Corn Silage

The Minnesota Hybrid Corn Silage Evaluation Program evaluates the silage potential of corn hybrids in Minnesota. The goal of the program is to provide unbiased forage yield and forage quality information for educational and marketing programs. The program is financed in part by entry fees from private seed companies that choose to enter hybrids for testing, which are listed below. Results are presented from the two corn silage performance trials, Southeast (SE) located in Rochester; and Central (CE) located in Hutchinson. Entries from the southeast and central sites are also evaluated at Waseca in trials designated as Waseca SE and Waseca CE. Trials at each location were split into early and late corn hybrid maturities, to facilitate harvesting the corn silage at about 65% whole plant moisture.

Test Procedures

Plots were established at each test site in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Planting and harvesting dates were: 

The Hutchinson site suffered from drought conditions and the plots were too dry to get meaningful silage data and harvest was abandoned. Hybrid entries were planted at 35,000 seeds per acre with a 30-inch row spacing. Plant nutrients and herbicides were applied according to University of Minnesota recommendations. Plots were harvested and whole-plant herbage sampled for determination of dry matter content and forage quality. Test sites were harvested when the average whole-plant moisture across entries was estimated to be 65%.

Results Provided

Tables 1-6 summarize hybrid yield and forage quality results from Hutchinson, Rochester, and Waseca. Moisture content, whole-plant dry matter (DM) yield, and silage yield at harvest moisture are listed. Hybrids are ranked in descending order of milk yield per acre (Milk Yield, lb/acre). Genetic trait information is supplied by companies entered in the hybrid corn silage performance trials. 

Whole-plant forage quality characteristics tested include moisture (%), crude protein (CP, % DM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF, % DM), undigestible NDF at 240 hour (uNDF, % NDF), total tract NDF digestibility (TTNDFD, % of NDF), starch concentration (% DM), and in situ rumen degradable starch at 7 hours (StarchD, % of starch). All forage quality variables were predicted using Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy calibrated using laboratory procedures (Rock River Laboratory; https://rockriverlab.com).

Milk production potential per ton (lb milk/ton forage) and per acre (lb milk/acre) of forage was calculated using the MILK2006 model developed by the University of Wisconsin. MILK2006 approximates animal performance based on a standard cow weight and milk production level (1,350 lb body weight and 90 lb/ day at 3.8% fat). For MILK2006 predictions, we assumed that kernel processing occurred. Milk production (lb milk / ton and lb milk / acre) values can be used as a quick reference for comparison of hybrids within test locations.

How to Use Results

NDF is a negative indicator of forage intake potential; higher NDF concentration generally implies lower intake potential. NDFD estimates digestibility of the NDF fiber fraction. Starch content, a grain component, is positively associated with overall forage digestibility because of its high digestibility. Relatively higher starch concentrations generally predict greater animal performance potential. TTNDFD (total tract NDF digestibility) is an advanced research validated model to predict forage digestibility in dairy cattle rations. It combines both rate of digestion and indigestibility of NDF. Milk yield per acre represents the combined effects of silage yield and quality. 

Corn hybrids differed in yield, forage quality parameters and milk production potential at all sites. Means and least significant difference (LSD) values at the 20% probability level are shown for each parameter. Where the difference between the two hybrids for a particular yield or quality trait is greater than the LSD value, there is an 80% probability that there is a significant difference between the two hybrids for that parameter (i.e., moisture, yield, quality concentration or milk production). A difference less than the LSD value probably is due to environmental factors. 

Authors and Researchers

• Thomas Hoverstad
• Wade Ihlenfeld
• Craig Shaeffer

The following documents were created before current policy requirements took effect, and therefore may not be accessible. To request this content in an accessible format, contact [email protected].

• 2022 (.pdf)
• 2021 (.pdf)
• 2020 (.pdf)
• 2019 (.pdf)
• 2018 (.pdf)
• 2017 (.pdf)
• 2016 (.pdf)
• 2015 (.pdf)
• 2014 (.pdf)
• 2013 (.pdf)
• 2012 (.pdf)
• 2011 (.pdf)
• 2010 (.pdf)
• 2009 (.pdf)
• 2008 (.pdf)
• 2007 (.pdf)
• 2006 (.pdf)
• 2005 (.pdf)
• 2004 (.pdf)
• 2003 (.pdf)
• 2002 (.pdf)
• 2001 (.pdf)
• 2000 (.pdf)
• 1999 (.pdf)
• 1998 (.pdf)
• 1997 (.pdf)