Maize green forage

Datasheet

Description

Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans

Maize ears collected to feed cattle, Nepal

Common names

Maize green forage, maize green chop [English]; maïs fourrage vert [French]

Species

Zea mays L. [Poaceae]

Related feed(s)

Description

Maize (Zea mays L.) green forage, particularly when it contains the stalks, leaves and ears, is an energy-rich feed for ruminant livestock. While maize forage is usually ensiled in cooler regions, year-round maize production in the tropics may allow the continuous harvesting of green forage, making ensiling unnecessary (Brewbaker, 2003). Grazing whole maize plants also provides green fodder to livestock in periods of scarcity (dry and hot summers, and winters) (Potter, 2012; Newport, 2006). In areas where conditions are harsh and forage is scarce, maize green forage is a valuable source of fodder for smallholder owned stock (see Forage management below) (Methu et al., 2006). Maize is a high energy feed, better than most other tropical forage crops, of which the DM is often below 40% digestible. In the tropics, while grass forages must be harvested almost monthly, maize forage matures within three months, is harvested only once, and does not require much labour and high machinery costs (Brewbaker, 2003).

Baby corn forage

Baby corn is a much appreciated vegetable that is increasingly consumed worldwide. Baby corn consists of immature cobs of maize plants harvested young, 2-3 days after silk emergence and before pollination. Baby corn can be obtained from the same hybrids as other maize crops or from adapted hybrids that are shorter and develop several stalks (Indriani et al., 2015; Kaiser et al., 2011). Baby corn is a fast growing cash crop requiring only 55-60 days between planting and harvest (Srichana et al., 2014). Because it is harvested at an early stage of growth, the crop residues including stalks, leaves, husks and silk provide very good quality fresh forage, palatable to livestock (Indriani et al., 2015; Srichana et al., 2014). In the tropics, it can be grown all year round. In Thailand, baby corn production was over 276 000 t in 2013. As edible baby corn cob accounts for no more than 15% of the production, it can be assumed that the remaining 85% could provide more than 1 million t of forage (green matter) (Srichana et al., 2014). Baby corn forage can be fed fresh or ensiled.

Note: fresh maize stover consisting of stalks and leaves left in the field after the grain harvest is dealt with in the Maize stover datasheet.

Distribution

Maize is a native to Central America, which spread to the Caribbean, and Southern and Northern America. Thanks to genetic selection and hybridisation, it now grows worldwide between 58°N in Canada and Russia and 40°S in Chile and Argentina, and from sea level to an altitude of 3800 m in the Andean mountains (Ecoport, 2010). In the 18th and 19th centuries, maize was a multipurpose backyard species in Europe. In France, maize was densely sown to provide green forage, called "fourragettes", beyond the northern limit for grain (South Brittany, former Maine, Paris Basin, Lorraine). It was used in livestock rations during late summer until the first frosts, when other grasses were scarce. This forage system was used until the 1970s, when new early hybrids made possible the production of maize silage (Renoux, 2016).

Optimal growth conditions are 18-21°C average day-temperatures, annual rainfalls of more than 750 mm, and deep, well-drained rich soils. However, maize withstands annual rainfalls ranging from 230 to 4100 mm, a pH between 4.3 and 8.7, and a great variety of soils. Frost kills the plants. Drought is detrimental at flowering as it affects pollination and impairs yields. Maize has no tolerance to flooding.

Forage management

Yields

Fresh matter yields of maize green fodder range from 10 to 50 t/ha (FAO, 2016). Yields obtained from baby corn crops range from 31 to 46 t/ha (21-25 t DM/ha) (Chaudhary et al., 2012).

Maize pastures

Note: information about the management of maize green forage is scarce. Most experiments are reported from the US Extension services and the recommended practices are dealing with herbicide-resistant GM maize.

Maize intended for forage is reported to be suitable in no-till management systems and should be sown in pastures (not in cropland) where it provides good yields of green fodder during the hot summer season. Pasture management consists in properly weeding the field before letting cattle in to graze. The maize understorey may be so palatable to cattle that it can deter grazing of the maize plant and thus reduce the energy intake potentially achievable if the maize was eaten (Newport, 2006). Once the maize is at late milk-stage, cattle are allowed to enter the pasture. In the Southern states of the USA, cattle are fed on Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) or fescue prior to grazing maize pastures during hot summers. Cattle can have access to the whole stand, but strip grazing is usually preferred by farmers as this method limits the risk of acidosis due to high energy intakes, and is also less wasteful (Newport, 2006). In Canada, it was reported that the grazing period could be extended from mid-September to mid-December as maize stalks remain upright after a fall of snow. Grazing maize helped saving forage for winter, reduced work, favoured direct manuring and kept cows healthy (Potter, 2012).

Sheep grazing standing maize:

In times of scarcity, maize green forage is a valuable source of fodder. Smallholders can manage and harvest it in 3 different ways without any loss in grain yield:

Thinning (provided 3 seeds have been previously planted at each site) consists in cutting one of the supernumerary plants and will allow green fodder harvest one month after sowing. This methods yields almost 8 t of green forage/ha. This forage can be fed fresh or ensiled.
Defoliating (removing one or two leaves/plant every week, once the silk has turned brown in over half the crop) will provide about 4.5 t of green matter/ha.
Topping (cutting the green part above the cob, 7 weeks after silk emergence) yields about 7 t of green matter/ha (Methu et al., 2006).

Maize green forage from baby corn

In India, it is possible to have 3-4 harvests of baby corn in a year. Once baby cobs are harvested, the remaining stalks are still green, succulent and nutritious, with a high digestibility (Chaudhary et al., 2012).

Environmental impact

Soil depletion

Maize crops drain nutrients from the soil, do not compete well with weeds after the seedling stage and are subject to many diseases and pests. Therefore, the cultivation of high-producing maize requires high fertilizer levels as well as herbicides, pesticides and fungicides, which are deleterious to biodiversity and soil conservation. Heavy fertilizer applications can cause nitrate leaching and soil erosion. Herbicides may contaminate the groundwater while pesticides alter biodiversity (European Commission, 2000). In developing countries, where fertilizers are too expensive for general use, the nutrient uptake is higher than when fertilizers are regularly used, thus reducing soil fertility and causing further soil degradation (CIMMYT, 2009).

Genetically modified maize

The debate about the environmental impact of GM crops is complex and a full discussion of the issue is beyond the scope of this datasheet. GM maize varieties that are herbicide-resistant or pest-tolerant have been commercialised since 1996, and their potential environmental impact has been the subject of considerable debate. Some positive impacts have been reported for GM maize, notably a reduction in herbicide and pesticide use, as well as certain benefits for wildlife (Edwards et al., 2009). However, potential negative effects have also been alleged, including the alteration of the DNA of soil microflora, and deleterious impacts on useful insects, such as butterflies and bees, and on non-GM plants (including maize) through genome transfer (Dale et al., 2002).

Nutritional aspects

Nutritional attributes

Maize green forage has a relatively low protein content (3-13% of DM) and a high fibre content (crude fibre 19-36% of DM). Depending on the stage of harvesting, it can be rich in starch (up to 30% of DM or more) and, therefore, a source of energy. In India, it is reported to have a higher nutritional quality than sorghum and pearl millet, with none of their drawbacks, such as HCN in sorghum or oxalates in pearl millet (Chaudhary et al., 2012). Maize leaves may be richer in protein than the whole plant, but they are poorer in energy since they do not include maize ears.

Ruminants

Maize green forage is a valuable feed for ruminants in terms of yield and nutritive value (Sarap et al., 2015), though supplementation may be needed to compensate for its low protein, mineral and vitamin contents (Bwire et al., 2002; Tauqir et al., 2013). Maize forage is particularly effective in optimizing milk yields of dairy cows (Brewbaker, 2003).

Digestibility and energy values

Digestibility and nutritive value of the whole maize plant, fresh or ensiled, have been widely studied, especially using sheep (see the references in Andrieu et al., 1974). The feed value of maize is much greater, up to 35% more, when the whole plant is harvested (Brewbaker, 2003). From flowering to grain maturity, the whole plant shows a nearly constant OM digestibility (71-72%), because the increasing proportion of maize ear, which has a high and constant digestibility (83%), compensates for the decreasing digestibility of the rest of the plant, from 70% to 60% (Demarquilly, 1969 cited by Demarquilly et al., 1992). As with other forage crops, the best predictor of the whole plant digestibility is its indigestible cell wall content (Andrieu et al., 1993). Digestibility does not vary much with variety or with seeding rate. However, maize varieties selected for their quality or including the Brown Midrib gene, which decreases the plant lignin content, can result in a digestibility higher by 3 to 5 percentage points (Demarquilly et al., 1992). Some sterile varieties have existed, which were well ingested due to their high soluble sugar content, though their OM digestibility was lower than that of fertile varieties (e.g. 65% for the “sucrensilage” variety, Andrieu et al., 1974). In India, in vitro OM digestibility (83 vs. 79%) and ME (10.2 vs. 9.2 MJ/kg DM) were higher for fresh baby corn forage than for baby corn silage (Bakshi et al., 2012).

Dairy cows

Maize green forage is not commonly fed to dairy cattle in Europe, unlike in many tropical countries. For example, in India with low yielding dairy cows (5 kg/d of milk), 10 kg of maize green forage replaced 1 kg of concentrate mixture in the diet without affecting milk yield, when roughage such as straw was provided ad libitum. Total intake was 3.86 kg DM/100 kg LW, including 0.8 kg DM/100 kg LW of concentrate, 1.6 kg DM/100 kg LW of maize green forage and 1.4 kg DM/100 kg LW of sorghum straw. Body weight gain was 11 kg over 45 days, and average milk yield was 4.9 kg/d. The higher level of inclusion of maize green forage as a replacement for concentrate in the diet resulted in lower feed costs and a higher net profit per animal per day (Naik et al., 2012).

Growing cattle

Maize green fodder is not commonly fed to growing cattle in Europe but is considered valuable for that purpose in India, the USA and Canada (Sarap et al., 2015; Potter, 2012; Newport, 2006). In India, crossbred heifers fed solely on green maize leaves (26% of DM) had a DM digestibility of 65% and a DM intake of 3.94 kg DM/100 kg LW. Total body weight gain was 53 kg, indicating that the green maize leaves as a sole feed were sufficient for satisfactory maintenance and growth (Sarap et al., 2015). In Pakistan, the DM intake and DM digestibility of maize green forage, fed to 18-20 months Sahiwal heifers, was 5.87 kg DM/100 kg LW and 62%, respectively. Supplementation with urea and molasses increased feed intake (6.36 kg DM/100 kg LW) but not DM digestibility. Daily weight gain was higher for heifers given green maize fodder and urea (0.77 kg/d) compared to the fodder alone (0.58 kg/d) (Tauqir et al., 2013). In Mississippi, heifers grazing maize green forage gained more than 1 kg/day and the pasture sustained a total weight gain of 500 kg/ha in only 75 days (Newport, 2006).

Buffaloes

In India, nutrient digestibility of fresh baby corn husks, fed ad libitum to male Murrah buffalo calves, was higher to that of green maize forage, but DM intake was lower. Nitrogen retention was also higher for baby corn husks. When offered as a total mixed ration with wheat straw and a concentrate, baby corn silage enabled even higher nutrient digestibility, voluntary intake and N retention. Baby corn husks were a highly acceptable and palatable forage compared to conventional maize fodder (Bakshi et al., 2012).

Sheep

In Europe, whole maize plants harvested after flowering were characterized from 82 trials with sheep. The mean DM content was 23% (14-33%), mean OM digestibility was 72% (67-80%), and mean DM intake was 53 g DM/kg LW^0.75 (range 38-67 g DM/kg LW^0.75) (Demarquilly et al., 1992). At later stages, OM digestibility increased from 67% to 69% from the milk stage to full maturity, while DM intake decreased from 72 to 61 g DM/kg LW^0.75 (Kirilov, 1999). In early studies with sterile maize in France, green forage had a lower digestibility but intake by sheep was higher (on average by 20% more) than for fertile maize. Sheep ingested between 53 and 71 g DM/kg LW^0.75, depending on plant maturity and experimental site. Male-sterile maize green forage was found valuable because its nutritive value did not vary much after flowering, and intake remained high, provided that DM content was over 18% (Andrieu et al., 1974).

Goats

In India, Barbari goats offered maize green forage harvested at the blooming stage (including leaves, leaf sheath, stems and inflorescences) (allowing for 20% refusals) ingested 40 g DM/kg LW^0.75 (37 g OM/kg LW^0.75) resulting in 0.21 kg of weight gain over a week. DM and OM digestibility were 75% and 76%, respectively. Increasing the allowance for refusals to 35% and 50% resulted in higher digestibility (81% and 82% for DM and OM digestibility, respectively), higher DM intake (51 and 66 g DM/kg LW^0.75 for 35% and 50% refusals, respectively) and higher weight gains (0.30 and 0.35 kg/week). Allowing greater selection by increasing the refusal levels, nutrient intake from maize green forage was found not only to meet maintenance requirements but provided surplus energy and protein for production (Dutta et al., 2000).

Pigs

Pigs can be fed on maize green forage. In India, maize green forage was offered ad libitum as a supplement to concentrates (maize, wheat bran, rice polishings and groundnut meal) to male pigs. Maize green forage represented up to 25% of the diet and the pigs gained 460 g LW/day (Yadav et al., 1990).

Rabbits

Green maize leaves have been used for a long time as a forage in rabbit feeding in addition to a concentrate, in Europe (Kubrakova et al., 1979; Schlolaut, 1987), in Africa (Mutetikka et al., 1990; Lukefahr, 1998), and more generally in tropical countries (Raharjo et al., 1988; Lebas et al., 1997). However, when compared to other green forages, maize leaves are considered as a poorly palatable forage for growing rabbits and breeding does (Harris et al., 1983; Adehan et al., 1994). Growth of rabbits fed ad libitum with green maize leaves, in addition to a limited quantity of concentrate, is higher (20.0 g/d) than with Rhodes grass hay (Chloris gayana) (15.7 g/d), but lower than with fresh sweet potato vines (23.7 g/d). This ranking was probably related to the protein content of the 3 forages: 2.7, 12.5 and 15.3% of DM, respectively (Mutetikka et al., 1990). In another trial with rabbits, protein digestibility of maize green leaves was low (44%), but digestible energy was relatively high (8.3 MJ/kg DM) for a forage (Raharjo et al., 1988). Green maize leaves are suitable for rabbit feeding, mainly as a forage with a moderate energy content, but with a low digestible protein content (about 5-6% of DM). It must be used together with a concentrate and is not suitable as a sole feed (Mutetikka et al., 1990).

Nutritional tables

Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

Avg: average or predicted value; SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum value; Max: maximum value; Nb: number of values (samples) used

Maize, aerial part, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	23.3	6.4	12.6	47.6	51
Crude protein	% DM	7.9	2.1	3.0	12.8	98
Crude fibre	% DM	28.7	3.9	19.1	36.6	82
NDF	% DM	63.2	7.1	54.7	81.5	32	*
ADF	% DM	31.3	5.5	23.3	45.7	32	*
Lignin	% DM	4.3	0.8	2.9	6.0	23	*
Ether extract	% DM	1.9	0.6	0.7	3.1	55
Ash	% DM	7.0	2.1	2.5	11.8	97
Starch (enzymatic)	% DM	20.1	6.6	11.7	33.3	22
Total sugars	% DM	18.3				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.2					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	3.6	1.2	1.8	6.7	39
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	2.1	0.5	1.2	3.5	39
Potassium	g/kg DM	15.8	5.9	7.2	27.0	22
Sodium	g/kg DM	0.5	0.1	0.4	0.7	3
Magnesium	g/kg DM	2.3	0.7	1.3	3.7	21
Manganese	mg/kg DM	35		29	40	2
Zinc	mg/kg DM	33	12	25	50	4
Copper	mg/kg DM	10	12	4	28	4
Iron	mg/kg DM	991				1

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, ruminants	%	66.7	4.2	56.0	68.9	8	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	64.2					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	11.7					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	9.6					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	49.7	10.8	36.2	67.0	10
a (N)	%	19.4	6.7	14.0	26.9	3
b (N)	%	67.8	5.2	62.0	71.8	3
c (N)	h-1	0.039	0.003	0.035	0.042	3
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%)	%	53		50	64	2	*
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%)	%	46	9	39	56	3	*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

AFZ, 2011; Alibes et al., 1990; Axtmayer et al., 1938; CIRAD, 1991; French, 1943; Fulkerson et al., 2008; Galina et al., 2007; Giardini et al., 1976; Gowda et al., 2004; Holm, 1971; IAV, 2009; Khanum et al., 2007; Lim Han Kuo, 1967; Mafakher et al., 2010; Mecha et al., 1980; Negi et al., 1988; Neumark, 1970; Sarwatt et al., 1989; Singh et al., 1992; Tolera et al., 1998; Tolera et al., 1999; Xandé et al., 1989

Last updated on 26/08/2016 21:28:30

Maize leaves, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	36.9	16.4	22.2	61.8	7
Crude protein	% DM	11.4	5.2	3.8	19.4	19
Crude fibre	% DM	29.0	6.5	20.8	43.8	18
NDF	% DM	63.6	11.0	56.1	80.6	5	*
ADF	% DM	31.5	8.2	31.5	51.3	6	*
Lignin	% DM	4.3	0.4	4.3	6.6	3	*
Ether extract	% DM	2.0	0.9	0.8	3.9	11
Ash	% DM	12.2	2.5	8.2	18.7	19
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	17.6					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	6.3	3.5	3.6	11.2	4
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	1.5	0.6	1.1	2.3	4
Potassium	g/kg DM	16.6	5.4	9.7	22.7	4
Sodium	g/kg DM	1.0		0.0	2.0	2
Magnesium	g/kg DM	3.5	1.2	2.1	4.7	4
Manganese	mg/kg DM	256				1
Zinc	mg/kg DM	69				1
Copper	mg/kg DM	11				1

Amino acids	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Arginine	% protein	6.1				1
Cystine	% protein	0.9				1
Glycine	% protein	5.5				1
Histidine	% protein	2.3				1
Isoleucine	% protein	5.4				1
Leucine	% protein	9.6				1
Lysine	% protein	5.9				1
Methionine	% protein	2.0				1
Phenylalanine	% protein	5.9				1
Threonine	% protein	4.7				1
Tyrosine	% protein	3.9				1
Valine	% protein	7.0				1

Secondary metabolites	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid)	g/kg DM	12.3				1

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, ruminants	%	68.4					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	65.8					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	11.6					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	9.3					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	68.1				1

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Barbind et al., 1994; CIRAD, 1991; Dongmeza et al., 2009; Fauconneau et al., 1965; FUSAGx/CRAW, 2009; Giardini et al., 1976; Pozy et al., 1996

Last updated on 26/08/2016 21:31:50

References

Adehan, R. ; Kpodekon, M. ; Houenon, J. ; Ossenti, T. B. ; Lebas, F., 1994. Comparative study of palatability of twenty three forages used in rabbit breeding: first results. Cahiers Options Mediterranéennes, 8: 125-129
Alhassan, W. S., 1987. Studies on untreated crop residue utilization in Red Sokoto (Maradi) goats. Goat production in the humid tropics. Proc. Workshop, University of Ife, Ile Ife, Nigeria, 20-24/7/1987, Smith, O.B. ed.
Andrieu, J.; Demarquilly, C. , 1974. Chemical composition, digestibility and voluntary intake of a male-sterile maize, fresh and as silage. Ann. Zootech., 23: 423-434
Andrieu, J.; Demarquilly, C.; Dardenne, P.; Barriere, Y.; Lila, M.; Maupetit, P.; Riviere, F.; Femenias, N., 1993. Composition and nutritive-value of whole maize plants fed fresh to sheep .1. Factors of variation. Ann. Zootech., 42: 221-249
Arvalis, 2011. Les territoires du maïs fourrage en France. Arvalis, FNPSMS, UFS
Axtmayer, J. H. ; Asenjo, C. J. ; Cook, D. H., 1938. The nutritive value of some forage crops of Puerto Rico. I. Grasses. J. Agric. Univ. P. Rico, 22 (2): 95-121
Badr, M. F., 1960. Corn stover, its chemical composition and nutritive value in livestock rations. Alex. J. Agric. Res., 8 (1): 15-24
Bakshi, M. P. S.; Wadhwa, M., 2012. Nutritional evaluation of baby corn husk - A new feed resource for livestock. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 82 (12): 1548–1550
Barrière, Y.; Alber, D.; Dolstra, O.; Lapierre, C.; Motto, M.; Ordas; A.; Van Waes, J.; Vlasminkel, L.; Welcker, C.; Monod, J. P., 2006. Past and prospects of forage maize breeding in europe. II. History, germplasm evolution and correlative agronomic changes. Maydica, 51: 435-449
Benintendi, R. P. ; Andrade, P. de, 1982. Supplementation of grazing zebu heifers with roughage and concentrate during the dry season. Boletim de Industria Animal, 39 (1): 11-28
Brewbaker, J. L., 2003. Corn production in the Tropics: the Hawaii experience. Univ. Hawaii, Coll. Tropic. Agric. Hum. Ressources
Bwire, J. M.; Wiktorsson, H. , 2002. Optimising the quality and biomass production of maize stover tops for stall-fed dual purpose dairy cows in semiarid central Tanzania. Livest. Prod. Sci., 77 (2-3): 207-215
Chaudhary, D. P.; Ashwani Kumar; Mandhania, S.S.; Srivastava, P.; Kumar, R. S., 2012. Maize As Fodder? An alternative approach. Dir. Maize Res., Pusa Campus, New Delhi - 110 012, Techn. Bull. 2012/04 pp. 32
CIMMYT, 2009. Maize in the Developing World. CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Investigation Center)
Dale, P. J.; Clarke, B.; Fontes, E. M. G., 2002. Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nature Biotech., 20 (6):567-574
Demarquilly, C.; Andrieu, J. , 1992. Chemical composition, digestibility and intake of green European forages. Inra Prod. Anim., 5 (3): 213-221
Dutta, N.; Sharma, K.; Hasan, Q. Z. , 2000. Effect of feed allowance on selection, intake and nutrient utilization of green maize (Zea mays) by goats. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 13 (4): 483-486
Duval, J., 1993. Pasture and harvest in pig farming. Ecological Agricultural Projects, McGill University, AGRO-BIO - 370 - 06
Ecoport, 2010. Ecoport database. Ecoport
Edwards, M. G. ; Poppy, G. M., 2009. Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops. In: Environmental impact of genetically modified crops, Eds N. Ferry and A.M.R. Gatehouse, CABI, 432 p
Escobar, A. ; Parra, O. de; Parra, R., 1985. Effect of alkali treatment on the in vitro digestibility and chemical composition of fibrous agricultural residues. Trop. Anim. Prod., 10 (1): 58-67
European Commission, 2000. L'impact environnemental de la culture du maïs dans l'Union Européenne : options pratiques pour l'amélioration des impacts environnementaux. European Commission - DG XI
FAO, 2016. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
Fauconneau, G. ; Pion, R., 1965. Amido acid composition of proteins of some fodder plants. Proc. 9th Int. Grassld Congr., p. 779
Fisher, L. J. ; Lessard, J. R., 1987. Intake and digestibility of corn, rye and sorghum-sudan grass silages by lactating cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 67 (4): 1027-1032
Freeman, S. R. ; Poore, M. H. ; Huntington, G. B. ; Middleton, T. F., 2008. Evaluation of secondary protein nutrients as a substitute for soybean meal in diets for beef steers and meat goats. J. Anim. Sci., 86 (1): 146-158
French, M. H. ; Purvis, J. T., 1935. Maize silage in East Africa : Its preparation, quality and feeding value. E. Afr. Agric. For. J., 1: 229-232
French, M. H., 1943. The compositions and nutritive values of Tanganyika feeding stuffs. E. Afr. Agric. For. J., 8 (3): 126-132
Getachew, G. ; Robinson, P. H. ; DePeters, E. J. ; Taylor, S. J., 2004. Relationships between chemical composition, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 111 (1-4): 41-56
Harris, D. J. ; Cheeke, P. R. ; Patton, N. M., 1983. Feed preference studies with rabbits fed fourteen different fresh greens. J. Appl. Rabbit Res., 6 (4): 120-122
Indriani, N. P.; Yuwariah, Y.; Rochana, A.; Djuned, H., 2015. Effect of intercropping between corn (Zea mays) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with arbuscular mycorrhizal (amf) on the yield and forage mineral content. Pak. J. Nutr., 14 (6): 362-365
Kaiser, C.; Ernst, M., 2011. Baby corn. Univ Kentucky, Coop. Ext. Serv., USA
Kelzer, J. M. ; Kononoff, P. J. ; Gehman, A. M. ; Tedeschi, L. O. ; Karges, K. ; Gibson, M. L., 2009. Effects of feeding three types of corn-milling coproducts on milk production and ruminal fermentation of lactating Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 92 (10): 5120-5132
Kevelenge, J. E. E. ; Kiflewahid, B. ; Said, A. N., 1983. The nutritive value of four arable farm by products commonly fed to dairy cattle by small scale farmers in Kenya. III. Nitrogen and mineral retentions by wether sheep. Trop. Anim. Prod., 8 (3): 180-186
Kirilov, A., 1999. Intake and digestibility of fresh and ensiled maize harvested at different contents of dry matter. Fourrages, 158: 187-193
Kononoff, P. J.; Heinrichs, A. J., 2002. The effect of corn silage particle size and cottonseed hulls on cows in early lactation. J. Dairy Sci., 86 (7): 2438-2451
Kubrakova, S. I.; Mikhailov, V. I., 1979. Utilization of magnesium chlorate. Krolikovodstvo i Zverovodstvo, 6: 22-23
Lebas, F.; Coudert, P.; de Rochambeau, H.; Thébault, R. G., 1997. The Rabbit - Husbandry, Health and Production. FAO Anim. Prod. Health, 21 (new revised version)
Lim Han Kuo, 1967. Animal feeding stuffs. Part 3. Compositional data of feeds and concentrates. Malay. Agric. J., 46 (1): 63-79
Lukefahr, S. D., 1998. Rabbit production in Uganda : Potential versus opportunity. World Rabbit Science, 6 (3-4): 331-340
Methu, J. N.; Kiruiro, E. M.; Abate, A. N. , 2006. Your feed shortage problem: Use maize forage. KARI resource center, Nairobi
Mutetikka, D. B. ; Carles, A. B. ; Wanyoike, M. M., 1990. The effect of level of supplementation to diets of Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) hay, maize (Zea mays) leaves and sweet potato (Ipomea batatas) vines on performance of grower rabbits. J. Appl. Rabbit Res., 13: 179-183
Naik, P. K.; Swain, B. K.; Chakurkar, E. B.; Singh, N. P. , 2012. Performance of dairy cows on green fodder maize based ration in coastal hot and humid climate. Anim. Nutr. Feed Technol., 12 (2): 265-270
Nambi, J. ; Mutetikka, D. ; Bareeba, F. B., 2001. Performance of lactating dairy goats fed diets of sweet potato vines, banana peels and maize leaves, supplemented with legume tree foliage. Muarik Bulletin 4: 43-48
Negi, S. S. ; Singh, B. ; Makkar, H. P. S., 1988. Rumen degradability of nitrogen in typical cultivated grasses and leguminous fodders. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 22 (1-2): 79-89
Neumark, H., 1970. Personal communication. Volcani Institute of Agricutural Reseach, Israel
Newport, A., 2006. Grain on the stump. Beef, Beef Magazine, Oct 2006
Ngongoni, N. T. ; Mapiye, C. ; Mwale, M. ; Mupeta, B., 2007. Effect of supplementing a high-protein ram press sunflower cake concentrate on smallholder milk production in Zimbabwe. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39 (4): 297-307
Peyrat, J., 2014. Digestion of starch and cell walls of forage maize in ruminants: consequences on the assessment of its nutritive value. Thèse. Université Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand II
Porto, M. O. ; Paulino, M. F. ; Valadares Filho, S. de C. ; Sales, M. F. L. ; Detmann, E. ; Cavali, J., 2008. Corn, in different forms, in multiple supplements for finishing crossbred steers on pasture during rainy season: performance and nutrition parameters. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 37 (12): 2251-2260
Potter, B., 2012. Grazing corn in the Northwest. OMAFRA Virtual Beef, West. Beef Dev. Center, Factsheet 2012.03
Raharjo, Y. C. ; Cheeke, P. R. ; Patton, N. M., 1988. Evaluation of tropical forages and rice by products as rabbit feeds. J. Appl. Rabbit Res., 11 (3): 201-211
Renoux, J-P., 2016. Les Experts Maïs: épisode 3. AGPM, Maiz'Europ
Ritter, W., 1983. Fodder production in the subtropics an example of a project from Brazil. Entwicklung + Landlicher Raum., 17 (5): 12-14
Sarap, K.; Chavan, S. D. , 2015. Nutritive value of green maize ( Zea mays L.) leaves for crossbred heifers. Res. J. Anim. Husb. Dairy Sci., 6 (1): 85-86
Schlolaut, W., 1987. Nutritional needs and feeding of German Angora rabbits. J. Appl. Rabbit Res., 10: 111-121
Silva, H. G. de O. ; Pires, A. J. V. ; Silva, F. F. da ; Veloso, C. M. ; Carvalho, G. G. P. de ; Cezario, A. S. ; Santos, C. C., 2005. Effects of feeding cocoa meal (Theobroma cacao L.) and palm kernel cake (Elaeis guineensis, Jacq) on milk intake and yield for lactating goats. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 34 (5): 1786-1794
Smith, O. B. ; Idowu, O. A. ; Asaolu, V. O. ; Odunlami, O, 1991. Comparative rumen degradability of forages, browse, crop residues and agricultural by products. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 3 (2): 59-66
Darunee Srichana; Wichai Suttitham; Panawan Thongsunthiah; Paichok Panja; Nattha Jariyapamornkoon, 2014. Nutrients and ruminal digestibility of baby corn by-product silages under different harvesting methods. Thammasat Int. J. Sci. Technol., 19 (2): 30-37
Tauqir, N. A.; Shahzad, M. A.; Jabbar, M. A.; Sarwar, M.; Mahr un, N.; Ahmad, F.; Ahmad, I. , 2013. Response of Sahiwal Heifers Receiving Maize Fodder with Supplementation of Urea Molasses Block. Buffalo Bull., 32 (2): 913-917
Tessema, S. ; Emojong, E. E., 1984. Utilization of maize and sorghum stover by sheep and goats after feed quality improvement by various treatments and supplements. E. Afr. Agric. For. J., 44 (Suppl.): 408-415
Van Wyk, H. P. D. ; Oosthuizen, S. A. ; Basson, I. D., 1951. The nutritive value of South African feeds. Part II. Hay and Pasture Crops. Union of South Africa. Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Science Bulletin No. 298
Yadav, B. P. S.; Arun Varma; Gupta, J. J, 1990. Green maize fodder feeding to pigs. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 60 (9): 1127-1128

Datasheet citation

Heuzé V., Tran G., Edouard N., Lebas F., 2017. Maize green forage. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/358 Last updated on June 21, 2017, 10:16

English correction by Tim Smith (Animal Science consultant) and Hélène Thiollet (AFZ)

Image credits

Sponsored by

Automatic translation

Feed categories

Scientific names

Tools

Resources

Maize green forage