Plant Spacing and Variety of Field Corn (Zea mays L.) Affecting Yield, Yield Components and Silage Quality

Abstract

The recent increase in dairy and cattle production in Thailand has increased demand for high-quality roughage, particularly corn silage. Although there has been a great deal of research on field corn, far fewer studies have focused on corn intended as silage. This study involved a field experiment that analyzed crop management methods, focusing on plant spacing and 8 of the field corn varieties most commonly used in Thailand. The objectives were to determine which plant spacing and variety produced the best forage yield and silage qualities of corn silage. The plantings were arranged in a split-plot Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. The main plot contained two spacing (75×20 and 75×25 cm2), each with subplots of 8 field corn varieties (SW5, NS2, NS3, NSX982013, TE1719, WS6437, WS6440, WS6442). All plants received the same crop management care regarding soil conditions, water, fertilization, and weeding. The results showed plant spacing did not significantly affect plant height (cm) and ears per plant, but the narrower 75×20 cm2 spacing produced the highest fresh leaf yield (13 t ha-1) and dry stalk yield (4.5 t ha-1) (p < 0.05). At 75×20 cm2 spacing, the TE1719 varietal had more ears per plant than SW5 (the check variety). TE1719 had the best fresh ear, stalk, and total biomass yield at both spacing of all the varieties. With regard to silage quality, the plant spacing did not significantly affect the CP, ADF, ADL, ash, and pH of the corn silage. The study revealed planting TE1719 varieties at 75×20 cm2 spacing is more economical for farmers because it increases forage yields without negatively affecting the nutritional value of corn silage.

Influence of Varieties and Spacings on Growth, Biomass Yield and Nutritional Value of Corn Silage in Paddy Field

“…This is also confirmed by the study of Jampatong et al (2000), which reported improvement in corn variety to increase ears/plant, and two ears/plant has the potential of increasing yield at wide plant spacing of 75×30 cm (44,444 plants/ha). Chayanont et al (2021) also reported that corn variety tend to increase the ears/plant at wider spacing, varieties NSX982013, TE1719, WS6437, and WS6440 were found to have more ears/ plant. Plant spacing does not affect the leaf/stem ratio of corn.…”

“…The lodging of corn plants will most likely occur with varieties with high ear height and tall plant height, especially in strong wind condition. Chayanont et al (2021) found that a corn plant would fall over due to tall plant height during the rainy season and there was no lodging during the dry season. Moreover, it was observed that lodging has a higher occurrence with varieties that produce a high ear/stem ratio (1.6-1.8 ear/plant), and when accompanied with a tall plant height and high ear height, this will lead to a higher chance of the plant lodging over.…”

“…In Thailand, standard plant spacing used in growing field corn is 75×20 cm, with corn planting density approximately at 66,667 plants/ha. For corn silage production, Chayanont et al (2021) reported that plant spacing did not significantly affect plant height (cm) and ears per plant, while the narrower 75×20 cm spacing produced a higher fresh leaf yield (13 ton/ha) and dry stalk yield (4.5 ton/ha) than 75×25 cm spacing. Abuzar et al (2011) found that plant spacing of 75×22.7 cm (planting density of 40,000 plants/ha) provides a dry matter yield higher than plant spacing of 75×9.6 cm (planting density of 140,000 plants/ha).…”

“…Low quantity of kernels per row of corn ear will indicate a low amount of starch and high amount of fiber (low energy) (Tetio-Kagho and Gardner, 1998;Echarte et al, 2000). However, Chayanont et al (2021) reported that the CP of corn silage did not significantly differ between 75x20 and 75x25 cm (6.64 and 6.80%, respectively). The fiber content of corn silage increased with an increase in plant density, whereas fiber digestibility will be decreased (Cuomo et al, 1998).…”