Low Trial Mean LSD (0.05) NS

13 Materials and Methods Within a year, all production zones test the same set of hybrids at 2 or 3 locations (3 reps). Repeatability estimated using: R = V G V G + V GE /e + V e /re where V G, V GE, and V E refer to variance due to genotype, genotype by environment, and error. Coefficients e and r refer to the number of environments and replications. 85 and earlier Spooner Rice Lake Chippewa Falls Marshfield Galesville Coleman Valders Arlington Fond du Lac Lancaster

14 Repeatability of Corn Silage Traits in Wisconsin Production Zones ( ) Trait North North Central South Central South Literature* Early Early Late Early Late Early Late Forage yield Crude protein NDF IVTD NDFD Starch M06t M06a *Values derived from Coors et al., 1996; Lorenz and Coors,

15 Repeatability Repeatability of Silage Traits in Northern Wisconsin 1.0 Milk per Acre Forage yield Milk per Ton NDFD Starch

16 Repeatability Repeatability of Silage Traits in Southern Wisconsin 1.0 Milk per Acre Forage yield Milk per Ton NDFD Starch Late trial

17 Economic savings Why is hybrid testing important? 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

18 The End For Now Questions? Thanks for your attention! Jorge Cusicanqui Heather Darby Palle Pedersen Trenton Stanger Zhe Yan Justin Hopf Steve Wilkens Kent Kohn Thierno Diallo Keith Hudelson John Gaska Tim Wood Dwight Mueller Darwin Frye Mike Bertram Jim Coors Randy Shaver Natalia De Leon Pat Hoffman Johnny Pendleton Paul Carter Roger Higgs Larry Bundy Ed Oplinger Greg Roth Peter Thomison Roger Elmore Kurt Thelen Emerson Nafziger Chad Lee Funding Sources: Wisconsin Corn Promotion Board, Wisconsin Corn Growers Association, Seed Companies, USDA-Hatch, National Crop Insurance Services Photo by Justin Hopf 23