2014 Maine Corn Hybrid Performance Trial

2014 Maine Corn Hybrid Performance Trial (PDF)

Rick Kersbergen, 207.342.-5971 / 800.287.1426, richard.kersbergen@maine.edu
Caragh Fitzgerald, 207.622.7546 / 800.287.1481, cfitzgerald@maine.edu

Funding provided by local seed companies and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension.
Special thanks to John Stoughton and the farm crew at Misty Meadows Farm for hosting the trial and helping with planting and harvesting.

corn harvesterIn 2014, the University of Maine Cooperative Extension conducted a hybrid silage corn evaluation program in cooperation with local seed dealers, Maine Farm Days and Misty Meadows Farm who hosted the trial in Clinton, Maine.

The purpose of the program is to provide unbiased performance comparisons of hybrid corn available in the central Maine area. It is important to remember that the data presented are from a single test at one location. Hybrid performance data from additional tests in different locations, and often over several years, should be compared before you make conclusions.

Testing Procedure

fertilizing a corn fieldThe experiment was planted at the Misty Meadows Farm in Clinton on June 2, 2014, using a six-row corn planter. The predominant soil type was Woodbridge fine sandy loam.

Prior to planting, 10,000 gallons per acre of liquid cow manure was applied to the field and incorporated by harrowing. Five gallons per acre of liquid starter fertilizer (6-21-4) was applied at planting. Verdict herbicide was applied just after planting. Fifty pounds of nitrogen were applied per acre as urea around July 4. Quilt XL fungicide was applied in the second week of August.

Three replications of 36 hybrids were planted in a randomized block design. Plots were 75 feet long and 15 feet wide with 6 rows on 30 inch centers. The hybrids used were nominated and donated by seed companies. Hybrids had relative maturity days ranging from 77 to 107 (Table 3). We targeted a planting density of 32,000 plants/acre.

The plots were harvested using a six-row corn chopper. Corn from each plot was loaded into a mixer wagon with scales. Grab samples from one replicate of each treatment were sent overnight to the Dairy One Laboratory in New York for analysis for moisture and quality using wet chemistry.

Growing degree days were calculated using temperature data collected by a temperature sensor located in the shade adjacent to the trial area. Total growing degree days (86/50) were 1933 for 2014, the third-lowest since 2007 (Table 1). The experiment was harvested on September 23, 2014. At this time, silage harvest was underway on commercial farms. A light frost had occurred at the experiment site, and a killing frost had occurred in some scattered locations in the region.

Table 1. Growing degree days, Maine corn silage variety trial, 2007-2014.
Year Location Growing degree
days (86/50)
 2007  Clinton  2086
 2008  Clinton  1840
 2009  Leeds  1908
 2010  Leeds  2120
 2011  Clinton  2287
 2012  Clinton  2160
 2013  Clinton  2027
 2014  Clinton  1933

A total of 17.84 inches of rain was recorded in Waterville, Maine, by the National Weather Service between June 1 and September 22, 2014 (Table 2).

Table 2. Monthly rainfall, June 1 — September 22, 2014, Waterville, Maine.
Month Rain (inches)
June 5.70
July 6.67
August 4.14
September 1.33
Total 17.84

corn sprouting in fieldAnalysis of variance was conducted to identify differences between hybrid silage yield (corrected to 30% dry matter) and expected milk yield (milk per ton of dry matter multiplied by dry matter). Linear regression analysis was conducted to see the effect of relative maturity on silage yield, expected milk yield, % dry matter, and all quality parameters.

Results

Yield and Expected Milk Yield

corn fieldYields were corrected to a standard 30% dry matter. Forage digestibility and energy content were used to project potential milk yield (milk lbs/ton of dry matter). Expected milk yield per acre was calculated by multiplying the potential milk per ton of dry matter by the tons of dry matter per acre. This serves as another measure of productivity of each hybrid. Both yield (30% DM) and expected milk yield results are shown in Table 3. Analysis of variance showed that there were significant differences among the hybrids tested for both yield (p < 0.0001) and expected milk yield (p < 0.0001). In Table 3, hybrids followed by the same letter are statistically similar (Tukey’s HSD).

There was no linear correlation between relative maturity and yield (30% dry matter) (Figure 1) or between relative maturity and expected milk yield (Figure 2) (p=0.1712 and p=0.4037, respectively).

Table 3 includes data from two BMR (brown mid-rib) varieties. BMR varieties need to be evaluated for their higher digestibility and enhanced animal intake and performance if rations are balanced correctly. When comparing these varieties, producers should make sure they look at NDF digestibility (NDFD, % of NDF). Producers should segregate BMR varieties at harvest to utilize this feed with cows for specific rations, including pre-fresh, fresh and high producing groups.

Table 3. Varieties and yield, 2014.
Hybrid RM Yield, 30% DM
(tons/acre)*		 Expected milk yield
(lbs/acre)*,**
American Organics 90G 90 20.6 e-h 20267 h-n
American Organics PB5301 83 20.5 e-h 19171 j-n
American Organics PB6474 94 24.5 a-f 22427 d-l
Dairyland HiDF-­‐3290-­‐9 90 27.6 ab 29277 ab
DeKalb DKC 34-­‐82 84 20.8 e-h 21103 f-m
DeKalb DKC 39-­‐07 89 24.9 a-e 25058 a-h
DeKalb DKC 43-­‐48 93 23.3 a-g 18460 l-n
DeKalb DKC 46-­‐20 96 24.4 a-f 25613 a-g
Dynagro D26VP56 86 21.4 d-h 21904 e-m
Dynagro D32VC56 92 25.1 a-e 26012 a-f
Dynagro D35VC40 95 24.4 a-f 25607 a-g
Masters Choice MC 3221 82 24.7 a-f 25570 a-g
Masters Choice MC 4050 90 20.5 e-h 20064 i-n
Masters Choice MC 4211 92 25.9 a-d 26859 a-d
Masters Choice MC 480 87 22.4 c-g 20974 g-m
Mycogen 2DO95 80 20.0 f-h 20428 h-n
Mycogen F2F378 bmr 94 21.6 d-h 22019 d-m
Mycogen TMF2Q413 98 28.2 a 28659 a-c
Mycogen TMF2R196RR 84 23.7 a-g 22254 d-l
NK N18Q-­‐3011A 84 20.2 e-h 20531 h-n
NK N20Y-­‐3220 85 23.3 a-g 21938 e-m
NK N28D-­‐3111 90 27.3 a-c 29739 a
NK N29T-­‐3220 92 23.2 b-g 24017 c-j
NK N31H-­‐300GT 93 23.5 a-g 24519 b-i
NK N35T-­‐3110 95 22.0 d-h 20778 g-m
NK N37R-­‐2111 94 23.6 a-g 22918 d-l
Pioneer P0238XR 102 18.9 gh 18630 k-n
Pioneer P0783XR 107 19.9 f-h 17121 mn
Pioneer P9329AM 90 23.4 a-g 23540 d-k
Schlessman 835 GT 3122 83 24.8 a-f 26401 a-e
Schlessman 861 lfy GT3000 86 24.6 a-f 22429 d-l
Schlessman SX 342 GT 95 24.5 a-f 23218 d-l
Seedway SW 1964GT 77 17.2 h 15735 n
Seedway SW 2901L 87 24.1 a-f 20995 g-m
Seedway SW 3301L 93 23.3 a-g 21582 e-m
Seedway SW 3937.bmr 94 20.7 e-h 22684 d-l

*Means followed by the same latter are not statistically different (Tukey’s HSD)

** **Expected milk yield = calculated milk lbs/ton multiplied by dry matter yield. Calculated milk lbs/ton is a projection of potential milk yield per ton of forage dry matter, based on forage digestibility and energy content.

Figure 1. Effect of Relative Maturity on Corn Silage Yield (corrected to 30% DM) (2014)

Figure 1. Effect of Relative Maturity on Corn Silage Yield (corrected to 30% DM) (2014); linear regression was not statistically significant

Figure 2. Effect of Relative Maturity on Expected Milk Yield Per Acre (2014)

Figure 2. Effect of Relative Maturity on Expected Milk Yield Per Acre (2014); linear regression was not statistically significant

Quality

forageTable 4 lists select quality results for the 2014 trial.

Dry matter decreased as relative maturity increased, as shown in Figure 3. There was a significant linear effect with an r2 of 0.354. In 2014, most varieties had below-optimum dry matter due to the early harvest date.

There was also a significant linear relationship between IVTD and relative maturity and NDFD and relative maturity. Both parameters increased as relative maturity increased.

Figure 3. Effect of Relative Maturity on Dry Matter (2014)

Figure 3. Effect of Relative Maturity on Dry Matter (2014); Dry matter (%) = 49.46 - 0.2579 * RM p < 0.0001 r2 = 0.354 n=36; Optimum silage moisture range (30-34% DM)

Table 4. Varieties and select quality results, 2014
Hybrid RM %Dry Matter Crude
Protein (%DM)		 ADF (%DM) NDF (%DM) NFC (%DM) NEL
(Mcal/lb)		 IVTD30hr
(% of DM)		 NDFD30hr
(% of NDF)
American Organics 90G 90 23.5 8.4 25.6 43.2 39.8 0.76 83 60
American Organics PB5301 83 24.7 8.4 28.6 49.1 35 0.71 82 64
American Organics PB6474 94 23.6 8.3 24.9 43.3 42.3 0.78 83 60
Dairyland HiDF-3290-9 90 27.3 8.2 22.1 38.8 46.9 0.83 86 65
DeKalb DKC 34-82 84 27 9.5 25.4 44.2 39.1 0.76 81 57
DeKalb DKC 39-07 89 28.4 8.2 24.1 41.2 43.9 0.78 82 56
DeKalb DKC 43-48 93 25.6 7 26.5 51 33.7 0.69 78 57
DeKalb DKC 46-20 96 26.2 7.5 23.6 41.1 44.4 0.79 83 60
Dynagro D26VP56 86 26.8 8.5 25.1 42.8 41.2 0.76 81 56
Dynagro D32VC56 92 26.2 7.9 22.5 39.2 46.8 0.81 84 59
Dynagro D35VC40 95 26.5 8.2 22.3 39.4 46.2 0.8 83 57
Masters Choice MC 3221 82 32 8.1 24.2 41.2 43.8 0.77 80 52
Masters Choice MC 4050 90 22.8 8.6 26.5 44.7 39.5 0.76 81 58
Masters Choice MC 4211 92 28.3 8.3 23.4 39.4 45.6 0.8 83 56
Masters Choice MC 480 87 25 7.3 28.8 48.6 37.1 0.73 81 60
Mycogen 2DO95 80 27.9 8.9 26.6 44.2 39.2 0.77 82 60
Mycogen F2F378 bmr 94 24.8 8 27.1 46.8 38 0.76 85 68
Mycogen TMF2Q413 98 28.3 7.6 26.3 43.2 42.4 0.77 84 63
Mycogen TMF2R196RR 84 27.1 8.1 28.9 47.5 36.9 0.7 78 53
NK N18Q-3011A 84 26.7 8.6 27 45.6 38.3 0.75 81 58
NK N20Y-3220 85 27.6 7.6 28.6 47.5 38.3 0.7 77 52
NK N28D-3111 90 32.5 8.1 20.3 34.8 50 0.83 85 56
NK N29T-3220 92 23.9 8.9 25.8 44.6 39 0.77 83 62
NK N31H-300GT 93 25.4 8.1 24.3 42 42.7 0.79 84 62
NK N35T-3110 95 22.3 7.6 27.1 45.6 39.6 0.75 81 59
NK N37R-2111 94 26 8.3 24.8 41.9 42.9 0.78 82 57
Pioneer P0238XR 102 21.5 8.7 25.9 44.9 39.2 0.76 85 67
Pioneer P0783XR 107 20.1 8.7 26.9 47 36.9 0.76 85 67
Pioneer P9329AM 90 28.3 8.1 24.7 42.3 42.5 0.75 80 53
Schlessman 835 GT 3122 83 29.9 8.7 21.8 38.5 45.7 0.8 83 56
Schlessman 861 lfy GT3000 86 24.9 8.9 26.8 45.5 38.3 0.74 80 56
Schlessman SX 342 GT 95 24.9 8.1 24.7 41.6 43.6 0.78 82 58
Seedway SW 1964GT 77 30.1 9.1 29.1 48.5 34.7 0.69 77 52
Seedway SW 2901L 87 26.9 8.5 30.9 51.5 32.8 0.68 77 55
Seedway SW 3301L 93 24.2 9.4 26.8 45.5 37.4 0.76 82 61
Seedway SW 3937.bmr 94 26.5 8.6 22.3 38.4 47 0.84 89 71
p value, linear regression (vs. RM) <0.0001 0.1651 (NS) 0.1597 (NS) 0.3655 (NS) 0.2343 (NS) 0.0372 0.0004 0.0002
r2 0.354 . . . . 0.1216 0.3151 0.346


Conclusion

After a slow start, the 2014 growing season was adequate, thanks to late-fall growth. However, an early frost triggered corn harvest in some areas, including our trial.

Although the trial location did not receive a killing frost, the frost was more severe in other locations. The subsequent weeks were warm and frost-free. In retrospect, it would have been better to delay the trial’s harvest for another few weeks and allow more varieties to reach optimum whole plant moisture for corn silage harvest.

This was the third year out of the eight years of the trial where there was no significant linear relationship between relative maturity and yield corrected to 30% dry matter. In the remaining five years of the trial, this relationship was significant but weak (low r2), and it amount to an increase of 0.97 – 1.9 tons per acre yield for every 10-day increase in relative maturity (Table 5).

Table 5. Increase in yield (30% dry matter) and expected milk yield for each 10 days increase in relative maturity as estimated by linear regression (2007 – 2014).
Tons/acre yield (30% DM)
increase per 10 days maturity		 Pounds/acre milk yield
increase per 10 days maturity
2007 1.1 .
2008 0.97 .
2009 No relationship 91
2010 1.9 2890
2011 2 3280
2012 1.1 1480
2013 No relationship No relationship
2014 No relationship No relationship

In 2014, there was also no significant linear relationship between relative maturity and expected milk yield. Again, these relationships have been weak, but consistent in the past, with an increase of 91 – 3280 pounds per acre of milk expected for each 10-day increase in relative maturity (Table 5).

Shorter season hybrids offer options for improved cover crop establishment and the potential for double cropping. Although they may be slightly less productive in some growing seasons, this additional crop flexibility can significantly improve the total yield of digestible nutrients per acre. There is risk associated with choosing longer season hybrids for higher yield. Yield responses to longer maturity was greatest in the highest growing degree years, and it was not present under average growing conditions. By choosing short-season or mid-season varieties, producers help to guarantee a level of maturity and dry matter that produces quality corn silage that ferments well in the silo.

They become less vulnerable to late wet harvest years. This also opens the door for improved nutrient and soil management options such as cover cropping.

harvesting cornIn most years, earlier-maturing hybrids showed optimum or close to optimum dry matter content at harvest time. Later-maturing hybrids tend to show somewhat lower than recommended dry matter content at harvest. In 2014, nearly all hybrids had lower dry matter than optimum due to the early harvest. Once again, there was a significant linear relationship between relative maturity and dry matter, with later-maturing hybrids being wetter at harvest. In 2010, 2011, and 2013, hybrids with shorter maturities showed higher dry matter content than recommended, indicating that they could have been harvested earlier.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank John Stoughton and the farm crew at Misty Meadows Farm for their help with planting, crop management, and harvest. Thanks are also extended to the seed dealers who helped with seed donation, planting, and harvesting and to staff and students who helped in the field and in the office.

Contacts for corn hybrids in 2014 trial
Company Contact Phone Email
American Organics
Dairyland
DeKalb
Dynagro
Master’s Choice
Mycogen
NK
Pioneer
Schlessman
Seedway
AgMatters LLC Lauchlin Titus 207.314.2655 LTitus1@myfairpoint.net x x
Crop Production Services
(Office: 207.795.6640)		 Brian McCleary 207.740.1911 (M) brian.mccleary@cpsagu.com x x x x
Crop Production Services
(Office: 207-795-6640)		 Franklin Leavitt 207.944.1922 (M) Franklin.Leavitt@cpsagu.com x x x x
Crop Production Services
(Office: 207.795.6640)		 Randy Drown 207.650.0310 (M) randy.drown@cpsagu.com x x x x
Dairyland Seed Co. Jim Stone 800.236.0163
607.221.5011		 jstone@dairyland.com x
Feed Commodities International Al Fortin 207.341.0968
800.462.4929		 afortin@feedcommodities.com x x
Feed Commodities International Art Pellerin 207.341.0968 artp5800@roadrunner.com x x
Feed Commodities International Pat Heacock 207.664.9812 pheacock@feedcommodities.com x x
Gold Star Feed and Grain, LLC Michele Bennett 207.754.0764 mbennett@goldstarfeed.com x x x
Gold Star Feed and Grain, LLC Emilee Robertson 207.399.6755 erobertson@goldstarfeed.com x x x
Kent Nutrition Group Nick Richardson 207.317.0469 nicholas.richardson@blueseal.com x
King’s Agriseeds, Inc. Rod Porter 607.227.0836 rodporter@kingsagriseeds.com x
Maine Seed Company Steve Goodwin 207.242.2339 x x
Maine Seed Company Tate McPherson 207.551.8301 tate@maineseedcompany.com x x
MPG Crop Services Tim Donovan 207.877.5923 tdonovan@mpgco-op.com x x
Northeast Agricultural Sales
(Office: 800-462-7672)		 Justin Choiniere 802.535.9938 (M) justin@neag.net x x x
Northeast Agricultural Sales
(Office: 800-462-7672)		 Paul Peters 207.441.6250 (M) paul@neag.net x x x
Northeast Agricultural Sales
(Office: 800-462-7672)		 Spencer Greatorex 207.341.1375 (M) svg1@adelphia.net x x x
Paris Farmers Union Milt Sinclair 207.743.1291 miltwspfu@hotmail.com x x x x x
Paris Farmers Union Greg Gillespie 207.744.5602 gregg@parisfarmersunion.net x x x x x
R.E. Belanger & Son Rick Belanger 207.576.5845 x x
Syngenta/NK Alvin Winslow 207.740.8248 alvin.winslow@syngenta.com x
Syngenta/NK Jonathan Stevens 207.538.7150 jonathan.stevens@syngenta.com x
Derek Hines 207.717.0550 abhines@msn.com x
Klaus Busch 518.320.2462 klaus.j.busch@monsanto.com x
Newman Gamage 207.622.5009 (H)
207.446.5620 (M)		 x
Nick Michaud (China) 207.649.9786 (M) x
Warren Hood (Turner) 207.754.1853 (M) hoodlah@aol.com x