Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T19:57:43.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems involved in the cultivation of maize for fodder and ensilage. I. The choice of variety

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. S. Bunting  and
L. A. Willey
E. S. Bunting
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Unit of Experimental Agronomy, Department of Agriculture, University of Oxford
L. A. Willey
Affiliation:
National Institute of Agricultural Botany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the introduction of silos and associated techniques of ensilage production in the late 1870's, maize has been the principal silage crop in the United States. Many British authorities agree that maize is a ‘splendid silage crop, highly nutritious, heavy yielding and easy to cut and handle’ (Bond, 1948, see also Watson & Smith, 1956; Woodman & Amos, 1944) but, nevertheless, it is very rarely grown in Britain for silage. In this country, as in most countries of Western Europe, the predominant aim of maize cultivation has been to produce succulent green fodder for direct feeding to animals during time of drought and consequent grass shortage. The acreage grown in England is small, but in Western Germany in 1955 there were about 100,000 acres of fodder maize (Becker, 1956), while in France, in 1954, the acreage exceeded 500,000 (Desroches, 1955). Recently in Western Europe considerable interest has been shown in the possibilities of maize as a silage crop, and within the past few years preliminary results have been reported from Holland (Becker, 1956; Anon. 1954, 1955); Denmark (Bagge & Hansen, 1956); Belgium (Lacroix, 1955; Ledent, 1955); Germany (Jungehulsing, 1955; Schell, 1954); France (Desroches, 1955), and Switzerland (Bachmann, 1952).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 1959 , pp. 95 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Annett, H. E. & Russell, E. J. (1908). J. Agric. Sci. 2, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anon. (1954). Snijmais, De Stichtingvoor Maisveredeling.Google Scholar
Anon. (1955). Garfuttermais, De Stichting voor Maisveredeling.Google Scholar
Armsby, H. (1891). Bull. Pa. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 15.Google Scholar
Bachmann, F. (1952). Rep. 5th Hybrid Maize Meeting F.A.O., Rome.Google Scholar
Bagge, H. & Hansen, H. (1956). Tidsskr. Planteavl. 60, 198.Google Scholar
Bechdel, S. I. (1926). Bull. Pa. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 207.Google Scholar
Becker, W. R. (1956). Rep. 9th Hybrid Maize Meeting, F.A.O., Rome.Google Scholar
Bond, J. R. (1948). Bull. Minist. Agric, Lond., no. 37.Google Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Blackman, G. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E., Foot, A. S. & Rowland, S. J. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E., Foot, A. S. & Rowland, S. J. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desroches, R. (1955). Bull. Tech. Ing. Serv. Agric. no. 105.Google Scholar
Dunn, K. M., Ely, R. E. & Huffman, C. F. (1947). J. Dairy Sci. 30, 567.Google Scholar
Farrington, E. H. (1894). Bull. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 31.Google Scholar
Fertiliser and Feeding Stuffs Regulations (1932). Reprint 1954. H.M.S.O., London.Google Scholar
Hayden, C. C. & Perkins, A. E. (1923). Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 369.Google Scholar
Hopper, T. H. (1925). Bull. N. Dak. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 192.Google Scholar
Ince, J. W. (1916). Bull. N. Dak. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 117.Google Scholar
Jenkins, E. H. (1888). Rep. Conn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 89.Google Scholar
Jones, W. J. & Huston, H. A. (1914). Bull. Ind. (Purdue) Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 175.Google Scholar
Jordan, W. H. (1893). Maine Ann. Ept. 57.Google Scholar
Jungehulsing, H. (1955). Dtsch. Landw. Prag. 78, 299.Google Scholar
Knight, R. L. (1957). J. Nat. Inst. Agric. Bot. 8, 116.Google Scholar
Lacroix, L. (1955). Rev. Agric, Brux., 8, 440.Google Scholar
Ladd, E. F. (1889). Rep. N.Y. St. Agric.Exp.Sta. no. 79Google Scholar
Lamb, A. R. (1916). Bull. Ia. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 168.Google Scholar
Ledent, M. (1955). Rev. Agric., Brux., 8, 1505.Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. B. & Smith, P. H. (1906). Rep. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 86.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. (1954). Agriculture, Lond., 61, 224.Google Scholar
Neidig, R. E. (1918). J. Agric. Res. 14, 395.Google Scholar
Nevens, W. B. (1933). Bull. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 391.Google Scholar
Nevens, W. B. (1936). Circ. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 463.Google Scholar
Nevens, W. B. & Dugan, G. H. (1942). Bull. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 494.Google Scholar
Schell, W. (1954). Z. Acker- u. Pflbau, 98, 1.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. (1939). The Science and Practice of Conservation of Grass and Forage Crops, vol. 1, Lond.Fertil. Feed. St. J.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. & Smith, A. M. (1956). Silage. Crosby, Lockwood and Sons, London.Google Scholar
White, G. C., Chapman, L. M., Slate, W. L. & Brown, B. A. (1924). Bull. Conn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 121.Google Scholar
White, G. C. & Johnson, R. E. (1929). Bull. Conn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no 159.Google Scholar
Wiggans, R. G. (1937). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 29, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, L. A. (1957). J. nat. Inst. Agric. Bot. 8, 106.Google Scholar
Wisconsin, (1951). Cir. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 337.Google Scholar
Wohl, F. W. (1890). Rep. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. 215.Google Scholar
Wohl, F. W. (1891). Rep. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. 227.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1952). Rations for livestock. Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Amos, A. (1928). J. Agric. Sci. 18, 193.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Amos, A. (1944). Ensilage. Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 37.Google Scholar
Wright, P. A. & Shaw, R. H. (1926). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 327.Google Scholar