3N RATE OF HE DEGREE OF M S THESIS FOR T OLLEGE MICHIGAN STATE C DAVE} .1. WOODS 1955 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Mechanical Harvest of Corn in Rate of Planting Experiments presented by David J. Woods has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mes. degree in Pam Crop! (QMW a or pro essor Dath; / Q 5.9 3"--. r -‘rmrws- C "Al's ’1‘ 3.11 . .ks Sit tutti-vi. THE MECHANICAL HARVEST 0F COME IN RATE OF PLANTING EXI‘ERDENTS by DAVID J. WOODS . M. A THESIS Suhmitted.to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and.Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Crops 1955 THESIS THE MECHANICAL HARVEST OF CORN IN RATE OF PLANTING EXPERIMENTS 350657 AC MN.“ JLEDGI-EI‘JT The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. E. C. Rosaman under whose supervision, guidance, and interest this study was conducted. To the author's wife, Rita, goes sincere thanks for her inspira- tion and assistance. Grateful acknowledgment is also due the author's parents whose unselfishness has made this, and previous studies, pOSSibleo ‘VI. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of literature . . . . . . . . . mthOdS axld materials 0 o o o o o o o 0 Experimental results A. B. C. D. E. F. Ingham County, Experiment 102 . . . Ingham County, EbCperiment 106 . . . Saginaw County, Experiment 103 . . Monroe County, Experiment 10h. . . Kent County, Experiment 105 . . . . Kalamazoo County, Ibsperiment 107 . Discussion.............. Woooooooeooeooooo LiteratureCitedooeoooooooo 15 22 28 3h 1:5 52 Sh IN TFDIXJ CTION In recent years many farmers have been planting corn thicker in an attempt to increase the yield. Rate of planting experiments in many states have shown that corn yields can be materially increased with stands up to 16,000 or more plants per acre where fertility and moisture con- ditions are favorable. Bars are smaller and, in some cases, there may be more lodging when stands are increased. Most experimental results in rate of planting experiments have been obtained from.plots harvested by hand in which all tne corn was saved and included in the total yield. Since the mechanical corn picker normally leaves some corn in the field, it appeared desirable to determine if the ‘ farmer who harvests his corn mechanically, is likely to obtain results similar to those obtained from.hand picked plots. The smaller ears produced at higher rates of planting raises the question, does the mechanical corn picker get these smaller ears? In- creased lodging raises the question, does the corn picker harvest these lodged stalks? The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of mechanical harvest of corn planted at various plant populations per acre. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Several states have investigated the effect of plant population on corn yields. Since the results depend so much on the variety of corn, fertility level, moisture conditions, temperature, and other factors, only a few studies are reviewed here. Rounds, Rossman, Zurakowski and Down ()4) conducted rate, method, and date of planting experiments that were hand harvested from 19b? to 1950 in Michigan. Similar tests have given similar results from 1951 to 1953. The ability of a hybrid to give a bigger response to increased planting rate was found to be a varietal characteristic that was not dependent on the maturity or yielding ability of the hybrid. In 19M, 191:8, 19119, and 1950, yields were significantly higher as the planting rate was increased. They found that the ear weight decreased as the rate of planting increased, but the loss in ear weight was more than offset by the larger number of ears per acre. In these tests, rate of planting had no consistent effect on stalk lodging. Response to nitrogen side dress- ing increased as the rate of planting increased on Conover loam that was planted to corn for the third successive year. Nitrogen side dressing had no effect on lodging. Weather was generally favorable for good corn production. Huber (3) had also found previously that thin stands of corn pro- duce larger ears but lower yields than thicker plantings in Pennsylvania. In contrast to the Michigan results, Bryan, Eckhardt, and Sprague (2) found that closer spacings of corn plants consistently had more ll ' ‘1 - .47 I? fil—J—L- u-‘I .1 lodged.plants than wider spacings in Iowa. Relatively little research has been done on mechanical harvest of corn at different plant populations per acre. Smith, Lyness, and Keisselbach (S) conducted a picker test in Nebraska in l9h8. They used three rates of planting for their drilled plots and for their check planted plots. For the drilled experiments spacings of 10, 1b, and 21 inches between plants were used. For those experiments check planted 2, 3, and h plants were planted per hill., Their results showed that there were few consistent differences between rates of planting. They found that when the grain of ear corn reached an essentially'airedny condition in the fall the picker did not shell as much as it did later in the season even though the kernel.moisture remained about the same. They'reported that the mechanical corn picker operated most efficiently at a kerne1.moisture content of 20 to 2h percent. Where harvest was de- layed losses due to ear drOpping, stalk breaking, and shelling by the picker increased after the grain reached 17 to 20 percent moisture. METHODS AN D IJLA'l‘ERIAIS Three hybrids and four rates of planting were included in the experiment at five locations. The hybrids were Michigan 350 (90-day relative maturity,) Michigan 1:80 (105 day,) and Michigan 570 (110 day.) The four rates of planting varied depending on the location. Six ex- periments were planted; two in Ingham County, and one each in Saginaw, Kent, Kalamazoo, and Monroe counties. All plots were planted by hand using excess seed and later thinned to the desired stand. The plots varied in size and shape depending on location. Split plot designs with either two or four replications were used. Details for each location are given in Table 1. In the two experiments conducted on the Michigan State College farm in Ingham County, two of the four replications were side dressed with forty pounds of nitrogen (120 pounds ammonium nitrate) per acre. Counts for stand, stalk lodging, and root lodging were made just prior to harvest. Stalk lodging refers to the plants broken below the ear. Root lodging refers to the plants leaning at an angle of thirty . degrees or more from the vertical. Each experiment was harvested by the c00perator with his corn picker, adjusted by him for picking his corn crop. After harvest the corn from each plot was weighed, and the poorly husked ears and the "clean" ears (those with no husks left on the ears) were counted to determine "cleanness" of picking. All plots were gleaned for ears that the picker missed, and the gleanings were weighed. Two quadrant determinations were made per plot to estimate the amount of 30A :a pawn: exam .3” 0mm n mm. mango 30m 039 «wasmuo hoeoao mean when mmN\H fixomnbOHm manoeo enema snow 9H 00: I mm. 0 >02 ma AWE nxoonm a =m: .mm mach N redeem JOH connoz omens nHoonom «noxoon moboao oHaJ one apnoea :8 as 8-8-m e5 2.8 wHQH soupagm 8s 33 .62 .9H 8 page mm 80 NH as: 33.33 N am .8 :8 H ham SH -233 penance sou ounces opH< or» «Hosea» Qanoat: hoboao ones oON\H «ppwaaom Apnoea -8533 .nH mmm 5852 Hm poo aH .82 see N :3 .8 30.. H €32 mOH pass bosom won one soon ones NJN\H «pHoncwom hpnooo .838 mass: modem. 3 to :H as: locum : =8 .8 =8 H 33...: SH zaeHmsm wcwmcmq sou one mHanumH uo>oHo chow NJN\H omen arenas 88m Ea. pH 0mm 8m 2 30 mH as: 8.680 a ._8m .8 :2 H .992 80H 5&3 wqwmamg sou oco mHumHImH HH new .onum NJN\H pmsm hpcsoo 8me .52. .nH 0mm «SSH... a to OH .82 .8380 a :3 .8 :8 H .05.: SH swarm uoxofia nouHHHv mono popmo> popnmamn umnm. mmwh zoom: oawnm new nopsno .oo soapsoQH we make them msowpoam than comm HHom mo 30m oswm poam uaooo .QXm span .02 .H mHnsa .smmdqmcowpmooa Kan pm popOSpGoo menosflhoaxo mcflpcmaa_mo mama new Gowpmsfiomna 0fl50c0hm< Table l - continued Exp. Phosphorus Potash Location no. pH lbs/acre lbs/acre Inshwn 102 6.1 67 12 5 County Ingham 106 7.1; 77 10h County Saginaw 103 6.9 106 132 County Kent 105 No soil test County Kalamazoo 107 6. 3 175 , 365 County Monroe 10h 6.h to 152 County shelled corn left in the field by the picker. A moisture sample consisting of a one-inch section of cob and grain from ten ears of each plot was taken, weighed in the field, dried in an oven, and weighed again. Moisture percentages reported are those for the ear moisture. Analyses of variance were made for yield of corn obtained from the picker, gleaned ear corn per acre, and bushels of gleaned shelled corn per acre. All yields are reported as bushels of shelled corn at 15.5 percent moisture per acre. EXPERDMTAL RESULTS Ingham County, Experiment 102 Ebcperiment 102 was conducted on the Michigan State College farm in Ingham County near East Lansing. Two of the four replications were side dressed with to pounds of nitrogen the latter part of June. Average yields, bushels per acre of shelled corn at 15.5 percent moisture, har- vested with the picker are presented in Table 2. Analysis of variance in Table 3 shows that rate of planting and nitrogen side dressing sig- nificantly affected the yield. There were no significant differences due to hybrids. Yields at the three higher plant p0pulations (approximately 114, 700, 19,500 and 22,700) were significantly higher than yields at the lower pOpulation (approximately 10,000 plants.) However, there were no sig- nificant differences in yield among these three higher populations. The best yields were obtained with about 19,500 plants per acre and side dressed. There were no significant differences in gleaned ear corn among 1'llfbrflds, rates, fertilizer, or any of the interactions in Table 1;. On , the average, the picker left about 5.5 bushels of ears per acre. The average gleanings were h.5, 3.7, 6. 9, and 7.2 bushels per acre for pepu- lations of 10,063, 114,7)42, 19,521, and 22,7118 plants per acre respec- tively. When expressed as percentages of the total yield, the gleanings 0f ear corn averaged 11.5, 3.3, 5.0, and 5.7 percent for the four plant Populations. The picker was effectively harvesting the smaller ears of 17 1 1 _ 77.7 _ n n. . . «Jr. 1).. 1 I, ). - -7 .7771 .x... /.r\7v A)- 1. 1 1 ; 2 “1 raw" . . . . .J H ..77. . uiu7-7u/11H7717.0.2 1.57. Cow SUM-1o77oo/H7L7/O/o32310éHD7l7730 1 C71 .77.. .7./17.17.717.771... .7 -.) THC-19.1100 . o . o o .1 o o . o . o o o . 7. .7 -7 . . 7 - 2 7 O77..o)_37 77114307162171.7177 L. 6— //.,~. 7). .1 7. IL .7 \l'» 617'th High/“(41, ._ «7}. H7 1 "11171.11 171L- 717 7 .7 w 0 . . 71-1 1 I 1 I 11 I l 17 1.770 I 7 .7 7117 7. .7 - . 7 Y 7.! 7|..IL71-01'i01‘7'AT-ill-Ilr 7| ~ ’17, 73 ”ll 1.. #7.}. .7777“ m CV1 7. x l a 1 J) l 74 71 \w , J u 4/. 2 O.- i Q 741 “.7 1 fl 0... G M: . . . . . . . . .77. . “-7.1... . . .xC. downs-7.13 77.7.711H1u11163L147og710/O1M153937.0. 1* . 64V 6 H \-/L A d 7.74 11-... :7. J x I L. 1 x} 7 7 O .m .1 O O O O . C O C l O O A O C 0 .7. 1 1 7 ,7- 1 177.7171 177 r/.- .7-7 1.7 1 (TE/me Call/77-9.... 7121 717.201..) 70 377....) J. _ 317 7. , H “I“ ”IV. r». 71. 7-\7./ 7 ‘1‘). 7.... {NV 17/“ 711-. 11)z\1 U 1r r111.7.\-\ H7»)? .77 .77 I716/ 1J7.#\/./n\u 412 /.\/-. HID/n04 6 6 wrhu/MWM MU“ mJ/AW— all/hum flw%daw117j M/OII hm/FWKJ/ Gr. 7. .7717. H . 1 m .7111 h 1 m . 1 7.4 7 11-147117-77111fi-17-71171172777.1. 11777117711717- 77--7-1-7711:- 1 .. +0 S 1 1 t .7 — t C .U . 71¢ (- _..\/. .r/ \n L. . .J 7. .7 I . 77. J n ..77 r n e 7m” e e to e711” 0 1.,7 H. e .e .7.” 010 «Hr». A.“ fi7‘0, AsUe «(Mafia/7r)” 0/” 0-07.11Wm117x-h INN/O. l d) 411/ til/+3 0/ O C/ 7.7.) 0/76 “F... /h7.7 716 7.6 2 any 0 e H . . e at .- c 1 7 . \7 7 7 7x .. 1 7. -. . In 7 a... - , 7 s. .77 . 7 70 O 0 O O O O O O O O O Q 0 O 0 Wu. F. .m C M L r . x7717 (7.77“. 7H.- - .Jfi «77.. 4 )7 . 1. . 7.x 7 7 r..{-7 m7... .(7-7...\1-7-7. r». 0.7. 7.. h( 71-77 n17.7/NWA 1 / qgvfu 17/..7... mil /\7_ .r.7\/ 7 H96 H? O 6 3.1 O... O/ O” O /b 3 O/ O O .U .m p 7., .7- 7k 7 .7 .7.-,77/7711771/777.7.r-7n1n71/Jf-1-147/J7717C7-LCJ 777/O [Av/057.712.17.716 .706777777/07177 r 11 1 1 .7 .7 . . 7.. MU. .1 . 1-“ 1 1‘7“ “_ _ 7 a Q t... M . c \; l 1 - 7 n .1 1mfl1.v 721 2,771.77 1 1. 7711:7017-7777 51.17.1171-..1-“713172737u-3C17-21717 2&2 9.7722597ul3m .J’ .1 a w... I - s--.... e e e 70 e e o o e o e e e e e e 7. o e e e o e _ em 0 01 O 0 O O O J O 0 ON #7111.-. at. v1.1.7. 11 777-.132.- 7. (737.37.. 1 32 once/u 111.74.111.11” 6321 327/15 . «)2 31.17.57.147. «7. 7. f . ,7 .7. SA v1111.11111 11 1117-1- -7 7 7.9. 7 . 7 - 7 . 71 7- 7 1 77 111119717111 7 71 .. . .. . .77 .1 .1 . 1. 7 1M 7 1. .7 1 7. m . 1. . J 171. ._ r 7 1 . ~ 11 kin-411%” m .1.- - 770 H. ..7 7706-11077125 17011011177122.1312 o DEFOTLDZF 7.12? 73111-7171 m7 mCWfl-Twu ooooooo.v.0oMooooooeoe1J-e1.eo.o\70011900010021.000000001 U7 7 , . P .- 1 . 77x.- 777..._ r... 7 17 n. 1h. m... 11.77 77. A7... K771 C _7 FC .7./97. 0.113; 7 0/ 0/1 1 1.70 791107,.rh, 07r- Q7. 0 1.. f 1.7173 1 7.. 17;..CSHI 1.. laxdjix . 1 31L~7n,777.H-16a LlLl?Jn/7.7C)o)17n7r_w7.111cl.I7wd1133371314122221m1/711m/122... ,7. .. . 1. 1 n. 17- 177. .7 7 . 7 . 7 -- - . - a - .7“ .7 :7.” w 7111777 1 a L 1 7 1 1 7M 71. 7. . +1. _ r . ‘ . .7 1 n _ 111 1 1 . .7 . .. 7.) _ I 7/ \) \7 7 7. I 1 71/ _ . u r. W. H m n .3 7 1- 713 l 77 07-7. 31:77-12 7.231).171/1.l 15.931522 One-27.119.51.70 117.7..7L-91lO/OH31 _ 1... x) .77. n: s o 7. o s n o o e o e e 7.. e to e 70 e e e e 70 e 0.. e e e e 0.1 e e e. 0 O I c e e. e o o e e o e e e .L . \7 a . 7 .7 _ 7. 7 7 77 . I 7 7 .1. 1. .7.. .77 l. 77 7 7 7. 7 7, 7... n 7. 11 .77. C77 C (.7 r 717 17-71 .11 3.1.1 07,711 n.21n..7\fL/770/(-1171 O (8.777» C 77,719.67 O. 3 7.177203 O7 071 O 2 1|. .Hu 1.. F 7 1 7 . .71? .7. i_ 7.071.170.7177: 1.77. @1357) 3)....) 317-3110; 0... mi 071071; 3 2.. 9. 2 2 2 Oz. 2 n7; 9-. 07-. 6c 9. 2 3 3 3 C ~ ‘1. . C» .p 7 7 . 1. 1 7. . mu. _-1 7 17 7 1 7 777-7177- 77 .7 7- 7-7.17 7- 777-1711.77.17... 7.77 71.1.1171-- 1171-. 1 7171 1 1 . 7 7 1 . 7 7- 7 -7 - - 71 . C . . w- 77 77. 7. 1711.-_17 7. . 7 r17 0- 17- . ”771171011777 «17.7.1 7C 11.2.70 71/0 « xwf 77./fag O IMF-7.7» 071 AC {/5 do a «SH? 7,1 7 d _11_ .nr U 770 . ml » 7 7.. 174.9.7117.-.7.711-177.71177DHI7337H7H771-T7r/731H73H3w7u77r-31/ 515117143771 571.7-(1H371Ur37Ur1W7xp 1417 Tw/Ofimwfim 2.0 . ‘7“ C AM. i N O I c 0 e 0 e O 0 0 e O l O O I O O O 0 O D 0 O O O O O OH O I .71 O C 0‘ O O Ofil. O C O O O O O Q 7 1 1 .. 1 w“ ~.r|.11... 77 .777. h - 7 7 7 .7 7. 77 7- 777 .7 7.. 7w.- ” _ l 11 an 11-. -JTSI 171 .1 .5 Ilrt‘l‘it’o P1 . 1 _ fl 1 . 1. .7.. 7 _ 1 1 1 x7 7.. . . 7-7 777.. 1f 7... . 1 7.77 ..7 n1 2 777-7...... .7 777.7 7.; 17c -. 77. 1.771 allay-74 3.91 n... u. 3 C, O 77 Q7. raj-DH .{2 “7H1 1. w: .7.“. o 7 17.1 .7 - )7. 17-- 7 .7 ,1 .7 .71 )7 7 - .1;- 770 47.).77. .777. 777 ARM/0.4.1270 uEJW/Lu 7 71 a 1 77. /n77-17?/7\71/O W4 HD1711}? .70 56 .{Q (WW-m16 6 71-.. 7 x777. ”1.1"” C. c. . . . . . o a o . . . o o o a o e a o o e o o o. o a... a em. a e o e e e e e o e e e e e e .- l 77. . .1 1 _ . H7. _. “7.7 V7.1 _ 1 "7.117.771.1717! 1'11 '71 .17 w .7 7 . I. (17017 -7 7 - - -7 7717771 7 . 77.- 1.71.7 Int-u 7 17-.. .7 - 7|- “17‘ 0.1"r‘1ul 11,111 m . 4v 1N.“ w.« 1 - o. 1. m 777. 7.. 1.. 1 7 . 1V M an 171 17.”..717. 1.7.1.717771..7-77 111770147157C C7370 O1 .7.. 3773/0107910/0 oO/n191113rOO/3Rc830532 «iffy-DZ .174 77.7.:.77M7F1oooeeeooaoeeeooooeeoeeo eeeeeoeeeeee .Q _ .7717W1 mu 0. 11 .1114loi 17751.1 111 9111-77.. 1131112173124... .112T171 221733233917u3121222 .- .77.. 7771...... w . . 1 7. .1. 4 || .0-| F7: 7 I-IIII!!!I|II.I| 1111 Ill! OIVI . V 7. 7. 7. 1 1 . 71 1 1 1 1 1 7 . 1 7. .. 11. 1 1 77 . e C l 6 1 \- . 7. 7 ._ -7 77 - - 7- . i w w w -71 .1m.1 .17.»: 7.7. «777.7... 712...}. o17,1C17.3.77.-..-./...l 1 0122HJANH 17mlOll/w35/nwl/nw #- 1 1w .1-.. ....u "L m e O 0 0 O o e e O O o o O 0 e O O O .7...” T C .C n7 C a” 51 .117 “17-.u... 7 1. 17.171.0n/O 117.1 117”?) Jew/.1mx/11I73111 ,132.272.07147)42/07Ul3 232 ... .1 1.1 an.” C v. 7777 h .1. 3 :3 S .777 F7. 7 1 _ 1 1 MM. _ +7.. «.71.. W . 177—..- P _ n Orv w 7 J . x .77 I w . I-“ .l 1 6 «7m n._ M.“ .1 .7) .7... _7....7..1.7-7.7A77¢ “117-7117Hn71H-1n... \77L1w//\1M»..1\-117717UAIL 0. 01C... H2174 0L 3C7“ A)... on 0/71/70 nu; 28 31 l 16 1». 1 C 2,. a I 1 o e e e o e 7.. e e e e 1.- 0 o o . e a e e l e O O 0 o e e O O 0 e 0 7 7. T n. P, n 71 7.7177. (“1777:7111 17772-717777... 17,777..»1a177773 2.171;? 7.7177717Lom71111133137-1,1 fiDd/fzfla/ho-Qhw 3/17ma3141u: 11. D711 7‘: 1 w u U 7. v.7 7 1 . 7 . . 7. C; .r 1 1 717.17 7 7 ------ 7- - :7.- - 77 - 7- 7 7711 117 1 a 7 11-1 . 1. 1 1. Ts... . a 7 u .7 . 777-1 m. S n -7 1 - 7. 7 7 7 7 77 m 7- 1 1 -7.-7.7. .1“ F. O .117 .7 7. NJ 7 7.7 7 1777.0 «711-1171.... 7:77.711 71 111/111. .3217; 91 C7 777-410. 27-. 08.71 177+.Pv Q7777w.71 3U 77:? 91 0 912 Ala-7.7 3 O 1 14 3 17.4 H.) x01 .7 7 “H7. C C... “7. H e e a u e e o e e e 0 e 0 O I O I 0 e 0 e O c I O O 0 6 O L O O O O O O. I O A 0 0 Om i 1. l h. e a ..7_ s . 1 7 1.7-..1 01111 777.91.11.17..T772 7111.7- n/ Edi-1,779.1.2 H«.717I»o1.7741/360u nioD,O/O/O1U.§g71>7179_ 1.7.1 17 e r S D. 2 1 1 7 .1 w 1: 1.171, 3 .77.. 3 . 7 1 .1.- 17.79. 1 7. 1 . Muck.” ”.111- ...l. mi 1 ...... a. 7 1 17o“71 17 17-“ 11 11r11 .x) _1 1 .7 1 7.. . .Q. S 1 7 . - 7 7 . .71 1w11 1 7 .71 Hf lld1v17 7:37-8377741 2.31/7: h .7.-17,711.70C/1153177n7/1HWHDOO/O/O/O/lGHQ/2.70 1" Cu at G «71 .r o o o o a n o e o e o e o e e e e e e e o e e 0 L1 0 o e1 o e e e e e e e e e +L. 1 .73 . .77. w _ 7 .77 , _.7 ._ r 0.13.7.1. H57 1177/ 71.17/7C 0171. My 1U r 1 1.1: Lat/n .70 1 11-77» H.) C/OL 2 32/0 7.79 O 5 3 0/ 1c 1 .1 H17 7.... mm. C 1 a 7 .1. . 1 17-1 7 m7. 7).-1 7-171 «3. 17/1 1 o) 7. Pu 7- l Au 771 0 0a m. )In. D- O/ O7 2 119.1 3 9.. O... 2 Q/ 0 1 9a 2 0/ 2 0 «7L; 1 7. M7“ ‘7 a H a ‘1... 7‘71. .11" «IJ 11L. 1 «11* ‘L . 371* l L l l l 1*. _. l lwl 1 lm l l l l l l l l 1 Se _ 7w.- 1 .1 7 w _ a . 7 .7... .w 7. 7171-- 7- l7. :1 -7 11-71- 17 + y 1 1 0/ 1...“ m1 171. 4 1 1 .- T 1. 7 q 7- nJ r. -77,7,17..7.7111m(1-.71 111. 71f9 0713 4-H? 7.4 coil-7 .511 5 311M O I? O, 35 1 02/0 3 AU 6 00 7L O/OC C7771 . - 7....7.“ I 3 17* 3,. r no 1 o e e e o g o e e e e e e e e c e e e 010 17/7” 0. e e o. 0 1m 0. e e e e e e e O O O O 4 0 e e n 7.7.. _. .717 7. C . , Z 1 7 r7 . 1.77 7. . .7 1777.71 .7.77 77.717 7.7.. 077 H.) 7077,0771 {UF 7.. x0 .H1 0-. 2 0.117 771.0 3 77.8 91H.) 0 Hl-1u.7h717 2 07.7. a) 1.1. 7 8 8 .1 13 .ml 73 mo. “3 1 1.7 p.17. 2 7n 1. 17:. «77.77 m7: 2 - 11 +71. .7.-2.71, .7771 O O 0/ 2 2117.) C 17/ 3 ENG; O OWO 3 11:31 3/ 0 m2 0 2 l 2 3 2 O 3 l g 77L 1.1.771 v7 . :w .171. 1711. 7.1... 11L. 771.17.. 711.11.111.11. 1 1 11* .11_ «L .17.. 11.11 .17: 1 will 1 1.. 1; l l l l l l l l l l l l m l. :7 v.7. 1. 1 7 77p. .* w w t 7.7c _. 1 _ .l . .11711771 17 1 7 7 - 7} 7-1- 7 - 1 - 111 w 1 -1r1-71.% 11- -7.1717 n 7 l 7. 11 .r-K .‘ . 7. . . .7. CW 1 _ . 7.. .3 . . v. . Q” .11 Z .71 . . 1 gm .7..- .7m “.7 “m. - 7... . ”.7 s.“ u." .n X . M7 0.3% p. 2 .7.1111777-.7 -7 ,7 377.77 314314.70 96/707021u307u2021/O08H90C221u35002 b S 1 i” 7.7777“... C7 m 7 .L) .7 C23 .1177”... .170771710 C9177?! 6/0977. 014O7u217u3-U/O30550772 O l 7 L77. H be ab 77-7 Pd "71 «.777 17 7 1 1 7. / 11m77177777-1m71 r/7 PU all/ho A7771C7771n717rw/54-17/1U.Q/1 pho 77.146547.) 0/736Slh32 7S 0 .. 1.. U119”}...-s93to/93,3”,,’3”1571” 59.13,!” 3,23’3’33 u 1 Wax m? C ”71110. .1177, C1. - c7177 .7713OOv-.1>c--.0.2171/o{:o7OOM51-ao7o 92292666777666 7M Sf -71..er 11.71. .11111.,77..71.l111-11127w7 21771111111137.2111 ll 11111222111111.1111 mU 1” “Mp; , 17m I . 1.1 7 7m e . h.llll.nil7-7.717717 .7.- 1 17-1h11- .17 7 17 7-1 717.177 7 . 7 77 1711771 7 7 7 - -7 7 . 1 7 l (l. 11- 111171 117- - 77711111731114 7 - 17 1+ 7.. |1|7 1111.111 1 1.71 “a U7... 1“ 7 a 1 d “7. __ 7 \1/ s71 \71 .1711 e - E 1 1 .. -17\77 7. - .7.- -7-7\77 \7- .. .7.-77:77.7\ \1- \/\177-7777\1J \.-/\77 \7/ x11. 71\)\7/\./\71 l 2 3 I“ S 7 v f. 71 771 171 _ _. 77.17.7711...- .71 1-17? 2 37 3741-... l l 2 2 3 .Q-rux-Hm xx 11/77 x7771 )1\ w as _ . \7,77\7 / -7\/7777-.7.7.\-/7. .777 7--/ .\/77 (\(l-.1\r77\/1\/\/lu\(/u \7/\1.. \ \-/ ) a. 1 11.1.1 q .. Sui-1.1 .291 .3Q/ow141u7ow cw aw mm a .1 .7.-1-1 7. t mum.) H n90 .U «-1177- Pd fij AU 77. 8 7,77\/.\ C/I\/7\ €f\(\ {\II\ . . .111 1.-.... 7. mf- o... m. 7.7....o.7...77_ 77.77% W77 .77H77o77-W-7-7- v v 17 v v v . . v . . v . . v _ 7. 1 -11 .7. 3o.31.17.413.17111-4-n11111/1 2.21.31.35C/oj a a e e a e e. a 8 e a e e a e e a e e a e e a e .71 . 71.7. . c... 1.777.... v.7. on. .8 1.7771 so S V V v V v V d D .wx. doe LnaoeoeeeeeeonOOOOOOOOdafld-Mflaa aalafiulaalaalaaflaa cl .71 L 1 7.,1 . 7 : 71.. 7.“ 7- H 1%. 7n 1 h 77. h 0. h. 7.777. 7- .n 1- 70. n. n7 r rd r r a r r a r r a a d S w ..1 7 .7wzccscccgcccgc...11semensemesawwsmsammammamma . ,. .1777...l..7-77.-1.7.1.-1.-1.1..1.l.l.l..1.1 77. 1.1.17 1 1.0 11 .V .V 7. 7. V 7 C7 r 7.71 .1 .71 717. ..-. .n .77. . .7 1 U - ,71. 7... ”777.717..“ 1.77:, n... 77... A T...- 7777.. .77. A 77.7. T A A T 33 Thus. T55 T .1. 7 7. 1114 171 Table 3. Average picker yield per acre and analysis of variance, Ingham County, Experiment 102, 19517.. Rate No nitrogen side dressing Side dressed with nitrogen Grand of Hybrid Aver- Iivbrid Aver- aver- planting 350 1180 570 age 350 1.80 570 age age/3 10,063 86.2 99.17 87.6 91.1 98.3 92.1 105.3 98.6 917.9 117.7172 79.7 122.1 86.17 96.1 118.6 1141.2 119.8 126.5 111.3 19,521 120.2 1314.2 108.9 121.1 1211.1 127.6 1140.3 130.7 125.9 22,7148 85.6 111.9 100.7 99.14 118.7 139.3 127.5 128.5 1114.0 Ave. 92.9 116.9 95.9 1114.9 125.1 123.2 Grand ave. 101.91]; Grand ave. 121.1 1 Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean _ variation freedom squares square F T0931 1.7 29,373.o I'lb'brids 2 2,1;10.b, 1,205.2 2.29 Rate of Planting 3 5,871.3 1,958.3 3.73% Fertilizer 1 17,398.? 11,398.? 8.38M Hybrids 3: rates 6 1,817.17 236.2 , Hybrids x fertilizer 3 797.1 ’ 398.6 Rates x fertilizer 3 1,355.9 152.0 Rates 1: fert. x hyb. 6 5314.9 89.2 Eiror 21. 12,583.? 5214.3 1 /1 LSD for fertilizer . 13.6 b11- .. LSD for rate of planting = 19.2 bu. Table 21. Average bushels of ear corn per acre left in the field by the picker and analysis of variance, Ingham County, Experiment 102, 19511. Rate No nitrogen side dressing Side dressed with nitrggen Grand of H brid Aver- Hybrid Aver- aver- planting 390 1180 S70 age 350 7180 570 age age 10,063 6.11 11.11 7.2 6.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 11.5 111,712 5.5 .8 2.1 2.8 3.0 [[09 1108 ho3 306 19,521 7.2 6.6 8.1: 7.11 3.9 5.0 9.3 6.1 6.8 22.7118 11.5 11.6 3.5 6.5 15.0 11.5 11.9 8.1 7.3 Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F T0981 1.7 997.0 Hybrids 2 8.11 11.2 Rate of planting 3 117.5 39.2 1. 7S Fertilizer 1 1. h l. 11 Hybrids 3: rates 6 92.2 15.11 Hlfbrids x fertilizer 2 8.1 11.0 Rates 1: fertilizer 3 116.1 15.11 Rates X fert. x hYb. 6 18,101.» 3007 1037 ‘1' 11 538.9 22.5 the higher populations as well as the larger ears of the lower popula- tions. Gleanings of shelled corn left in the field by the picker were significantly larger at the higher plant populations and when side dressed with nitrogen, Table 5. Average bushels of shelled corn on the ground were 1.0, 2.7, h.1, and h.2 for the fOur populations respectively. The increase in bushels of shelled corn gleanings was largely a result of higher yields frmm the higher pOpulations and nitrogen side dressing. ~Nhen expressed as percentage of total yield, the shelled corn gleanings were 1.0, 2.3, 3.3, and 3.3 percent for the four plant populations. The differences among the three higher populations were not significant. Differences in amount of shelled corn gleanings among the three hy- brids were not significant. The early maturing hybrid, Michigan 350, did not have any higher shelled corn gleanings than the later maturing hybrids, Michigan 1.80 and 570. Ear weight decreased as the planting rate increased. Average ear weight was .7h, .63, .60, and .h9 pounds for the four populations. Aver- age ear weight tended to be higher when the corn was side dressed. The average weight of gleaned ears left by the picker tended to be smaller than the average ear weight harvested by the picker. There was an increase in the amount of stalk lodging with an in- crease in the rate of planting. There was little difference between Michigan 350, h80, and 570 in the amount of stalk lodging. There was consistently less stalk lodging for all hybrids and rates of’planting when side dressed with nitrogen. For the entire experiment, there was an average of 26.1 percent stalk breakage below the ear. The average .v. III. 1 . 11A . n n u . .. .7 u in; —~ ..m . n I I‘ll] I1! ll 3‘. I] '1 .irl, 11.. q\..-u\ Tgble So sis of variance, Ingham County, Experiment 102, 1950. Average bushels of shelled corn per acre on ground and analy- Rate No nitrogen side dressing Side dressed with nitrogen Grand of Hybrid Aver- Hybrid Aver- aver- planting 350 080 S70 age 350 050 570 age 389 2 10,063 1.1 1.2 .9 1.0 .8 .5 1.0 .9 1.0 10,702 1.3 1.9 3.1 2.1 5.7 2.1 1.6 3.2 2.6 19,521 109 1.1 302 200 11.2 hoo 305 6.2 hol 22,708 3.6 2.0 3.2 2.9 5.0 6.1 0.3 5.3 0.1 Average 2.0 1.6 2.6 5.8 3.2 2.7 Grand ave. 2.0_]_._ Grand ave. 3.9__1_ Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total ’17 1410.6 Hybrids 2 20.5 10.2 Rate of planting 3 81.2 27.1 0.00% Fertilizer l 0,2 . 3 [12 . 3 6. 87* Hybrids 3: rates 6 21.3 3.5 Hybrids x fertilizer 2 27.8 13.9 Rates at fertilizer 3 31.0 10.5 ' Rates 3: fert. x hyb. 6 38.5 6.0, Error 2h 1h7o7 6.2 1 LSD for fertilizer - 1.5 bu. 2 LSD for rate of planting = .1 bu. -10- of gleaned ears was only 0.6 percent indicating that the picker harvested most of the ears on the broken stalks. The amount of root lodging was small, averaging 2.8 percent for the experiment. There was no consistent increase in the amount of root lodg- ing with increases in rate of'planting. There appeared to be a slight increase in the percent of "clean" ears harvested as the rate of planting increased. The smaller ears from the thicker plantings were being picked as free of husk as the larger ears from the thinner plantings. -15.. Ingham County, Experiment 106 Experiment 106 was also conducted on the Michigan State College farm in a different field about a quarter of a mile west of Experiment 102. Corn in two of the four replications was side dressed with nitro- gen. The results for this experiment are presented in Table 6. Differ- ences between hybrids were highly significant, Table 7. Michigan 1.80 and 570 yielded more than Michigan 3%. Yields were significantly lower when side dressed. There was a trend toward higher yields at the 19,500 pepulation but the effect of rate of planting in this experiment was not statistically significant. The soil in this field was lighter in texture than the field for Experiment 102. It was planted eight days later and the plants showed considerable "firing" late in the growing season, much more than Experi- ment 102. Average bushels of ear corn gleaned per acre were 3.31,}..35, 6.50, and 8.96 for pOpulations of 10,023, 10,702, 19,502, and 20,160 plants per . acre, Table 8. There was a significant trend toward more bushels of gleaned ear corn at the higher plant populations. In percentage of the total yield, the gleaned ear corn averages were 3.7, 3.9, 6.3, and 9.1 percent for the four pOpulations respectively. Rate of planting did not significantly affect picker yields, Table 7. In contrast to Experi- ment 102 where there was no difference in gleaned ear corn, Experiment 106 did show an increase in gleaned ear corn at the higher planting rates where ear size was smaller. Rate of planting significantly increased picker yields in Experiment 102 while there were no significant differ- ences in picker yields for Experiment 106. Average ear weight tended to '13. 1 l 1 L 1 } l L. 14-! 4 ,_2_. . 1-. ‘ . ‘ , ' ‘-O ..L ~»\ .\4 -15- 1.1- _ .1 ...--. ...- __%_.__. C F5") «‘(LA. .Y’ <-\ a _ O O. ‘ ~- 1 ‘ _ k- I, I e ”.9. . (I J -4 --L I, . r 2 - 1.-...- ...“...L i I ' rv \ . J 3 : -:- i . l 7. 1 ~ . 12 . ill. 3 2 . e . 2 II: I O I I _ N7. all 2 - 1|. .) _ .2 l u f. ~ .., I... _ -. l. o. .r! . 1 ll. ...r 5.. .v n ... m« o. e e e e . *- 0 _ i 2 a .2 L, ..n >2 . ..., .2.. .a O. O t O tel..-::: : 1:..1 : .1112. O O O D g C ‘ . O _ . . . ......- )1. .111. ‘ e e e e.. _ ‘\ .2 11:. _. .....1: .Pl 2!- .a.. 1L ; a — _ . -.. (.... ”I: 9 e2 Pin:u:u 1!: 1L 1... _ . _ _ fl 9 l 0 IO n __ — .1 : .o i/. alt Aflf . a {[14 m\/ a); a..:/ .._ a, _ m ._ . A) 21’ 6' .6 L ave \A \«x .1 $5 «I. 2— d. I"? 1 .1 n ‘4 , “.-N— ‘.. _, Q :u r. CK LIV Ck .0 r, e w.. "I 2 .e . l . x - ...... 1 . -../3:12.... .1. _. 3. SC 2 2 l 7. 7. 0/ :4 O 34 712,... 2. 3 a...” :w 1, 3 3 3 3 38:41,”. _“-—.-’ -—-..———< v / r l I l D l 3 : f l : i 713:. 0/ Dz n31 /C e (-1 .) [\- \ I 0' HA .3 / 2D. ,0 . ,0 #31:); v r l f r.‘ l .1; J .3 .7: .... 7 .3} n]. QC e .11 7 0270 C. 3 . e e e :3. r.) f0 32 C) ..... :1firc..,:.: lir:. -.EQ.:..-::...I1|.|P.|1 O O O O O Q A. a) In. :4 3 20 3:1. O O O ,. .. _. . . . _ . .1 C . C. . O ’ _ L41 0. l 6.21.31; 2)- 2 ._.L_ gazing . . . mwtoet 1!. fl.) 3 Hfi/ C... go o o e F. .5) 9.. H). 20 .C ; 01%.... Fir: : -, a (L 7.. 1 .../w. . e e l .ww/ n1.) 1 :1...» ..JJ 7: ml. 7. Oz. 0... n5. . w _ . :1 ill! 5-219841! :lll'iw :lllxl3ll1L “ _ h , a: :. L .: . - \i. .2\||/ r( v .f\ / (e I |:.L /.4_. U .(.l... e_ e e e_, e e L e e e I. l . , 2C B... C, .-. 3. <7 3:... r . _ . . . H _ c . . I. unllltfltililiiwllvlilllili. .. ., * . (*0 v 1 ::- .-- _ _ ...? fl H271... AI.“ fly. 2 a) - (QT . -4 .L. . ‘ 14%! |:\I.D|le\ll:1| IIJWII: 1|! \IL :5. I\_ \nv/\\/ 7». .r 8. ave . T Ct 211 at“ ’ e , '3 e -_ m3 . 127:...) 2O 9.. 1:, :1... O O I ... C C O O O .... x- J. ......2 . ...? 2.. .. 1:; , I. 3. . ~ -1 ....x. - ( 1 . -.. a . , . . . .1 _ . - , .. , l :-- 31:: -51. m w . v I l . . \, M 23...!» ..Lul 1 l fill in. (T. em e 0., 0 e 0., e O o. ..l _ .- — 4. »H . .:. “ria/ ..\J\./ “4!.L4r“). ‘./~r HIMWVW \ .,,2. J [RU C. ......J. l 0/ C... __ l _ . - - t 5* I :-: w ........ 1:... l l l l 0.0.371. 98.90720” 0 e e. e o e e e e e”. ,2... 1: ..I O L 11 2 7. 7,1 1,-) ...: .. {a _\/\ .iJ , l f\\«, AU . . . _ (‘1 C ota 0 370 ave. if ‘ an a. l TOtal ave. T 57 I‘O C‘E’n. 0 —— 1 e -U 1'11 ‘ :\, U. r q ._ 9. v“ .4 ->« ... . : . ~., g o . a. n . . A... ...r .4 fl. .. . . fill In. 01‘ -1 O 0 0A .1 . .. If. u..\ _. ‘ L -17- Table 7. Average picker yield per acre and analysis of variance, Ingham County, Experiment 106, 195h. Rate No nitrogen side dressing Side dressed with nitrogen Grand of Hybrid Aver- Hybrid Aver- aver- planting 350 1180 §70 age 350 [180 370 age age 10,023 77.8 102.3 108.8 96.2 78.8 82.0 88.7 81.8 89.0 1b,?h2 73.7 105.2 122.0 100.3 78.3 81.1 87.3 82.2 91.3 19,512 88.6 115.6 118.2 116.1 76.7 82.0 90.8 83.0 99.6 2h,16o 6h.3 89.8 92.8 82.2 7h.6 87.3 111.0 91.0 86.6 Ave.zg_ 76.0 103.1 117.0 76.1 83.1 9h.h Grand average 98.71]; Grand average 811.511 Analysis of variance . Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares ‘ square F Total h? 25,9030 Ithrids 2 7,052.1 3,526.1 8.3** Rate of planting 3 1,150.6 383.5 Fertilizer l 2 , ’1114.0 2 , 11111.0 5. 7H Hybrids 3: rates 6 215.3 35.9 Hybrids x fertilizer 2 1,237.0 618. 1.11 Rates 1: fertilizer 3 2,703.9 901.3 2.1 Rates 1: fert. x hyb. 6 889.2 1118.2 Error 21; 10,2109 1126. [3: ISD for fertilizer . 12.2 bu. (g; LSD for hybrids = 15.0 bu. -13- Table 8. Average bushels of ear corn per acre left in field by picker and analysis of variance, Ingham.County, Experiment 106, l95h. Rate No nitrogen side dressing Side dressed with nitrogen Grand of Hybrid Aver- flybrid Aver- aver- planting. 350 4380 570 age 350 GLBO S70 age age 1 10,023 3.9 21.5 .0 3.8 2.9 3.5 6.0 h.0 lh,7h2 7.1 h.h .7 5.1 b.l 3.3 8.1 h.O 19,5112 6.2 11.3 .8 6.8 3.11 9.9 6.0 6.6 211,160 100,-.- 10.5 .1 903 801‘- 8.6 809 900 Ave. 6.9 7.7 11.2 21.7 6.3 6.2 Grand ave. 6.3 Grand ave. Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total in 701.6 Hybrids 2 111.3 7.1 Rate of'planting 3 22L.l 7h.7 6,o9** Fertilizer 1 .3 .3 Itfbrids x rates 6 109.2 18.2 1.b8 Itfbrids x fertilizer 2 37.h 18.7 1.53 Rates x fertilizer 3 13.7 h.6 Rates x fert. x hyb. 6 8.3 1.h Error 2h 298.3 12.3 L); LSD for rate of planting - 2.9 bu. I.-i.l.|ll"¥jl’l I be slightly lower in Experiment 106. Average bushels per acre of gleaned shelled corn were .6, 2.0, 2.2, and 5.7 for the four planting rates, Table 9. Shelled corn gleanings were significantly higher for the 211,160 plant rate than for the other three populations. In percentage of total yield, the losses were .7, 2.0, 2.2, and 5.8 percent respectively. As in Experiment 102, the thicker plantings tended to have slightly more shelled corn gleanings than the thinner planting. In most cases, the average weight per gleaned ear was smaller than the average ear weight for harvested ears. The percentage of stalk lodging increased with the higher rates of planting and tended to be higher where plots were side dressed. The average stalk lodging for the entire experiment was 25.0 percent. The amount of root lodging was small, averaging only 2.0 percent, and was not affected consistently by any of the treatments. As in cheriment 102, picker losses did not appear to be affected to any appreciable ex- tent by the amount of stalk lodging or root lodging. The average percentages of "clean" picked ears for the three higher planting rates were higher than the average for the lower rate, as in Ebcperiment 102, showing that ears from thicker stands were picked as "clean" or cleaner than those from thinner stands. For both experiments, the variety differences were small and incon- sistent for such characteristics as gleaned ears, gleaned shelled corn, and "cleanness" of picking showing that the early maturing hybrid was harvested as effectively and cleanly as the later maturing hybrids. Both experiments were picked by the same Operator with the same -20- Table 9. Average bushels of shelled corn per acre on ground and analysis of variance, Ingham County, Experiment 106, 19%. Rate No nitrogen side dressing Side dressed with nitrogen Grand of b Hybrid Aver- r 7 Hybrid Aver- aver- planting 350 1180 570 age 3'30 1180 570 age agez‘l 10,023 .5 1.1; .3 .7 .6 .6 .11 .5 .6 111.7112 1.6 1.3 3.2 2.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 19,512 11.5 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.2 2.2 211,160 9.7 2.0 7.9 6.5 3.7 6.8 11.0 11.8 5.7 Ave. 11.1 1'6_3L 3.1”» g“. 1.9 3.0 2.6____M __ Grand ave. 2.9 Grand ave. 2.h Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total 87 1171.7 Rate of planting 3 163.8 511.6 6.6738(- Fertilizer 1 3.11 3.1; Hybrids x rates 6 19.9 3.3 Hybrids x fertilizer 2 27.1 13.6 1.66 Rates at fertilizer 3 6.2 3.1 Rates x fert. x hyb. 6 51.1 8.5 1.0L; Error ' ‘21; 196.3 8.2 a LSD for rate of planting = 2.11 bu. -21- John Deere one-row picker. Experiment 106 was planted eight days later and harvested eleven days later than Experiment 102. The quality of harvest in terms of gleaned corn and "cleanness" of picking were very similar in both experiments. a .7! -22- Saginaw County, Experiment 103 Experiment 103, Table 10, was conducted in Saginaw County near Reese on the farm of Walter Reinbold. There was no nitrogen side dressing on this experiment. There were significant differences in picker yields among the three hybrids, but there were no significant differences due to rates of planting. Corn yields at this location were reduced because of dry weather conditions. The average yield for the experiment was 76.? bushels per acre from the picker. Yields have averaged well over 100 bushels per acre in experiments conducted on this farm during the previous six years when rainfall was more adequate. Similar rate of planting experiments on this farm during the previous five years showed marked increases in corn yields as stand was increased up to about 20,000 plants per acre. While there was no increase in yield at the thicker stands, it is very significant that there was no decrease in yield with the thicker plant- ing. If moisture had been more plentiful, it is very likely that yields would have increased at the higher plant populations. The operator and the picker did a very good job of harvesting at this location. The average gleaned ear corn was only 1.2 bushels or 1.5 . percent. of the total yield. Average gleaned shelled corn was 3.5 bushels or h.h percent of thetotal, and ears were picked 92.14 percent clean. Gleaned ear corn was not affected significantly by any of the treat- ments, Table 12. There was significantly more gleaned shelled corn with 22 ,683 plants per acre than with the other three populations. Differ- ences in gleaned shelled corn with 10,14176, lb, 366, and 18,093 plants per acre were not significant. . ~ . U Lu 1 ..e- .- "~ 1‘ I‘ 1. v A 0 x 1 TL .1. .1. .. .... , ~ F74 .va v.1 11. J - i _ 4 11. 1. i I x A . W. T. l. . , 1.. L .“ ... n». 1' 1 .. 1 T... ' 1 I. .iL \ _ A V o a s . V t .11 l .L Q. \ fir ., O . I . . .1. w. 0 c . . r l‘ \l r. . 7. 1 a I . 1 o .6 . l I .~ . . Vi‘ !/ ‘1 . ..1 It 0‘ ’ V11. 11‘ ‘ Y I v \ WA a \IV ..4 ‘11 . .I a . .1 I L L A. . 4 1,4 .I , n u .10. .1 AF . 1 . ..D . a . .0 a». 71. r. J. . a . . )U a." ‘1‘ V. 1 . N . at k L r .. \ 1 . .: an ‘1 l L 1 a « r A 1 .. . ... K J i K .1“ a r \1. V.‘ v .1 . «1 L. 2 w. ..a . a a 1; . us 4 N . . n. 1.. . D. ., .rk . . ..1. ... . ._ 1 _ .... v a .1 .r. 3‘ 5~ _ . VIL .‘ u“ L\ a . q . a 1 o .. 4 ‘I . 1 a , V \ . . .r. . . _ ... 1 . . . . . ‘A a). a l c l 1 \l. .. t I. a 74 r... x. I . I . a v .7. ., . _ x A . . ... \1 1a 1 I .1... ’3 . h L7..‘\I .- a ‘11), 111. Is; ..»--‘.. ..___..._._ _11 - ..1 1...~_ -- —‘—— ”.-.l..- +__._-—-———._..._.- —»~—~» ‘. A... _L..t' .1 1.11101 4.! (0.1 ‘6; I10171b ..ffl_.11 _( a 1. .\/ 7 1.{. o e o e 14 1 ..1 , 0 O ,, r \J .1. f (in. . I. b o o o 1 a J 11.. 1 1 sf! .1 .. _ .31. -..... {J 1 Km. N4 9. r) 11,. .. m ..14. .. .I .o o 1 O 1 1 +1 11 1,1 .I. 1I1 I.1..I.1lb11 1I111||i 11M... 1 . a) . ._ ...; _ 11+ 3 1.)- ,, ¢ 7.4 Q 0 O H C A... Q C u 1 o o o e 7) 3w. 7.1. H) 1 , '2' >02 ,2 .v 1 .1 I 1 1 .-..-. --w..-_a._.~--+-__—__.~__—. .— l 1 I I 1 l I |11 *Il 1 I 1 ‘1' l .1 < . 2 _ 7 O D I § 0 III .... '4. ..{I r ..k 5L l r 1 1! r11 7! W /.1_. .2U _ . x «27/ 11.1.. 5/, ..., . 7I 3 A. v {D 71 9 9 7. 3 1.1.“ , .. a 9g 4!.“ 1; 111.— 5 _ 1 1| I I 1.L1.|111 1 1 1 \II/ \11/ \./ 2 .33, 1111.. {-x (. /I\\ 0 .. . _. .. W... V» a n .9... .1 . ml m1. m1. at. m... C fl; V. v. ....J 3L). ....‘n 1..a ...u «1‘... T1 --1 111.1111 0/ b D . . 41.1,, . II n), _ ..I/L L11 '7 - I 1'4- , J L 1+ _ O O _ I, ..1.. z 1 . r\ r ”/1. .I _ 5 1 Li...“ C" 90 . 7 t- .-....-. ....--_ -__.~.._.- I t l I 1 l I I "_‘ 16,611 Iciltl 9’!) ' ‘1'0 « V. 1’. a’kt'IE'. A :1 15 0 5 70 Table 11. Average picker yield per acre and analysis of variance, Saginaw County, Experiment 103, 19511. Rate . of Hybrid Aver- planting 350 880 S70 age 10,886 68.8 78.5 85.3 76.2 18,366 69.9 80.0 83.6 77.8 18,093 70.7 78.7 86.5 78.6 22,683 61.1 72.8 89.1 78.2 Avail 67.6 76.8 86.1 Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total 87 8,978.7 Hybrids 2 2,738.7 1,367.8 17.1** Rate of planting 3 1110.0 116. 7 Replications 3 3,150.8 1,050.1 13.2%!- Hybrids x rates 6 3111. 9 52 . 5 MOT 33 29631107 79.8 L1 LSD for hybrids = 6.3 bu. -25- Table 12. Average bushels per acre of gleaned ear corn and analysis of variance, Saginaw County, Ebcperiment 103, 19511. R228 Hybrid Aver- planting 350 880 570 age 10, 886 . 9 . 5 . 8 . 6 111, 366 1. 7 . 7 . 3 . 9 18,093 3.0 1.6 1.0 1.9 22,683 .9 1.5 1.7 1.8 Ave . l. 6 1. 1 . 9 Analysis of variance I Degrees Source of of mm of Mean variation 1 freedom squares square F Total 117 119.8 Hybrids 2 5. 1 2 . S . 96 Rate of planting 3 10. 5 3. 5 1. 33 Replications 3 8.1 2. 7 1.00 Hybrids 3: rates 6 9. 3 1.6 . 59 Error 33 86. 9 2. 6 -26- Table 13. Average bushels of shelled corn per acre on ground and analysis of variance, Saginaw County, EXperiment 103, 19511. R228 Hybrid Aver— planting 350 1180 570 age 1 10,8116 1.8 5.8 2.6 3.11 18.366 3.2 3.1 2.5 2.9 18,093 2.9 3.5 2.5 . 3.0 22,683 6.7 11.8 7.3 6.3 Ave. 3.6 11.3 3.8 Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total 87 528.8 Hybrids 2 ' 3.9 2.0 Rate of Planting 3 91.7 30.6 3.07% Replications 3 56. 5 l8 . 8 1. 89 Hybrids x rates 6 117.7 7.9 Error 33 329.0 10.0 [-1- LSD for rate of planting = 2.3 bu. -27- The picker harvested the small ears averaging only .32 pounds per ear as effectively as the larger ears. As in the previous experiments, the gleaned ears were slightly smaller in size than the harvested ears. Stalk lodging increased as rate of planting increased. The experi— ment averaged 13.5 percent broken stalks. Root lodging percentages were very low and of no significance. Again, lodging did not seem to cause any appreciable loss of corn in harvest. Also, there was no evidence that thicker stands contributed to the percentage of "dirty" ears (those enclosed in husks) in harvest. Small ears were picked as "clean" as ~ large ears. -28.. Monroe County, Ebcperiment 108 This experiment was conducted in Monroe County near Ottawa Lake on the farm of Edward Brodbeck. The results are presented in Table 114. The picker yield analysis, Table 15, shows that hybrids were the only significant factor affecting yield. Michigan 570 yielded more than the 1180 or 350, while Michigan 1180 yielded more than 350. The average picker yield for this experiment was 69.8 bushels. Pro- longed dry weather was a factor in failure to obtain significant increases in yield from the thicker plantings. Again, it is encouraging that the thicker stands did not lead to any decrease in yield. With adequate moisture, it is likely that yields would have increased at some of the higher populations . The amount of gleaned ear corn was low, averaging 2.9 bushels or 3. 5 percent of the total yield. Rates of planting and hybrids signifi- cantly affected the amount of gleaned ear corn. Bushels of gleaned ear corn per acre averaged .95, 3.08, 3.71, and 3.63 for populations of 11,1163, 15,2911, 18,8118, and 21,261; plants per acre respectively. The three higher rates had more gleaned ear corn than the lower rate. The losses were 1.0, 3.1, 3.7,. and 3.6 percent of the total yield for the four rates of planting respectively. Analysis for shelled corn left in the field, Table 17, shows that there was no significance between the amount of gleaned shelled corn for any of the treatments. Shelled corn losses were high, averaging 8.8 bushels per acre or 10.9 percent of the total yield. Size of harvested ears decreased with increases in rate of planting. 7Q- .7 . u . ; . . . _.§ 7. 1 t _ 1 _ . 1 _ 1.. _ . A . 1. .1 i, . y a 1 . 1. a . . .A .1 a 3 1 — 1.. . LL 1 1 . x .1. O . . v 1‘ _ 1 ., _ . r1. 1 ‘4 , . . . ... A. O I 0 1. .... . I; .91. 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 . .1 1 d. I V I 11. .w -1. v i I O 3 1|. . 1 a 1 1.111 . .. r O O o l s a . 1 .1 \1L . o W o .. c a O o O O C O a. r. \L .11. .11. .11. . 1 1O 1» 1. x. C O 0 0 (2.\ 1+ 1 .1 r . \- \ . l . . I I I o 1 a a I e O , . . o o o c 4‘ _ . . u A Q \ Q t 1 . . a . . . . x 1 a . | u 1 I a. p) Q 11. 1 1 .1 . ‘11 r/I1 .. ..I. 11..) _ ..11 _ .....1/ .... ._ «x11. / . C; (I... 11.1... 0 O O o O a e b C O D , . ~11 ,1... .12 . O. 1 1.111 .r._ , _ 1 F1. 71 L . x . 1. H . 2 . x .11. 1! ....I/ J, ..1/ _ , 1. ml: fr). . -- 1 11 - 1 ..- 1. 1 .. . -11 111.1-1 - 11.1.1-1 1 -- 1 1111.1 1111.7 .. --. 1,. , .1. .-.1. .1 .... -..... 1... .71 . O... 2 o o o . a . o a O n o o O 71 ;. 1.. . , . . he. 12 11. .. -..u r1 0 y I . I. h 10 . C1/ 211 h! . “.... h 1. . . _ . I. .. 11.111. 1. l .1 1,117,111 .. .Iltii .I . 1 .111 1.1 111 .1 11 . 1 1 1 1111!: .57111k11‘1'1r111 1|... '1 III. I 111‘. 111111-11; 8.1.1.111..- 1.111. - 1, . . - - . 1 .1 51...! 11.1., / C . C .0. O O . . .I . . I 1. o/III .. r\;1. . hut. ’J / ..Jh' ~1. .1 m J») 1 1 1 1 1 1? I11 «1 I11 11 1 I 1 I 11 ‘1 11 I I l 0 1 . 1 1 11111 11 017111111; ‘11 11111 1.9! 1 I 1 II -1 I11 ..1 I 111111 6.1. . 1'11 1 III 111V . 1 1. . ,. a .1 . \..f, . .1. /. A r P . 0 O i O O O C .v 0 I O 1 . v _ . .. _ . 1- . .1. .1 1. . ,0 1-.. C. .1 . .- x _ 111 1.. 111. 1 1.1. I . I .. . . .1 . z \1/ a 1, a .7 1/1 I. 11 ir 1-. . 1. rum - . - 1 11.. . 3 . D i O C o C O O Q C O . . - 1 - :1. - 1. . .. . .. . . . u i _ a . . «a . .. . 1 _ 1 .. I». .1. 1 . . I\ a v _ m 1,. . 11 . J 1). 1. a) 1 . _ , 1 11 1 11. . . t n I n O G O 0 O O . . . 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 II 11. . . . :09 9| 1| 1 III: 1 11.1171 '1 1 111 11 1 1. 1' 111:7,9'1 _ . . . - . ..-- w ..-. .. -1.. . .- .- O 0 I C m C O O O . I O O . . .. W I . . E n . M C _ .1/1. ,7. / .\11. 111”. . .1. .. 1|. r l . «1|. .. «IL .11.. . 1. . . , . . . ~ . . 1. 1‘1 Illlnr 1115111 111! 1 II 1011 (I 11111 111.1 I O . . x‘ O "- . .1 .1. 1 11, _. _. - n a . ... 3-.. , ., . «L .1. , . . e O O . o O I O O O O 1| A. 1 . ..1/ 11. a . 1111 1 54). n1 _ 11.1. --. .. . , _ 1 1 ...I ,1). .1 3. x1. 1 . . 1 . . . . o O Q o O o e O . 0 0 O . . , . . _ . l . _ 1 n g . a q: a A. — A11 9 .. AIL 111MIA+ Q 1 1 —~o-.."'—m - 1 1' 1 l I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 . . .11.. F... . .. 1-1 1 ,/1 n10 O o a o _ o ., o o e o e e e . . n .. w... 9,. 1 1. 0.. PU. "/1 1 .- a 1 r I. 6 A 71 m .1. ../11 . .131 w /\ 7.. .../1 - 1. 11111.11. .-.- 111.1111 - 11.1.1-2-11.11-11-11111. 11 1. + I . 1.... -....- . . 1.111111 1.11.. .. m . .-. .. .1. . a... 11.. . 1... O O/ 1 1 . .. 1 , -_ C/ 1... .fl. .. a. T). K... 1 . .3. . 1-.. 9.. a. 9,. 9.. 1.11 1P. 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1. 1.1-. . 1 . _ l . D ( 1 .11.. . firm. Hz]. /m1. .. . .. . . . . . 1. 1 . fl. . . . -1 1.1. . . .. _. . . _ . \ \11 I; i . .v .2 . «z .. 1 w . . m 1 /1\ ,_ .\11/ > \1/ \11/ .. _ 0 w a . a); .4 .. 11o.v _ A . . 1. . A-» .. 11.7. . r 11\ .11. /I1\ /...\ . . .11. .- 1 ..w .1 n . .. . o e o . Z . ,, ,1 . . a ._ e e, e e . e. e e . .. . . . . v... fi ... . . v1 . x P. .11». ... .1 1 s .1 7.. c O O . . . 31.. a T.“ a _. ....” . .1. 11%.. _. . 1 . .... 1 n.. . r w. ..I. r . . a c w a C .1 1 a... c. e e 010 G1 b NJ 1 1 .11. . _ a .-1 r. ».\ .1 1C) A ‘ 7:1. . L .... . . a s VL ? I (. . . . . .1 o A .n. 1A .2. 1. H3 Table 15. Average picker yields per acre and analysis of variance, Monroe County, Experiment 1011, 195b,. R328 Hybrid Aver- planting { 350 1180 570 age 11,1163 60.0 76.1 79.8 72.0 15,2911 65.11 68.7 78.8 71.0 18,81111 61‘1.6 76.6 75.5 72.2 21,2611 60.3 58.11 73.7 624.1 Ave. E 62.6 70.0 77.0 Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of ' Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total 117 11,999.37 Hybrids 2 1,650.7 825.14 12.6** Rate of planting 3 528.6 176.2 2.7 Replications 3 128 . O 112 . 7 Hybrids 1: rates 6 535.5 89.3 1.1; Error 33 2,157.1 65.11 Z]; LSD for hybrids = 5.8 bu. -31- Table 16. Average bushels of gleaned ear corn per acre and analysis of variance, Monroe County, Experiment. 101;, 1951;. R2123 W planting 350 1:80 570 age 2 11,1;63 1.5 .0 1.1. 1.0 15,291; 5.0 .9 3.h 3.1 18,8hh 2.5 1.7 6.9 3.7 21,261; 2.5 3.8 h.6 3.6 Ave. A 2 . 9 1. 6 h. 1 Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total 117 353. h Hybrids 2 19 . 3 2h. 7 S. 1361* Rate of planting 3 60.1; 20. 1 1;. 19-21-11- . Replications 3 22 . 3 7. h 1. 55 Hybrids x rates 6 62 . 5 10. h 2. 17 Error 33 158 . 8 h. 8 A]; LSD for hybrids = 1.6 bu. [g 13D for rate of planting = 1.8 bu. -32- Table 17. Average bushels of shelled corn per acre on ground and analysis of variance, Monroe County, Experiment 101;, 1951;. R226 Hybrid Aver- planting 350 LBO S70 age 11.h63 8.8 6.0 5.1 6.6 15,291: 8.5 9.7 6.1 8.1 18,8111; 10.5 10.11 7.2 9.34 21,26h 11.5 10.9 11.h 11.3 Ave. 9.8 9.3 7.5 Analysis of variance Degrees - Source of of Sum of Mean intriation freedom squares square F Total ’47 908.9 Hybrids 2 118.2 211.1 1.22 Rate of planting 3 138.2 116.1 2.32 Replications 3 3h.9 11.6 .58 Hybrids x rates 6 33.9 5.7 .29 Error 33 653.8 19.8 -33.. The size of gleaned ears was generally smaller than harvested ears. The amnum.of stalk lodging increased with increases in rates of'planting. Stalk lodging averaged 12.9 percent for the experiment. While gleaned ear corn increased at the higher rates where there was more stalk lodg- ing, it does not appear that the amount of stalk lodging was a serious factor in harvesting losses. The amount of root lodging in.most cases was rather low and was not a factor in harvest losses. There was no consistent increase in root lodging with increases in rate of planting. There were no consistent differences in the percentages of "clean" picked ears. The thicker stands with smaller ears were picked as "clean" as the thinner stands with larger ears. Kent County, Experiment 105 Two replications were planted in Kent County near Alto on the farm of Albert and Marvin Porritt. Dry weather was again a factor in cutting corn yields. Results of this experiment are given in Table 18. Analysis of picker yields, Table 19, shows that yield was not sig- nificantly affected by any of the treatments. Gleaned ear corn averaged 1.5, 2.3, h.7, and h.9 bushels per acre for the four populations, Table 20. In percentage of the total yield, the losses were 2.h, 3.6, 6.6, and 8.h respectively. Gleaned ear corn increased as the plant population increased and as ear size decreased. Gleaned shelled corn was again higher than gleaned ear corn, Table 21. Average gleanings of shelled corn were 3.7, 2.5, 7.h, and 6.3 bushels per acre for the four planting rates. These losses averaged 5.9, h.0, 10.0, and 19.2 percent of the total yields respectively. Shelled corn losses were higher for the thicker stands. Ear size decreased with the rate of planting and size of gleaned ears was smaller than that for harvested ears, showing that the picker was leaving the smaller ears. Stalk lodging increased with rate of planting, averaging 26.5 per- cent for the experiment. Again, stalk lodging was not a.major factor in picker losses since the percentage of gleaned ear corn was low in com- parison to the percentage of stalk lodging. There was more root lodging at the three thicker planting rates but the percentages were generally'low. The amount of root lodging did not appear to be a factor in harvest losses. § ..... in... .. -35- ... \ . . . 7‘ _ ‘ , ~\"‘L “. e: L. .\ a “V - L 1’ W. .‘ -. n \ ‘ i..." ‘_‘ _‘ . _ “‘4 ‘ . F '_. ‘ 7‘ .1 1a¢le L , Ar.r;~v *wsu.:i . r 5.111 H,;..1s as 1 1: 1111. pn1L11o1Uh., newt counts, gain ,311A.1C , 1wna. . a 0 ,- J. H 1 1 1 '1‘ ‘“ “** 1 1 ' ' .1. 1‘: 1' ‘1'”"“‘"" 7‘ v- V : ‘7, ~ I ‘A‘ . y ‘ ‘ . i’ *. >" I ' ,. 1 'Vv 7:; A ’1 ‘ ‘A ' ~ . N ‘I ‘- 1, ‘ TC. 3.1 ' lunar? . -.';tfrl.'.t:'.i '11€.L-( (l . -. . I :1 .19. 1 I thk-..o 1‘ i 1‘ 1 r8} 1 ? u ‘ I . < ~‘ _ | g - ‘ - ~.\F . ._ ‘ ' > ‘ I f ‘ A ’. .L .. .... ' ' l '161": ' '.__.~L_l; 1‘ (Xi. :7. J, ‘ 1"71‘ILL1 31.9116”. . E'CI‘CUF_L C 1‘ {-8.17 . 5101-3" 5 (‘5th Cilia 1 I 61" 1 : r . . *1 '.. , ‘ ‘. . ‘. - "‘ 1 . , .... ‘ .. .. 2 , , . i ._ , 1 . 1. l .» .'- ’V 2", ., . A. 3 ,‘ a _.L 4-”: '. -Z.‘“'Lt is 1 ...:fi; .21: .11.: ....s 1 12.-.-.1 1 corn gleanei .t, wt. ~ ture 1 3.3.1.1. 100.. 1 cent- 1 xezcent .1 tercent - . 2 A 1 ’ 2 .fi .- .. ‘ - 1 ,1... .,.. i 1. ' 1,1 -. . 11 5 :1. ~ 1 1 3; he? . Ltl ;wr Czr 1>usuels ShtllCd1plfgyT : :l. in ‘13” - , lodg- . CTGCU 3'ciean : dircy’ . clantixf ' 12:9 : a;;c acra ®=rn jn/acre corn field 1 corn } oars 1ng 1 ing Iplants 1 ea.s ; ears .. A ‘ 1 . ' ‘ ‘_1.._- -- —- . .. - . ”...--.-..__1..__ -... -. - - - .--1..- ---“...1»-.- .--. - . . . . a L 1- ....— ‘T'—”"' __._,.._..,.._...._.._,_11......".., _,__._.-....-_..,--._.-. r ' 1 I 1 1 ; \ -1 l ‘ .1 ‘ l W t‘\ n ' J ’ I ' I ) P‘ ' r . f (‘ ' I " t ' / " ij... ‘ ~ \ _ . 7L\ . “ :7 '7L. _' | -- Q - I O 7,1 g - . ‘1 -_.E| (- . -/‘ . l‘x_. ' . _; ,’ i l. 1‘ . ~ } 1‘ . C,’ ‘ . \'.I : ‘.._ L— . 4 ‘ -', .1... \_.4 i .1.\/ . v) , , . l 1 , 1 ' 1 . ‘ . 1 1 1 ‘ 4 1 , , ~ ~ «1 1 A. r ' -- ~ , 7 -- = *1 1 or.” 1 >1. - '7': -1 1 , '. ,1 1 a ‘lC ‘ - ) — 1’3/1' "(I — o 1 .‘V‘ a ' 1 {0L 2 , o 3 0 -.~- 051/ 1 L o 1" ,1 i— 'o J . lol~ 1...; ,' w,‘e-v 1 lb.“ 1 1 3 1 , ' g 1 1 , , ‘ a . -‘ 1 " 1 ‘ f 1 "‘ 1 ‘ 1 ‘ f1 0 ; I ” ..« 3 I /7 Q‘ 0 ./ ,>\ J ,-I_:‘-', 1(0 ’10- c o L'... ' l1. 01 c 4». .' _ o 101 J .1 \Jvo,’ I /’07 . , . l I 1 | ' ‘ / 1 ,..J r ( r "' . A \ - ... a 4 k ‘N f v: f I f) “13*. :“ a) ~9C~1 e- ) 0»— 70L— ’.‘ 1: '20,; " ‘ ‘ J _- )‘( 3 'O 'H l R'“; .' (KW ’ l .r ; ’ ' l l 1 f' l . 3 w 1 t ..r I 1 -. I , J A \r 1 .. \ 1 - r — .. fl ,,. '7 1 C . ’ ”Di - 1'13 0 —. KL) ’.’~.: . ‘ a 10— ! L. 1 “'0:- E (0" 0 04L) ‘~‘ 0) 1%. 1 7*! I C'/’ . “J11? i J/A) 1 1 | I ‘ 1 , i I - ' | ( / 35-. A I.“ -« Y H « rt 4 g L" ’ 1 ) '1 ’3 l ‘ / '1( ‘ 1 1 : 7 (W i" '7 O]. '3 1 CE“. 1‘; m L); -' r o 1 7 o . 1;. } 1 .-». E (.7 l “'0‘,- o - o,‘ II‘/ t -— o 1 | O\ 1 110/ (...! ' ‘-"O./ C | E I ‘ V 1 I: I . . . . 1 1 - 1 » 2 I ’ ’ 1 r» N o ' o a . 1 , ~ - / n «.1 r 1 1 ~ .1 1 1 1 1 1 . . 1 1,1 . “-1210 wa (T) :— ):Kp; ’ .l “ (1 +04 2 'ol I r1.i : )e'o‘ - ) .-4 ‘ L—Jc ’ ' 0,) ; 0’3 /0.4. 1 by." f --O~ 1 1 I I 1 1 ’I k 1 1 1 .' 1 -- ‘ 1 1 1H ... -- ’1’ 1n—' 4 - '14 i m o 01'“ 3 r 1 , 1 1h ’ I a\ i , . ) D \ . {i C L l 1 1:7 ,_ . ... a; | .13.. gr“ (L) j ,C)L q ./ 3 .9 ... . 1,.“ , 5.1 E ..3 ,1) ,5 ‘ 1,, 1 g,,, , 1.9 i W ,) 1 {,., , 2g.( 1 1 ‘ : 1 I ‘, n 1 . , 1 I ,4 1 1 l p r , - : ,_) . ‘~ H” /~\ « ,, H J 4 ~ A 1 1. ~ 1 ’ 1 " n s 4 , 1 s o a r9 9 ; 1 P ‘_‘C . :10 1“} i Y’vkj’l . ‘\/. .:1 . .L . f L,.: If ‘0‘» Cu? .‘\_)O (O) I; 1-3.13 OJ 1‘ \(J‘ l ‘ L—QL- % ”(CV ; . 1 1 1 1 1 ’ 1 1 . o l 1 l 1 . 1 I 4 / I n ' I“! F‘) 3 l, n ‘ ‘ a I f \ .4” r-Jr"! . I“ I 1‘ " ' ’1 r.) v —'A I) C . ’\ 1 g ' ' 2) O J 2C“ f' r1 H n n . . .1 ‘1 ) -. 1 . , ‘ . I V ’ ) ‘ I i I 1 '. , z 1 I f I ‘ 3 ‘ ( ‘ I“ . ’- ’\ r\ 1 '\ 3 /;—J , (’1 ‘1'. 7.5 'J‘-~,. p, - F A re /' I\ ' ’ r“ 1 ‘ ‘ } 3’) I ‘ If) f) I ( .‘ 'r‘ F J"‘lC‘le Dinb‘ \_‘1 i lL,T/—3 '1 I! o" k -. 303 ‘ 340:) I ”‘ch (.4 ‘jJ‘ ° )1 l JL‘0J I ‘5‘07 , 12“ i 0).]- ! V10]- lVO9 ? 1 ‘ 1 ’ 1 , 5 . . ‘ ' ' ' 1 1 ' i 1 ' 1 i ‘ 1 ... . ' _ - 1 I 1 a " " 1 P1 1 ’1") ‘ ’2') ‘ : v—Ir-I , '70 ’9 I . :- 7o ' 1 ' 2-1 /'“, 1 1 '. o .: A '1 1 1 3 ’ - 1 ' 1 C ' 1.10/11. )(J {ll/1 1' 21.3-‘Lt2 C(01- f >201 ‘ £3.03- ! ‘v'oJ i 17.9 . 1'.C .H' .C’ ' ’I" «'{°]‘ 1 7.9 3 DJOO ’/0 F 2002 1 . . ' I I K‘W“~->M-H_Ul. . _ _ A L 1‘". .,l_-__i_,.. _ .__---_- -. -- _. ...--- _. .4. T: +— 4.....- a - .. -_ ....— 1...... «.- ~4+ -—-~—- -—— ,iil-...-..--.._.._.-._+_.. .- ~~~~ ~1~ - ~» ~' ---—~ +-~—«»—~ ‘r’“*““"“*' n 1 s . r . 1 , 5 ‘ ‘- - r , ,- ‘ P’s r i 1.- 1 " 5 1' "1 9’ o o. r’ . 1 o ' fr 1" ,, r“ a 5 bran/:1 83:5. 17,01- 1 '1 DZ,.8 ‘33). ‘ ' “0.: : 0:2 ; D00 1 ’0 0‘4! ‘ 031— -C. (~60 J ; L1». J 1 070 \ i0.) I 2.). I : . I l 1 1 1 1 - - N 1 _" '-‘ *A-H_ -‘ ‘ f l .5.- _~ . - _ J. . _ L _. .1 A_ V? ...v..... - .. . M‘Pvfip-c‘n-mm .._14_.- f T 1 T " i r, - a ‘f '3 - ~ , \ A ’ r ,c 1 i r) 1 f r7 ' C . Hf v v t , :1 gm s , Iwera?e 211 10,oo3 1 02.c ; S7.o ; 1.5 1 1.1 1 3.1 1 2.9 . ->3 1 ~2¢ ”l-l L“°“ : 1') “3'9 7"0 23‘0 i i 3 I , 1 , 1 , 1 1 ! L i 1 I 1 V 1 2 1 _ ~ . , , 1 e, 1 r 1 C ? .-, ’ c2 1 / 1 c / \ ... 2,. ' 1 r2 ’ : o e 2 1 '4 .1" r '3 9: . 1 1 A, .» Arcra’ge \2} 13,730 t)(_j.4 3 ’)(.:3 i L..3 :.L/ C..t) 2;.0 .4" .Jr Wl-rCG 21." }'.6 {3. v .7OLL 22.\) o- . ...—.--.-- .’Y\ ~J o C: P C) o O o L. \i ' 1 \JJ :3 1 1 Average (3) 13,16 1 71.2 ’ 59.1 1.1.? 1 6. 1 5 2g09 121105 1542 51103 78.6 Qloh Average (h 23,676 \-~-____ , . _ a“ _. —- A 4; 350 Ave. 16,698 66.3 553.9 11.5 6.7 5.9 5.3 «3117-1 : -39 22.8 29.0 1.7 69.3 79.6 20.h 1&0 Ave. 16,9h0 61.h 5h.h 3.3 V E 3.7 6.2 .hC ' .33 26.6 27.1 h.2 68.7 70.5 29.5 79.1 20.9 o [\3 he) 10 \O o O [\D 1L0 0 UL CA 0 O 1.4 10 0 U1 570 Ave- 17,606 6.1.1.9 57.111 2.2 J 3.2 5.3 5-1 50 ~---—- 1 Lvm.«. o~v--M. Mun u— Table 19. Averare picker yields per acre and analysis of variance, Kent County, Experiment 105, 19514. h 5 '57-me R2? Hybrid .....- planting 350 . h80 570 age 10,003 56.3 63.1 53.5 57.6 15,730 55.1 59.8 58.0 57.9 18,916 57.2 55.9 611.2 59.1 23,676 55.1 38.9 511.1 119.11 Ave. 55.9 511.11 57.5 . Analysis of variance Degrees - Source of of Sum of Mean 'variation freedom. squares square F Total 23 2,256.0 Hybrids 2 37. O 18 . 5 . 16 Rate of planting 3 351.7 117.2 1.00 Replications 1 78.5 78.5 .66 Hybrids at rates 6 1193.7 82.3 .69 Error 11 1,295.1 117.7 Table 20. Average bushels of gleaned ear corn per acre and analysis of variance, Kent. County, Experiment 105, 1951;. R2? I-brbrid Aver- WV} planting 350 1.80 570 age[_1_ -_. i 10,003 3.2. 1.2 .o 1.5 15,730 3.0 2.5 1.3 2.3 5; 18,916 6.6 2..2 3.3 m J ' 23,676 5.3 5.3 1.2 m g T "V. Ave. 11.6 3.7 2.2 Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total 23 137.9 Hybrids 2 22.1 11.1 2.23 Rate of planting 3 52.6 17.5 3.51% Replications l 2 . 7 2. 7 Hybrids at rates 6 6.0 1.0 Error 11 51:5 5.0 A]; LSD for rate of planting II 2.81 bu. Table 21. Average bushels of gleaned shelled corn per acre and analysis of variance, Kent County, Experiment 105, 1951:. 1:? ...... planting 350 £180 570 1 ' _.§§?Q_ 10,003 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.9 15,730 8.8 5.6 h.1 6.2 18,916 1.7 5.2 5.8 11.2 23,676 11.6 6.2 10.1. 9.1. Ave. 6.0 11.7 5.6 5.14 Analysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean variation freedom squares square F Total 23 1:02.? Hybrids 2 7.5 3.7 Rate of planting 3 181.6 60.5 h.67* Replications 1 h. S h. S Hybrids at rates 6 66.7 11.1 Error 11 1142.5 13.0 A]; LSD for rate of planting = 14.6 bu. There were no consistent differences among rates of planting or hybrids in the percentages of clean ears harvested. The smaller ears of thick stands were picked as "clean" as larger ears of thinner stands. Kalamazoo County, Ehcperiment 107 This experiment was conducted on the farm of Harry Sweitzer and Lyle Decker near Schoolcraft. Results are given in Table 22. Differences in picker yields among hybrids were significant while differences due to rate of planting were not significant. The average yield for 1b,, 318 plants per acre was 88.1 bushels compared with 76.5 bushels for 9 ,801 plants per acre, but the difference was not statis- tical];' significant at the five percent level of confidence. Gleaned ear corn and gleaned shelled corn were not affected signifi- cantly by either hybrids or rate of planting. Stalk lodging averaged 20.6 percent for the experiment and increased with the higher popula- tions. Harvest losses were not affected to any extent by the percentage of stalk lodging. Root lodging percentages were low and of no major consequence. The low population, 9,801 plants per acre, was picked slightly "cleaner" than the three higher populations. 4-4- .. _-——.—.. ..1 _ . ._ +0 H N _ VI“ VJ S .. 171... I v ,. ..., - . x _. 3 . \ . w. w . . e t .. . .. 6 .... r E 3 f. O 1 1 .. 1 1 2 1 I4 7 S 2 7 . ab “3‘ .. 1 r (I H \IO M .I 7 O 7..” PW“ O O O m I O O O O O C C r .1 e . . I. ..-. 1 . I . .6 2 7 1 O 1 .u 3 1 1 8 3 8 0 .d .1 a 1 .11 2 1 ... 2 2 l l 2 l . 2 .1 l 2 2 2 l 2 l C; .I... . m I - III. - ...)... I . ......»I... . - x I - I ,. .I I. - I I..- ... ...-WIJI: ..-r. . I. ... ...... . . . ....r.........+.r..¢..zss.. ..rfl.€...<(.frr>rr;~ 1 +0 .I... m a w “I“ m S ..H .II 9_ I9 I... j ., X .M . ...c 8 . . . . r. ,1 .-. In. 0 Q/ 0/ 0/ 1 cc 0/ 6 3 13 8 3 1. .1 n... e a . _. ._ M c . o In . o o o o 0 e O u I o e o o O O 1 .. r 1 o .. .1 . e. ..l ...- N... V2 m... 0 I.“ 7 2 0,. . 5 6 8 8 1 6 l .. .. 6 C .. , I . .I r - C E 7 o-.. 7 1 cc 7 7 7 co 7 no . 1 t. .I. H .. m II I .1 Ir‘u. II I I I I II.) III...I Iv tIlI t. I .. ..III nil IE I I I-l)..l.. I ‘\$I~.‘A.U$I III}! ‘38.. I I II II III II Il§¥m 1 LU a w _ n; 1.. 8 Ma 1 ,. . . . I4 6.. rt 3. 0/ Km. 0H. 1.4 l S .I.. . u {D 1..) 71 O O 3 1 14.. ...... ... . s . O O O 0 O O O O O C O C C . . O O b .. . 5.4 .; . I. ll w . . II. ..4 l . . u . F. .... C ..-. a _ 1... I . O, O .2 .( IL 7 7 1. CL 0/ 7 3 H9 1.}. .U F. D. -- L 1.. .. r p I 7. I. (C 6 1 D 7 .. 0... 0e 6 6 7. (O 7. .. .. . M I..- ...II I. II I IIIII I I I I I IIIIIIIJ. .Wioli.i.I91t.rl.vv1Ifiui¢Slu.la§11§ 119.271.731.811“ . s 1 .. _ . a 1 t t a. I. . - - - . 1 M; n HI. J1._ h... .N r \ .-. z .I (.5. 1 a). .I 4 r1! rf rue 7 O a. l O. k 9.. 0 III... S 2 m s... e O m. .... . 1. . -.. In . . . . . . . . . . . o . .. o . . .1 .... C r .-.. p . . I-.. l . a 3 l 2 ID. 2 1 2 2 3 l l 3 1 a . 1 I II I I I\- I 4 I I I .I. 1.37.. .0 II 329%} . _. _ .. _ .+ I. R. .... I . - .. ) 1 I T .... w; d ”I. .1 . .. - .... r - 3 7 l c e /.. .. l /C 3 3 /O 5 ...? _..>._ m... LEW 3 4“ u . O I O -.. It. ... 1 O . O I O . O O . O O C C O O O O m c 1 M -_ m... I _. .. _. 7 1 3 7 O 1 6., 0 3 3 ,5 2 . , . .1. . . ... .1 l ...1 3 .3 .. 2 ... 3 ,3 2 l 2 .. . _ a I III I II. I I JGUQ1 J10 ‘III I I I- 14 .11 IMI i" L...H w w 1.1 . . .. . . ,. I. 1 I. 1 ... ... s. .. y. , 1 -II.. C, 6 O 1 r... 3 O a-.. 7 co :2 C .... T 1. ... L I” .. .. . . .. I. . . . . . . -.. 1 o o . o o o . . r o 1. .U a. _ _ I. . ..I.. -.. 1 ...... ... o 2 C o n... O Q... 6 O 2 . m. ..., a. 1 I1 I . 7. . 1 . .. 2 2 .2 l 2 2 l l 2 2 .. .YI _. .1. , .. I I ..I I..- .... . I I -II I iIII..- II . ... .-.? -. . .. .-. r . -- - - .. ... II. . gr... ... .. ...........l....14.-1 . .. o v . .. , II Ia; 1 ) -..1 ”I 1M a: 1 I4 I )I I+ d L .. ... I I. .. I I. ( , ,7. _ 3 ..I. O 1.. .. . 3 /O I! (C 1 .... m ..w 1. 1 .. . ... 3 3 -..... 3 3 .. -I 5 I4 3 3 3 Id In 1 .-.. T. . PI. 0 o o a o o o o o o o I . O o O c o o o 0 1. I... t\ cf _ m w II IIII I. IIIII. .IIIhI. III!) .0 . . .I I 1.... ~III&.trililaql£IlLTII\l .I‘..VI.~'I¢ 17th.. 7! I III I I.” 1 . r a- 1 w C ..(1 1 \. \I . \ . \I. " \.. a . 9 a o .. .... . ....W J.(. ., . TI. _ n7 f / 1 l H.1/ 1 CC. 2 a ... 1c 4.. .. . I. 3 r... ) Ii ..., _ I+ A? 5). I4 1.) -..... Id. 5 1 ... r.” ...... ..I o . . o . . . . o o o o 1 o o o o o o o o . v 11 VI I I II IIIJIII . . .III..III I IIIIIII I I I I III I I0 II I. I I”!.’\' I!’ .III II {III III I... .....1 .d ...H C G n . . ... ‘I. . . II I . \- . ..e m. u n _ I . r I. .... 7 1 C o... 1 .. I11 1 1 1 o, 5 I4 I4 5 ml 9 3 We 1-” .u .o o o a o . o o o o . o . o o o o o o o E l ... - . - 1 -I 6. r7. -.. 2 3 I... 2 ...? ..U. 5 . IQ . a) .U .U 5 S 3 -.14 F. 3 Cu m 1” 1- ’I‘I I I l | .. . . 8 _ a . .. mt. .... n l ....r. - . .. ell» l r _ I H W... . r. ._ ......a 7 I _ \I , I. ~14 ~I. . 1 1 7! 1 n.“ ., II ”EU I” l 1 2 h v _ .. II. m... ...U C o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a he 1.1 C .... a . ,.. L -.1 2 2 ... I; 1 d... a? 5 3 2 3 .u ..3 Id 3 In . . .-. nu - .. .. 1 1 -....I. III I III. I. I. s... I - I 1.4 I II 1 o... ...I« . h . . n . r. r .1. 1 1 I. .. . . - .2 e 5 0 1 7 O . 5 3 6 . ... ..r. G» 1... .1 o o 0 c o o 0 O O O O o O o O O O a. O O O ..-. p. ... C «I. . . 1. I I1 1 . - .. A}... 2 1 n/_ 1U. N 2 2 2 1. v. a“... . M I I III III I III III | I I I I I III I l | I I I I I. .l I III III I... .“III 7 1k . ... .... __ o. . 1.1 .... 1 . . . 1 . 7.. “A I . . 1.; .. I .-. r , «1.. . ...1 "(I A)... O 1 Va), 5 . 0/ l {J 1“ - . . . o n c o o o o o o o o o o o o o .1 O o O n. . . ... .. .- _ .I. ..1 ..L l I . -.-. 2 l l 2 a) 1 1 2 2 ‘III~ a k .u I II I . I I.‘ . I I I I I. ..I 1.... «I I. I a. IUDIlIt’ 1% a YIIIV’IO. II. 0.: LI All‘iiVi. . 1 .1 1 S .. 1 .. 1 1L .. “.I 1 - .1 0., Q-.. Q, . J.) l 0,. O 2 1 I4 1 .. I .... “l ...; c ¢ 0 o o o o o o o o o . O O o o O 0 O O .. .. ... .. 5. . .- . 1 1.- -_ .1. 0.1 .. .6 CL 2 ID. C 0/ 0/ .. . .. ..J. .. L I . II .... . x r ..L 1 ... 7 anJ 8 CMV 7 CU 0f\. 11 ._ . 4 c. . I II II. I Ail-I II II I. I I‘..I- IIIIMII .I III . I .III ’0'}. ‘83,...) 17.83.." {1.1 S .1 - 1 . I. . 1 : . 1 r. I .. -.. 1.. . . .... .... ...... _. C . .9 0 one 6 2 ID. I! a 1L. ._ 1 .1 x . . c o o o c o o o o o o 1. o . O O o o . 0 O O . I. I. . . . .1 ,.. x ._ . _ .... .I / r -_ 1. .. ,0... 1 O 1. O «3,, 0/ 2 .. 6 L 6 . ._ . H. 1. a . .I : . . .. x C C o, .. 1 8 Q, ...9 1 7 O, 9 . . 1. 1 1 - .1. 1 .. - - -- -I --L. .. 1.1 ... w . .. .. 1... 1; 0.. f. 1 .)/ 3 _ T) 1 DC 2 O 1 1m.» DU 4.? 1 e «.1 ... .. 1. -.1 I . a. 1.3 3. m/. I”... 1.1) .. 3!. O 1 DJ 5 CL /00 7a ..... .... . . _ .. . , 9.. a 1. 1. 2 1) 3 . 3 ....-. 3 -U. 0/ l 6 2 . . n l _ ) .. s. 3 3 3 \ 9 9 o. ) 3 ..2 2 2 5 3 , 5 3 .1 .. f .4 1 . .. .. .7 1... 1 ..C 0/ In Re 2 /0 x0 6 r? .- 1 .11 1 11 .11 .... 1 1.4. AIL . l l l 0,” 1 l l .V. (I F... IV... . .I...I \Inio [an ‘ .III’I.“1 1 1 .- 1 _ 1 .. h . .. I .. . I. . \ I/ u h 1. 1. a-.. 1 . l W _ ...-.. I .1. H . . I , \ I - , ...\ I... w 1 \J \I/ ) )I 1 J .. 1 o W ..J 2 a.) I.» 1 1 1- . I 1-. 1U C 1 we .1 7;. /\ /\ I 1. _. . . 1... 7 7- .. m ... e . e e e. e. e. _ .. .a . . “w. I . . J WI/ w . e . . 1 1 , u 7.0 ~82. g g v v v .. H. o o o o o o o o o o O O h SWIM m m m m A .A A . . . . 1 1 . . . .... ....“ .... ..1. . .C ....u 1 L . .. .. .1 3 C a. C C C C a G E e e O O O _ 1 1 n .. . V4 ..V V. v V ...) 01v 7 ....1 1. 1 .1 ......1 fl .1 1 n2 m V11 .m m G an A In A 3 III» S Table 23. Average picker yields per acre and analysis of variance, Kalamazoo County, Experiment 10?, 19Sh. R226 Hybrid Aver- planting 350 h80 570 age_v 9,801 65.b 79.7 88.5 76.5 1h,318 78.0 89.9 96.3 88.1 18,h32 66.h 88.7 93.6 82.9 22,950 70.8 97.9 83.3 811.0, Ave.[£ 70.2 89.1 89.5 Anaxysis of variance Degrees Source of of Sum of Mean 'variation freedom. squares square F Total 23 11,118.13 Hybrids 2 1, 91.7.5 973.8 8.311->1 Rate of’planting 3 h10.7 136.9 1.2 Replications 1 b56.8 h56.8 3.9 Hybrids 3: rates 6 373.7 62.3 Error' 11 1,292.6 117.5 [2; IDSD fbr hybrids = 11.8 bu. I I 5. ‘1 ‘. _ ”i-w. Table 21;. Average bushels of gleaned ear corn per acre and analysis of variance, Kalamazoo County, EXperiment 107, 19514. - Rate 0f M m i Aver- planting 350.-.... __ ...i .... “1:83 570 age 9 , 801 . 9 r- 3. S . 6 1. 7 1h,318 .3 1.7 1.3 ‘ 1.1 18,h32 1.6 1.3 b.8 2.6 22,950 b.9 1.9 3.5 3.h Ave. 1.9 2.1 . 2.6 Analysis of varianc e tDegrees W Source of of Sum of Mean variation w.fflr‘eedom squares square F Total 23 103.2 Hybrids 2 2 . 1 1. 1 Rate of planting 3 19. 9 6. 7 1. 9 Replications 1 8 . 2 8 . 2 2. 3 Hybrids x rates 6 314.3 5.7 1.6 Error 11 38 . 8 3 . 5 .——~ Table 25. Average bushels of gleaned shelled corn per acre and analysis of variance, Kalamazoo County, Experiment 10?, 19511. Rate . of Hybrid Aver- planting 350 hBO 570 _$_‘ age 9,801 3.2 1.9 1.8—5 M 2.3 1h,318 u.o ‘ 2.2 5.0 3.7 18,h32 - h.3 4 3.6 5.1 h.3 22,950 h.8 h.9 5.6 5.1 Ave. b.1 3.2 b.b Analysis of variance Degrees “' Source of of Sum of Mean ‘variation freedom squares square F “_ Total 23 82.0 Hybrids 2 6.2 3.1 Rate of planting 3 211.7 8.2 2.08 Replications 4 l .3 .3 Hybrids 3: rates 6 6.9 1.2 Error' 1 11 03.6 h.0 idem-cl DISCUSSION In five out of the six experiments, there was no statistically significant increase or decrease in picker yields at the four plant pOpu- lations (Table 26). Yields at the thicker stands were significantly higher in one experiment (Ingham County, Experiment 102). At some of the other locations, there were small but not statistically significant in- creases for thicker plantings. Dry weather during late July and most of August was a factor accounting for no significant yield increases with thicker populations in five of the six experiments. It is important to emphasize that, with the exception of the highest population, there were no significant decreases in yield. If moisture conditions had been more favorable, it appears likely, in view of previous experiments (14), that yields would have shown more of an increase with increase in plant popu- lations. Stalk lodging increased considerably as the population increased (Table 26). Observations indicated that most of the stalk breakage was a result of stalk rot diseases. Thinner and smaller stalks with possibly more disease infection contributed to the increased lodging. The picker losses at the different plant populations are summarized in Table 27. In three out of the six experiments, there were no signifi— cant increases in gleaned ear corn as the planting rate was increased. In the other three experiments, the amount of gleaned ear corn did in- crease significantly at the thicker stands. In four out of the six ex- periments, the gleaned shelled corn increased significantly at the -b6- Table 26. Average picker yield and average percent "stalk lodging" in six experiments. Rate of planting “my (1» I (2»:- (3)* (10* Sifiiiiiie Picker yield - bushels per acre Ingham 102 911.9 111.3 125.9 ‘ 11b.o Significant Ingham 106 88.2 91.2 99.5 86.6 Not significant Saginaw 103 76.2 77.9 78.6 78.2 Not significant Mbnroe 108 72.0 71.0 72.2 68.1 Not significant Kent 105 57.6 57.6 59.1 h9.h Not significant Kalamazoo 107 76.5 88.1 82.9 88.0 Not significant Average 77.6 82.9 86.h 78.7 Percent stalk lodging Ingham 102 11.3 19.11 31.6 142.2 Ingham 106 6.2 21.5 29.5 112.6 Saginaw 103 2.5 11.0 19.5 20.9 Monroe 10h 3.8 12.7 15.1; 19.6 Kent 105 111.8 21.8 28.0 111.5 Kalamazoo 107 9.1 9.6 30.3 33.3 Average 7.9 16.0 25.7 33.3 * Average stands for the six experiments: (1) 3 10,300, (2) = 1h,865, (3) ' 18,891, (h) = 22,913 plants per acre. Table 27 . Average bushels per acre and percent of total yield for gleaned ear corn and gleaned shelled corn in six experiments. L Rate of planting County ' Statistical [ (1)* (2)* (3)* 100* 1 significance Gleaned ear corn Ingham 102 Bushels h. h 3 . 7 6. 9 7. 2 Not sig- Percent 11. 5 3. 3 5 .0 5 . 7 nificant Ingham 106 Bushels 3.3 11.6 6.7 9.0 Signifi- Percent 3.7 3.9 6.3 9.1 cant Saginaw 103 Bushels .6 . 9 1. 9 1. ’4 Not sig- Percent .8 1. l 2. 3 1.6 nificant Monroe 1011 Bushels 1.0 3. 1 3. 7 3. 6 Signifi- Percent 1.2 3. 8 h. 3 h. 6 cant Kent 105 Bushels 1. 5 2 . 3 h. 7 l1. 9 Signifi- Percent 2. L1 3. 6 6. 6 8. h cant Kalamazoo 107 , Bushels l. 6 1. l 2 . S 3. 5 Not sig- Percent 2.0 1.1 2.7 h.o nificant Average Bushels 2 . 1 2.6 11. h h. 9 1 Percent 2.1.; 2.6 14.5 5.6 i Gleaned shelled corn Ingham 102 Bushels 1.0 2.7 11.5 11.1 Signifi- Percent 1.0 2 . 3 3. 3 3. 3 cant Ingham 106 Bushels .6 2.0 2.2 5.7 Signifi- Percent . 7 2.0 2 . 2 S. 8 cant Saginaw 103 Bushels 2 . 0 2 . 9 3.0 6. 3 Signifi- Percent 2 . 5 3. 6 3. 6 7.8 cant Monro e 1011 Bushels 6. 6 8 . 1 9 . 2 11. 3 Not sig- Percent 8 . 5 9. 9 10 . 9 111.11 nificant Kent 105 Bushels 3.7 2.5 7.11 6.3 Signifi- Percent S. 9 11.0 10.0 10. 2 cant Kalamazoo 107 7 Bushels 2. b, 3. 8 h. h 5. 1 Not sig- Percent 3. 1 h. 1 h. 9 S . 5 nificant Average 3.1511818 20 7 30 7 So 1 6. 5 Percent 3.6 h. 3 S .8 7.8 Total picker losses Average Bushels 11.8 6. 3 9. 5 11.11 Average Percent 6.0 609 1003 130,4 r— -)l- Average stands for the six experiments: (1) - 10,300, (2) I 111,865, (3) " 183891: (’4) = 22.913 plants per acre. thicker p0pulations. The total picker losses (gleaned shelled corn plus gleaned ear corn) for all experiments were 11.8, 6. 3, 9.5, and 11.11 bushels per acre for average stands of 10,300, 111,865, 18,891, and 22,913 plants per acre, respectively. In percentage of the total yield the losses were 6.0, 6.9, 10.3, and 13.11 percent, respectively. Most of the increases in gleaned ear corn and gleaned shelled corn occurred at the two thicker stands, averaging 18,891 and 22,913 plants per acre, which are not generally recommended except for ideal conditions. 0n the basis of previous experiments, a stand of about 16,000 plants per acre is being recommended in Michigan for better than average corn land and a stand of about 12,000 plants for average or below average corn soils. There are many fields in Michigan with stands of 8,000 to 10,000 plants per acre. In the present experiments, there was ,very little in- crease in either gleaned ear corn or gleaned shelled corn as the stand was increased from an average of about 10,000 to an average of about 15,000 plants per acre. These results indicate that picker losses need not increase appreciably as the population is increased up to about 16,000 plants per acre. At higher papulations, the picker losses may increase in some cases but not in all instances. In these studies, all populations at each location were picked with the same adjustment of the picker. The farmer cooperator adjusted the picker for harvesting his own crop and no additional adjustments were made for the various populations. It is possible that picker losses could have (been reduced at the high populations if the prOper adjust- ments had been made. Many farmers are concerned about the "cleanness" of mechanical harvest in terms of the amount of ears harvested with husk attached. Table 28 summarizes the data on "cleanness" of harvest at the various plant populations. It appears obvious that rate of planting had no effect, in general, on the percentage of harvested ears with husks attached. The percentage of "clean" picked ears varied tremendously from location to location and apparently was affected by kind of picker, adjustment of picker, weather conditions, skill of the operator, and other factors. As shown in Table 26, stalk lodging increased from an average of 7.9 percent at the low population to 33.3 percent at the high population. While there were increased picker losses With the high p0pu1ations at some locations, the increases in picker losses were not proportionate to the increases in stalk lodging. Thus, it is apparent that the pickers were harvesting a high percentage of the ears on the broken plants. Ear size at harvest ranged from an average of .65 pound at the low population to .111 for the high population. While the gleaned ear corn did increase in some cases at the higher populations, it appears that the analler ears at the higher p0pu1ations was not a serious handicap in effective mechanical harvest. Under the conditions of these experiments, there did not appear to be any consistent differences in gleaned ear corn, gleaned shelled corn, or percent "clean" picked ears among the thme different hybrids used in this study (Table 29). The three hybrids, Michigan 350, 1180, and S70, ranged from early to full season in maturity (90, 105, and 110 days relative maturity, respectively). Table 28. Average percent "clean" picked ears for six experiments. Rate of planting County (l)* (2)* (3)* (h)* Ingham 102 58.11 60.6 65.11 70.7 Ingham 106 53.11 62.5 61.5 611.7 Saginaw 103 91.1 93.6 90.9 911.). Monroe 101. 60.5 61.8 57.0 59.6 Kent 105 23.0 22.6 27.5 21.11 Kalamazoo 107 85.8 76.9 78.6 78.3 Average 62.0 63.0 . 63.5 611.9 i- Average stands for the six experiments: (1) = 10,300, (2) 8 111,865, (3) " 183891, (14) 3 22,913 plants per acre. Table 29. Average picker yield, gleaned ear corn, gleaned shelled corn, "clean" picked ears, and stalk breakage. Rate of planting Hybrid Ave. (1)->i (2)* (3)-9" (111* Picker yields - bushels per acre Michigan 350 69.8 71..0 77.3 69... 72.7 Michigan 1.80 80.2 87.2 88.3 80.3 81..o Michigan 570 82.7 87.1. 93.6 86.0 87.1. Bushels gleaned ear corn per acre Michigan 350 2.5 3.3 1.1 5.1. 3.8 Michigan 1180 1.8 2.2 11.2 5.0 3.3 Michigan 570 2.0 2.3 11.9 8.1. 3.11 Bushels gleaned shelled corn per acre Michigan 350 2.9 3.8 6.9 6.7 5.1 Michigan 1.80 2.8 3.6 1..1 5.6 1..0 Michigan 570 2.6 3.5 1.1. “3.2g 1.1. Percent "clean" picked ears iMichigan.350 7h.9 75.0 71.6 75.h 78.2 Michigan 1180 61..8 66.5 65.1 70.2 66.7 Michigan.570 73.3 7h.9 76.3 77.6 75.5 Percent stalk breakage Michigan 350 9.9 19.h 29.6 35.9 23.7 Michigan 1.80 6.6 18.3 21..0 31.7 19.2 Michigan 570 7.11 114.3 23.6 32.6 19.5 an» Average stands for the six experiments (1) 3 1093009 (2) ' 1&98659 (3) " 18,891. (14) 3 22,913 plants per acre. ABSTRACT Many rate of planting experiments have shown marked increases in corn yields with thicker planting. Most of these experiments were harvested by hand and all of the corn regardless of ear size was obtained. Since ear size generally decreases and lodging fre- quently increases as plant population increases, it becomes impor- tant to know if the mechanical corn picker is capable of recovering the higher potential yields with thicker stands. Three corn hybrids ranging from 90 to llO-day in relative maturity, and four plant populations averaging 10,300, 111,865, 18,891, and 22,913 plants per acre were grown in six experiments in 19511 in five locations (Ingham, Saginaw, Monroe, Kent, and Kalamazoo counties.) In two ex- periments in Ingham County half of the plots were side dressed with 1.10 pounds of nitrogen per acre. At each location, the plots were . picked by the farm cooperator with his corn picker adjusted for pick- ing his crop. No separate adjustments of the picker were made for the different plant populations. A A dry season was largely responsible for no significant increases in yield with thicker p0pu1ations in five of the six experiments. It is significant that there were no decreases in yields for the thicker plantings when compared with the lowest p0pu1ation. With more ade- quate rainfall, it is very likely that yields would have been increased at the higher populations in view of previous experiments on these same farms. Gleaned ear corn increased as the plant p0pu1ation was increased in three out of six experiments. In the other three experiments, there was no significant increase. In four out of the six experiments, gleaned shelled corn increased as the plant population was increased. These increases in picker losses occurred largely with the high popu- lations averaging 18 ,891 and 22,913 plants per acre. Total picker losses (gleaned ear corn and shelled corn) averaged 6.0, 6.9, 10.3, and 13.14 percent of the total yield for average populations of 10,300, 111,865, 18,891, and 22,913 plants per acre, respectively. Within the recommended plant populations for Michigan (up to 16,000 plants per acre), there were no significant increases in either gleaned ear corn or gleaned shelled corn. Stalk lodging increased as plant population was increased. However, picker losses did not increase proportionally to increases in stalk lodging indicating that the pickers were recovering a large portion of the ears on broken plants. Ear size decreased as population increased. Again, the decrease in ear size was not reflected in a proportional increase in picker losses. Shall ears were not a serious handicap to mechanical harvest. "Cleanness" of mechanical harvest, as measured by the percent 1 of ears with husks attached, was not affected by the rate of planting. The three corn hybrids used in this study (Michigan 350, 1.80, and 570) showed no consistent variety differences for gleaned ear corn, gleaned shelled corn, or percent "clean" picked ears. The maturity of these hybrids range from early to full-season. 5. LITERATURE CITED Bateman, H. P., Pickard, G. E. , Bowers, w. Corn picker Operation to save corn and hands. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. , Ciro. 697, 1952. Bryan, A. A., Eckhardt, R. C., and Sprague, G. F. Spacing experi- ments with corn. Amer. Soc. Agron. Journ., 32: 1511-155, 1910. Huber, L. L. Thin stands of corn produce bigger ears but lower yields than thicker plantings. Pa. Agr. Exp. Sta., College Sta., Bull. 1.61., Sup. 2: 10, 19111. Rounds, w. 1., Roseman, E. C., Zurakowski, w., and Down, E. E. Rate, method, and date of planting corn. Michigan Agr. Ehcp. Sta., College Sta. , Quar. Bull. 11, 33: 372-387, 1951. Smith, C. W., Lyness, W. E. , and Kiesselbach, T. A. Factors affect-V ing the efficiency of the mechanical corn picker. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta., College Sta., Bull. 391., 191.9. THE IiiECHANICAL HARVEST 0F CORN IN RATE OF PLANTING EXPERDIENTS by David J. woods AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Crops 1955 Approved M11113111111111{[11111fi11111111111111'“