Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Assessing the optimal harvest period for green fodder and grain yield potential in hybrid maize cultivated in a cut-fill terrace

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12177
Submitted
9 October 2025
Published
15-06-2026 — Updated on 01-07-2026
Versions

Abstract

The present study investigated the responses of hybrid maize, Bisi-321, -286 and -234, to different fertiliser dosages in fodder production and quality at different harvest timings and grain yield. Plant density was set at 1 plant/hill. The experiment was established in a 972 m2 cut-fill landscape with a raised bed, which was distributed on 27 plots. A 10 t/ha of animal manure was applied. Three different fertiliser treatments, 100 % fertiliser dosage (control), 50 % fertiliser dosage + foliar fertiliser and 100 % fertiliser dosage + foliar fertiliser, were used. The maximum fodder biomass of 720.6 g/plant was obtained at 95 days after planting (DAP), with only a slight difference compared to 85 DAP (714.9 g/plant). The corn ear biomass increased around threefold from 75 (117.7 g/plant) to 85 (303.9 g/plant) DAPs, marking the onset of the rapid grain-filling phase in developing kernels. The contents of ash, crude fibre and protein in fodder peaked at 75 DAP and declined significantly through 95 DAP. However, starch and crude fat were not significant. Based on the quantities of ash, crude fat, protein and starch, the optimal harvest timing for fodder production was 95 DAP. Bisi-321 produced the highest fodder biomass (31.59 t/ha) under control, while Bisi-286 maintained a strong response (28.47 t/ha) even with a 50 % reduction in fertiliser dosage. Despite a lower yield in fodder biomass than other hybrids, Bisi-234 produced a strong grain yield (3 t/ha) even under control. In conclusion, the optimal harvest timing for fodder is 95 DAP. Bisi-324 is well-suited for green fodder production, whereas Bisi-234 is for grain production.

 

References

  1. 1. Long H, Zhai J, Zhang Z, Zhao Y, Zhang K, Zhang A. Study on the effect of step ratio to temperature field of cut-fill transition in deep seasonal frozen soil region. Case Stud Therm Eng. 2024;54:104051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2024.104051
  2. 2. Cevasco A, Pepe G, Brandolini P. The influences of geological and land use settings on shallow landslides triggered by an intense rainfall event in a coastal terraced environment. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2014;73:859–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-013-0544-x
  3. 3. Cao Y, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Tian J. Landscape pattern and sustainability of a 1300-year-old agricultural landscape in subtropical mountain areas, southwestern China. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2013;20:349–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2013.773266
  4. 4. Deng C, Zhang G, Liu Y, Nie X, Li Z, Liu J, et al. Advantages and disadvantages of terracing: a comprehensive review. Int Soil Water Conserv Res. 2021;9:344–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.03.002
  5. 5. Frene JP, Pandey BK, Castrillo G. Under pressure: elucidating soil compaction and its effect on soil functions. Plant Soil. 2024;502:267–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06573-2
  6. 6. Ferreira CJB, Tormena CA, Severiano EDC, Zotarelli L, Betioli JE. Soil compaction influences soil physical quality and soybean yield under long-term no-tillage. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2021;67:383–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2020.1733535
  7. 7. Kristoffersen AØ, Riley H. Effects of soil compaction and moisture regime on the root and shoot growth and phosphorus uptake of barley plants growing on soils with varying phosphorus status. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2005;72:135–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-005-0240-8
  8. 8. de Blécourt M, Hänsel VM, Brumme R, Corre MD, Veldkamp E. Soil redistribution by terracing alleviates soil organic carbon losses caused by forest conversion to rubber plantation. For Ecol Manag. 2014;313:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.10.043
  9. 9. Doetterl S, Six J, Van Oost K, Van Wesemael B. Carbon cycling in eroding landscapes: geomorphic controls on soil organic C pool composition and C stabilisation. Glob Change Biol. 2012;18:2218–2232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02680.x
  10. 10. Stallard RF. Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 1998;12:231–45. https://doi.org/10.1029/98GB00741
  11. 11. VandenBygaart AJ, Gregorich EG, Angers DA. Influence of agricultural management on soil organic carbon: a compendium and assessment of Canadian studies. Can J Soil Sci. 2003;83:363–80. https://doi.org/10.4141/S03-009
  12. 12. Wolka K, Lemma AM, Tadesse M. Evaluating the impacts of area closure on soil properties in south central highland of Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2024;10:e39782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39782
  13. 13. Hernando D, Romana MG. Development of a soil erosion classification system for cut and fill slopes. Transp Infrastruct Geotech. 2015;2:155–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-015-0024-9
  14. 14. Gebremedhin B, Swinton SM, Tilahun Y. Effects of stone terraces on crop yields and farm profitability: results of on-farm research in Tigray, northern Ethiopia. J Soil Water Conserv. 1999;54:568–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224561.1999.12457282
  15. 15. Tang J, Yang Q, Liang J, Wang H, Yue X. Water management, planting slope indicators and economic benefit analysis for Panax notoginseng production decision under shaded and rain-shelter cultivation: a three-year sloping fields experiment. Agric Water Manag. 2024;291:108635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108635
  16. 16. Triwanto J, Syarifuddin A, Aprilia L. The effect of land slope level on productivity of Pujon agroforestry. Agriecobis J Agric Socioecon Bus. 2024;7:89–97. https://doi.org/10.22219/agriecobis
  17. 17. Garg KK, Anantha KH, Dixit S, Nune R, Venkataradha A, Wable P, et al. Impact of raised beds on surface runoff and soil loss in Alfisols and Vertisols. Catena. 2022;211:105972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105972
  18. 18. Patil SB, Salunkhe SC, Jadhav SK, Patil SS. Evaluation for cost effective combination of different seed bed preparation implements with large size tractors. Int J Agric Eng. 2009;2:212–15.
  19. 19. Karnatam KS, Mythri B, Nisa WU, Sharma H, Meena TK, Rana P, et al. Silage maize as a potent candidate for sustainable animal husbandry development: perspectives and strategies for genetic enhancement: a review. Front Genet. 2023;14:1150132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1150132
  20. 20. Awika JM. Advances in cereal science: implications to food processing and health promotion. ACS Symp Ser. 2011;1089. Washington (DC): American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2011-1089.ch001
  21. 21. Bahtiar B, Salman D, Arsyad M, Azrai M. Synergy of innovation between hybrid corn seed production and seed companies: a review. Agrivita J Agric Sci. 2022;44:604–15. https://doi.org/10.17503/agrivita.v44i3.3907
  22. 22. Quayyum M. Maize production technology development in Bangladesh. In: Srinivasan G, Zaidi PH, Prasana BM, Gonzalez F, Lesnick K, editors. New technologies for the new millennium: proceedings of the 8th Asian regional maize workshop; 2022; Bangkok, Thailand. Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT). p. 236–40.
  23. 23. Ygzaw W, Ifie BE, Ribeiro PF, Adu GB, Danquah EY, Offei SK, et al. Optimising maize yield with hybrids tolerant of high plant density in West and Central Africa. Plant Environ Interact. 2025;6:e70046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-013-2795-9
  24. 24. Chim BK, Omara P, Macnack M, Mullock J, Dhital S, Raun W. Effect of seed distribution and population on maize (Zea mays L.) grain yield. Int J Agron. 2014;2014:125258. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/125258
  25. 25. Djaman K, Allen S, Djaman SD, Koudahe K, Irmak S, Puppala N, et al. Planting date and plant density effects on maize growth, yield and water use efficiency. Environ Chall. 2022;6:100417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100417
  26. 26. Luo N, Wang X, Hou J, Wang Y, Wang P, Meng Q. Agronomic optimal plant density for yield improvement in the major maize regions of China. Crop Sci. 2020;60:1580–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20000
  27. 27. Mahat B, Upadhayay B, Poudel A. Effect of different nitrogen dose on growth and yield characteristics of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) varieties at Sundarbazar, Lamjung. Malays J Sustain Agric. 2023;7:65–71. https://doi.org/10.26480/mjsa.02.2023.65.71
  28. 28. Liu X, Li D, Ge Q, Yang B, Li S. Effects of harvest period and mixed ratio on the characteristic and quality of mixed silage of alfalfa and maize. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2023;306:115796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2023.115796
  29. 29. Giardini A, Gaspari F, Vecchiettini M, Schenoni P. Effect of maize silage harvest stage on yield, plant composition and fermentation losses. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1976;1:313–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(76)90095-x
  30. 30. Segato S, Marchesini G, Magrin L, Contiero B Andrighetto I, Serva L. A machine learning-based assessment of maize silage dry matter losses by net-bags buried in farm bunker silos. Agriculture. 2022;12:785. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060785
  31. 31. Mandić V, Bijelić Z, Krnjaja V, Simić A, Petričević M, Mićić N, et al. Effect of harvesting time on forage yield and quality of maize. Biotechnol Anim Husb. 2018;34:345–53. https://doi.org/10.2298/BAH1803345M
  32. 32. Despal, Hidayah P, Lubis AD. Tropical lowland maize silage quality from different age of harvesting for dairy cattle. Bul Makanan Ternak. 2017;104:10–20.
  33. 33. AOAC. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 21st ed. Washington (DC): AOAC; 2019.
  34. 34. da Silva JC, de Oliveira RC, Neto AS, Pimentel VC, Santos AA. Extraction, addition and characterisation of hemicelluloses from corn cobs to development of paper properties. Procedia Mater Sci. 2015;8:793–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2015.04.137
  35. 35. Otegbayo B. SOP for determination of starch and sugar through acid hydrolysis. Iwo: RTBfoods Project Report; 2019.
  36. 36. Ni SJ, Zhang JH. Variation of chemical properties as affected by soil erosion on hillslopes and terraces. Eur J Soil Sci. 2007;58:1285–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.00921.x
  37. 37. Prafit JMB, Timm LC, Reichardt K, Pinto LFS, Pauletto EA, Castilhos DD. Chemical and biological attributes of a lowland soil affected by land levelling. Pesq Agropec Bras. 2013;48:1489–97. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2013001100010
  38. 38. Shi X, Song X, Zhao G, Yang Q, Abbott LK, Li F. Manure application is the key to improving soil quality of new terraces. Sustainability. 2022;14:15166. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215166
  39. 39. Cui M, Jia B, Liu H, Kan X, Zhang Y, Zhou R, et al. Genetic mapping of the leaf number above the primary ear and its relationship with plant height and flowering time in maize. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01437
  40. 40. Ma Z, Liang C, Wang H, Liu J, Zhou X, Zhou W. Biotic and abiotic factors influencing maize plant height. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(17):8530. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26178530
  41. 41. Xiong F, Yu XR, Zhou L. Structural development of aleurone and its function in common wheat. Mol Biol Rep. 2013;40:6785–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-013-2795-9
  42. 42. Sreenivasalu N, Butardo VM, Misra G, Cuevas RP, Anacleto R, Kishor PBK. Designing climate-resilient rice with ideal grain quality suited for high-temperature stress. J Exp Bot. 2015;66:1737–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru544
  43. 43. Philippeau C, Michalet-Doreau B. Influence of genotype and ensiling of corn grain on in situ degradation of starch in the rumen. J Dairy Sci. 1998;81:2178–84. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75796-0
  44. 44. Huntington GB. Starch utilisation by ruminants: from basics to the bunk. J Anim Sci. 1997;75:852–67. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.753852x
  45. 45. Johnson L, Harrison JH, Hunt C, Shinners K, Doggett CG, Sapienza D. Nutritive value of corn silage as affected by maturity and mechanical processing: a contemporary review. J Dairy Sci. 1999;82:2813–25. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75540-2
  46. 46. Masoero F, Moschini M, Fusconi G, Gianfranco P. Raw, extruded and expanded pea (Pisum sativum) in dairy cow diets. Ital J Anim Sci. 2010;5:237–47. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2006.237
  47. 47. Kruse S, Herrmann A, Kornher A, Taube F. Evaluation of genotype and environmental variation in fibre content of silage maize using a model-assisted approach. Eur J Agron. 2008;28:210–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2007.07.007
  48. 48. Nazli MH, Halim RA, Abdullah AM, Hussin G, Samsudin AS. Potential of four corn varieties at different harvest stages for silage production in Malaysia. Asian Australas J Anim Sci. 2019;32:224–32. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0175
  49. 49. Filho AXS, Pinho RGV, Pereira JLAR, Reis MC, Rezende AV, Mata DC. Influence of stage of maturity on bromatological quality of corn forage. Rev Bras Zootec. 2011;40:1894–901. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982011000900008
  50. 50. Salama. Yield and nutritive value of maize (Zea mays L.) forage as affected by plant density, sowing date and age at harvest. Ital J Agron. 2019;14:114–22. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2019.1383
  51. 51. Indriani YP, Yuwariah Y, Nuraini A, Ruswandi A. Nutrient content of various Padjadjaran hybrid maize as feed forage at Arjasari Village Bandung. Asian J Crop Sci. 2018;10:121–26. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajcs.2018.121.126
  52. 52. Vandana M, Vinita P, Nazra A, Rai GK. Development and compositional analysis of protein rich soyabean maize flour blended cookies. J Food Process Technol. 2012;3(9):1–5.
  53. 53. Tóth A, Tóth Z. Application of organic fertilisers as supplement to improve the yield and content indicators of maize. J Cent Eur Agric. 2025;26(3):618–625. https://doi.org/10.5513/jcea01/26.3.4244
  54. 54. Gcaba K, Christian M, Letsoalo S, Jagadeesh D. Factors influencing the willingness and ability of farmers to adopt TELA maize seed in Alfred Nzo District, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Sustainability. 2025;17(3):973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030973
  55. 55. Agustina SS. A survey on growth and yield of several forage maize (Zea mays L.) varieties in different environments [thesis]. Brawijaya: Brawijaya University; 2021. (In Indonesian).
  56. 56. Yuwariah Y, Putri DN, Ruswandi D, Wicaksono FY, Esperenza D. Agronomical characters of several hybrid maize varieties of Padjadjaran in relation to yield components in a medium land. J Kultivasi. 2022;21:231–38. https://doi.org/10.24198/kultivasi.v21i2.34955
  57. 57. Husain J, Nurdin B. Growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) on terrace and non-terrace land in Gorontalo Province, Indonesia. Agrivita J Agric Sci. 2013;35(3):241–48. https://doi.org/10.17503/Agrivita-2013-35-1-p001-007
  58. 58. Neswati R, Abdullah S, Musa Y. Soil conservation practices and maize performance on sloping lands in humid tropics of Indonesia. Agric For Res. 2023;73(1):55–66.
  59. 59. Bakker DM, Hamilton GJ, Houlbrooke DJ, Spann C. The effect of raised beds on soil structure, waterlogging and productivity on duplex soils in Western Australia. Aust J Soil Res. 2005;43(5):575–85. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR03118

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.