DOCSLIB.ORG

Best Management Practices for Corn Production in South Dakota David Clay South Dakota State University, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Best Management Practices for Corn Production in South Dakota David Clay South Dakota State University, David.Clay@Sdstate.Edu South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange SDSU Extension Circulars SDSU Extension 5-2009 Best Management Practices for Corn Production in South Dakota David Clay South Dakota State University, [email protected] Kurtis D. Reitsma South Dakota State University Sharon Clay South Dakota State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/extension_circ Part of the Agricultural Science Commons, Agriculture Commons, and the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Clay, David; Reitsma, Kurtis D.; and Clay, Sharon, "Best Management Practices for Corn Production in South Dakota" (2009). SDSU Extension Circulars. 490. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/extension_circ/490 This Circular is brought to you for free and open access by the SDSU Extension at Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in SDSU Extension Circulars by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EC929 Best Management Practices for Corn Production in South Dakota Best Management Practices for Corn Production in South Dakota South Dakota State University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and offers all benefits, services, education, and employment without regard for race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or Vietnam Era veteran status. ® –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Support for this document was provided by South Dakota State University, South Dakota Coop- erative Extension Service, South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station; South Dakota Corn Utiliza- tion Council; USDA-CSREES-406; South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources through EPA-319; South Dakota USGS Water Resources Institute; USDA-North Central Region SARE program; Colorado Corn Growers Association; and Colorado State University. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Published by South Dakota State University, College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, AgBio Communications Unit, Box 2218A, Brookings, South Dakota 57007 © 2009 by South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce any part of this book in any form, except brief quotations, without premission of the publisher. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– EC929. 2,000 copies printed and distributed by South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service at a cost of $8.68 each. May 2009. About 5 million acres of South Dakota land—close to 10% of our state’s land resources—are devoted to corn production. This fact alone makes it clear just how important corn production is to the economy of the state of South Dakota. But throw in recent developments in South Dakota’s corn-based ethanol industry, and the result is an even further elevation of corn—an elevation to a most prominent position within the economy of our state. For the last century, the intensity of farming management has continued to escalate. This best management practices manual has brought together some of the best of both old and new technol- ogy. It is my belief that this manual will be a significant reference and resource for every South Dakota corn producer. To all who participated in the development of Best Management Practices for Corn Production in South Dakota, I both extend my appreciation and offer a commendation for a job well done. Latif Lighari, Ph.D. Associate Dean and Director South Dakota State University South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service Professor of Agricultural Education College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences South Dakota corn producers are some of the most productive in the nation. Our state ranked sixth in the nation in production of corn for grain in 2007 and has led the nation in planted acres of genetically engineered corn hybrids since 2000. And yet, our corn producers face many challenges each year. Each producer must make the best decision on which corn hybrid to plant, choose the best fertilizer program, manage high input costs, expect seasonal hazards, deal with weeds and pests, and market the harvest for the greatest profit. This manual presents the best management practices devel- oped for the changing environment of corn production agri- culture in South Dakota. From detailed, basic information on corn growth and development, through each phase of the corn production process, the authors and contributors have provided corn producers with an up-to-date and invaluable reference tool. I extend my congratulations to the editors, reviewers, authors, and contributors for a job well done. Bill Even South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture ii Editors David E. Clay, Kurtis D. Reitsma, and Sharon A. Clay Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007 For information, contact [email protected]. Coordination, Manuscript Editing, and Graphic Design Eric Ollila , Publication Coordinator-Editor Terry Molengraaf, Information Officer AgBio Communications Unit College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007 Reviewers, Authors, and Contributors (alphabetical order) Troy Bauder, Research Scientist Department of Soil & Crop Science, Colorado State University Dwayne L. Beck, Research Manager Dakota Lakes Research Farm, South Dakota State University Sue L. Blodgett, Department Head Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University C. Gregg Carlson, Agronomist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Michael A. Catangui, Entomologist Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State University David E. Clay, Soil Scientist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Sharon A. Clay, Weed Scientist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Darrell L. Deneke, IPM Specialist Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State University Martin A. Draper, Plant Pathologist Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service B. Wade French, Entomologist Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture Billy W. Fuller, Entomologist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Robert G. Hall, Agronomist Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State University Curt A. Hoffbeck, Agronomist Pioneer Hi-Bred International Daniel S. Humburg, Biosystems Engineer Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Dept., South Dakota State University Marie A. Langham, Plant Pathologist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Douglas D. Malo, Soil Scientist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Mike J. Moechnig, Weed Scientist Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State University Richard E. Nicolai, Biosystems Engineer Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Dept., South Dakota State University Kurtis D. Reitsma, Agronomist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Bradley E. Ruden, Plant Pathologist Plant Diagnostic Clinic, South Dakota State University Thomas E. Schumacher, Soil Scientist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Dennis P. Todey, Climatologist State Climate Office, South Dakota State University Todd P. Trooien, Biosystems Engineer Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Dept., South Dakota State University Hal D. Werner, Biosystems Engineer Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Dept., South Dakota State University James A. Wilson, Pesticide Specialist Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota State University Howard J. Woodard, Soil Scientist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Leon J. Wrage, Weed Scientist Plant Science Department, South Dakota State University Recognition and Acknowledgements: South Dakota Corn Utilization Council South Dakota Department of Agriculture South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Cover photos: USDA-NRCS and Kurtis D. Reitsma. iii Table of Contents Introduction . 1 1. Corn Growth and Development . 3 Kurtis D. Reitsma, Sharon A. Clay, and Robert G. Hall 2. Corn Hybrid Selection . 9 Robert G. Hall and Kurtis D. Reitsma 3. Corn Planting Guide . 13 Robert G. Hall, Kurtis D. Reitsma, and David E. Clay 4. Seasonal Hazards—Frost, Hail, Drought, and Flooding . 17 Robert G. Hall, Todd P. Trooien, Dennis P. Todey, and David E. Clay 5. Tillage, Crop Rotations, and Cover Crops . 21 Dwayne L. Beck, David E. Clay, and Kurtis D. Reitsma 6. Irrigation and Salt Management . 31 Todd P. Trooien, C. Gregg Carlson, and Hal D. Werner 7. Soil Fertility . 39 David E. Clay and Kurtis D. Reitsma 8. Corn Insect Pests . 49 Michael A. Catangui, Billy W. Fuller, and B. Wade French 9. Corn Diseases in South Dakota . 59 Martin A. Draper, Marie A. Langham, Sharon A. Clay, and Bradley E. Ruden 10. Weeds and Herbicide Injury in Corn . 71 Sharon A. Clay and Mike J. Moechnig 11. Corn Grain Harvest . 93 Daniel S. Humburg, Richard E. Nicolai, and Kurtis D. Reitsma 12. Corn Drying and Storage . 99 Richard E. Nicolai 13. Recordkeeping . 107 James A. Wilson, Kurtis D. Reitsma, and David E. Clay 14. Useful Calculations: Corn Yields and Storage Requirements . 111 Kurtis D. Reitsma, David
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecosystems and Agro-Biodiversity Across Small and Large-Scale Maize Production Systems, Feeder Study to the “TEEB for Agriculture and Food”
    Ecosystems and agro-biodiversity across small and large-scale maize production systems, feeder study to the “TEEB for Agriculture and Food” i Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge TEEB and the Global Alliance for the Future of Food on supporting this project. We would also like to acknowledge the technical expertise provided by CONABIO´s network of experts outside and inside the institution and the knowledge gained through many years of hard and very robust scientific work of the Mexican research community (and beyond) tightly linked to maize genetic diversity resources. Finally we would specially like to thank the small-scale maize men and women farmers who through time and space have given us the opportunity of benefiting from the biological, genetic and cultural resources they care for. Certification All activities by Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, acting in administrative matters through Nacional Financiera Fideicomiso Fondo para la Biodiversidad (“CONABIO/FFB”) were and are consistent under the Internal Revenue Code Sections 501 (c)(3) and 509(a)(1), (2) or (3). If any lobbying was conducted by CONABIO/FFB (whether or not discussed in this report), CONABIO/FFB complied with the applicable limits of Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(c)(3) and/or 501(h) and 4911. CONABIO/FFB warrants that it is in full compliance with its Grant Agreement with the New venture Fund, dated May 15, 2015, and that, if the grant was subject to any restrictions, all such restrictions were observed. How to cite: CONABIO. 2017. Ecosystems and agro-biodiversity across small and large-scale maize production systems, feeder study to the “TEEB for Agriculture and Food”.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Corn Smut Tianna Jordan*, UW-Madison Plant Pathology
    D0031 Provided to you by: Common Corn Smut Tianna Jordan*, UW-Madison Plant Pathology What is common corn smut? Common corn smut is a fungal disease that affects field, pop, and sweet corn, as well as the corn relative teosinte (Zea mexicana). Common corn smut is generally not economically significant except in sweet corn where relatively low levels of disease make the crop aesthetically unappealing for fresh market sale and difficult to process for freezing or canning. Interestingly, the early stages of common corn smut are eaten as a delicacy in Mexico where the disease is referred to as huitlacoche (see UW Plant Disease Facts D0065, Huitlacoche). What does common corn smut look like? Common corn smut leads to tumor-like swellings (i.e., galls) on corn ears, kernels, tassels, husks, leaves, stalks, buds and, less frequently, on aerial roots. Some galls (particularly those on leaves) are small and hard. More typically, however, galls are fleshy and smooth, silvery-white to green, and can be four to five inches in diameter. As fleshy galls mature, their outer surfaces become papery and brittle, and their inner tissues become powdery and black. Galls eventually rupture, releasing the powder (i.e., the spores of the causal fungus). Where does common corn smut come from? Common corn smut is caused by the fungus Ustilago maydis, which can survive for several years as spores in soil and corn residue. Spores are spread by wind or through water splashing up onto young plants. Spores can also be spread through the Common corn smut leads to tumor-like galls manure of animals that have eaten infected corn.
    [Show full text]
  • The Comparative Study of Bt Corn and Conventional Corn Regarding the Ostrinia Nubilalis Attack and the Fusarium Spp
    Romanian Biotechnological Letters Vol. 23, No. 4, 2018 Copyright © 2018 University of Bucharest Printed in Romania. All rights reserved ORIGINAL PAPER The comparative study of Bt corn and conventional corn regarding the Ostrinia nubilalis attack and the Fusarium spp. infestation in the central part of Oltenia DOI: 10.26327/RBL2018.138 Received for publication, April, 27, 2016 Accepted, June, 30, 2017 VIORICA URECHEAN 1, DORINA BONEA2* 1Agricultural Research and Development Station Simnic- Craiova, Dolj, Romania 2 University of Craiova, Faculty of Agronomy, Dolj, Romania *Address for correspondence to: [email protected] Abstract Ostrinia nubilalis or the European corn borer is a dangerous corn pest, especially in warmer Romanian regions, including Oltenia. To compare the attack produced by O. nubilalis on the transgenic Bt corn (MON 810) vs. the conventional corn (Deliciul verii), there were performed studies on unirrigated soil, in conditions of natural infestation. The experiments were made at ARDS Şimnic (in the central part of Oltenia) in 2012 and 2013. It was proven that there is a functional direct relation between the O. nubilalis attack and Fusarium spp, in that an intensive Ostrinia attack favors the installation of Fusarium-type pathogens. Our results have shown that the use of transgenic hybrid Bt-MON 810, which contains the gene CrylAb, reduced the O. nubilalis attack by 99.55% in 2012 and by 100.0% in 2013, and the infestation with Fusarium spp. by 95.54% in 2012 and by 100.0% in 2013. Therefore, Bt-MON 810 corn can reduce the damages caused to corn harvest by Ostrinia and implicitly by Fusarium, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
    [Show full text]
  • Zea Mays Subsp
    Unclassified ENV/JM/MONO(2003)11 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 23-Jul-2003 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE JOINT MEETING OF THE CHEMICALS COMMITTEE AND Unclassified ENV/JM/MONO(2003)11 THE WORKING PARTY ON CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY Cancels & replaces the same document of 02 July 2003 Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, No. 27 CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ON THE BIOLOGY OF ZEA MAYS SUBSP. MAYS (MAIZE) English - Or. English JT00147699 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format ENV/JM/MONO(2003)11 Also published in the Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology: No. 4, Industrial Products of Modern Biotechnology Intended for Release to the Environment: The Proceedings of the Fribourg Workshop (1996) No. 5, Consensus Document on General Information concerning the Biosafety of Crop Plants Made Virus Resistant through Coat Protein Gene-Mediated Protection (1996) No. 6, Consensus Document on Information Used in the Assessment of Environmental Applications Involving Pseudomonas (1997) No. 7, Consensus Document on the Biology of Brassica napus L. (Oilseed Rape) (1997) No. 8, Consensus Document on the Biology of Solanum tuberosum subsp. tuberosum (Potato) (1997) No. 9, Consensus Document on the Biology of Triticum aestivum (Bread Wheat) (1999) No. 10, Consensus Document on General Information Concerning the Genes and Their Enzymes that Confer Tolerance to Glyphosate Herbicide (1999) No. 11, Consensus Document on General Information Concerning the Genes and Their Enzymes that Confer Tolerance to Phosphinothricin Herbicide (1999) No.
    [Show full text]
  • Corn Smuts, RPD No
    report on RPD No. 203 PLANT February 1990 DEPARTMENT OF CROP SCIENCES DISEASE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN CORN SMUTS Corn smuts occur throughout the world. Common corn smut, caused by the fungus Ustilago zeae (synonym U. maydis), and head smut, caused by the fungus Sporisorium holci-sorghi (synonyms Sphacelotheca reiliana, Sorosporium reilianum and Sporisorium reilianum), are spectacular in appearance and easily distinguished. Common smut occurs worldwide wherever corn (maize) is grown, by presence of large conspicuous galls or replacement of grain kernels with smut sori. The quality of the remaining yield is often reduced by the presence of black smut spores on the surface of healthy kernels. COMMON SMUT Common smut is well known to all Illinois growers. The fungus attacks only corn–field corn (dent and flint), Indian or ornamental corn, popcorn, and sweet corn–and the closely related teosinte (Zea mays subsp. mexicana) but is most destructive to sweet corn. The smut is most prevalent on young, actively growing plants that have Figure 1. Infection of common corn smut been injured by detasseling in seed fields, hail, blowing soil or and on the ear. Smut galls are covered by the particles, insects, “buggy-whipping”, and by cultivation or spraying silvery white membrane. equipment. Corn smut differs from other cereal smuts in that any part of the plant above ground may be attacked, from the seedling stage to maturity. Losses from common smut are highly variable and rather difficult to measure, ranging from a trace up to 10 percent or more in localized areas. In rare cases, the loss in a particular field of sweet corn may approach 100 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Fungal Pathogens of Maize Gaining Free Passage Along the Silk Road
    pathogens Review Fungal Pathogens of Maize Gaining Free Passage Along the Silk Road Michelle E. H. Thompson and Manish N. Raizada * Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-519-824-4120 (ext. 53396) Received: 19 August 2018; Accepted: 6 October 2018; Published: 11 October 2018 Abstract: Silks are the long threads at the tips of maize ears onto which pollen land and sperm nuclei travel long distances to fertilize egg cells, giving rise to embryos and seeds; however fungal pathogens also use this route to invade developing grain, causing damaging ear rots with dangerous mycotoxins. This review highlights the importance of silks as the direct highways by which globally important fungal pathogens enter maize kernels. First, the most important silk-entering fungal pathogens in maize are reviewed, including Fusarium graminearum, Fusarium verticillioides, and Aspergillus flavus, and their mycotoxins. Next, we compare the different modes used by each fungal pathogen to invade the silks, including susceptible time intervals and the effects of pollination. Innate silk defences and current strategies to protect silks from ear rot pathogens are reviewed, and future protective strategies and silk-based research are proposed. There is a particular gap in knowledge of how to improve silk health and defences around the time of pollination, and a need for protective silk sprays or other technologies. It is hoped that this review will stimulate innovations in breeding, inputs, and techniques to help growers protect silks, which are expected to become more vulnerable to pathogens due to climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Use of Traditional Mexican Medicinal Fungi. a Review
    International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, 10(3):209–217 (2008) Diversity and Use of Traditional Mexican Medicinal Fungi. A Review Gastón Guzmán* Instituto de Ecologia, Xalapa 91000, Veracruz, Mexico * Address all correspondence to Gastón Guzmán, Instituto de Ecologia, Apartado Postal 63, Xalapa 91000, Veracruz, Mexico; [email protected] ABSTRACT: In this review, more than 70 species of medicinal mushrooms from Mexico, which can help treat over 40 illnesses or health problems, are discussed. Among the latter, anxiety and rejuvena- tion are considered, as well as traditional beliefs about the evil eye or hearing the voice of a specifi c person. This article is based on an extensive bibliographic review, as well as the inclusion of fi eld work done by the author during several years of study in Mexico. Schizophyllum commune, several species of Pleurotus and Ustilago maydis, as well as some lichens, are the most important medicinal fungi considered for the treatment of specifi c illnesses or health problems. Many medicinal mushrooms are also edible and are currently sold in the marketplace. Amanita muscaria is the only toxic mushroom used in traditional medicine, as well as some hallucinogenic species of the genus Psilocybe. KEY WORDS: medicinal mushrooms, relationships, traditions, distribution, ethnomycology, Mexico I. INTRODUCTION Guzmán12,13 published two works on this subject. Unfortunately, with the development of Different ethnic groups in Mexico have extensive modern civilization, Indian traditions are affected knowledge about the use of many species of fungi, by the introduction of foreign medicinal products including medicinal mushrooms. However, this and by progress in modern medicine, as well as by knowledge about medicinal fungi has been insuf- the development of agricultural and cattle practices, fi ciently documented.
    [Show full text]
  • 47 Section 3 Maize (Zea Mays Subsp. Mays)
    SECTION 3 MAIZE (ZEA MAYS SUBSP. MAYS) 1. General Information Maize, or corn, is a member of the Maydeae tribe of the grass family, Poaceae. It is a robust monoecious annual plant, which requires the help of man to disperse its seeds for propagation and survival. Corn is the most efficient plant for capturing the energy of the sun and converting it into food, it has a great plasticity adapting to extreme and different conditions of humidity, sunlight, altitude, and temperature. It can only be crossed experimentally with the genus Tripsacum, however member species of its own genus (teosinte) easily hybridise with it under natural conditions. This document describes the particular condition of maize and its wild relatives, and the interactions between open-pollinated varieties and teosinte. It refers to the importance of preservation of native germplasm and it focuses on the singular conditions in its centre of origin and diversity. Several biological and socio-economic factors are considered important in the cultivation of maize and its diversity; therefore these are described as well. A. Use as a crop plant In industrialised countries maize is used for two purposes: 1) to feed animals, directly in the form of grain and forage or sold to the feed industry; and 2) as raw material for extractive industries. "In most industrialised countries, maize has little significance as human food" (Morris, 1998; Galinat, 1988; Shaw, 1988). In the European Union (EU) maize is used as feed as well as raw material for industrial products (Tsaftaris, 1995). Thus, maize breeders in the United States and the EU focus on agronomic traits for its use in the animal feed industry, and on a number of industrial traits such as: high fructose corn syrup, fuel alcohol, starch, glucose, and dextrose (Tsaftaris, 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Pollination on Smut Disease and Yield in Maize
    Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi Journal of Agricultural Sciences Tar. Bil. Der. Dergi web sayfası: Journal homepage: www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/dergi www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/journal Influence of Pollination on Smut Disease and Yield in Maize Mehmet AYDOĞDUa, Nuh BOYRAZb aBatı Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute, Department of Plant Health, Antalya, TURKEY bSelçuk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection, Konya, TURKEY ARTICLE INFO Research Article DOI: 10.15832/ankutbd.490958 24 (2018) 463-470 Corresponding Author: Mehmet AYDOĞDU, E-mail: [email protected], Tel: +90 (533) 726 89 85 Received: 09 March 2017, Received in Revised Form: 05 September 2017, Accepted: 01 November 2017 ABSTRACT Ustilago maydis, causal agent of smut disease in maize, induces significant yield losses by forming colossal galls (tumours) on cobs. Since infection process of U. maydis is parallel with natural pollination of maize, an interaction between maize pollination and the smut fungus is probable. To reveal this interaction perceptibly, a 2-year field study was carried out in Antalya province of Turkey. As host plants, 8-maize-cultivars belonging to different maize variety groups [dent (Ada-523, Pioneer-3394 and Side), flint (Karaçay and Karadeniz Yıldızı), sweet (Merit and Vega) and popcorn (Antcin-98)] were used in the experiment. Inoculations were performed by injecting inoculum into cob silks in pre- and post-pollination periods in plots. In addition, control plots were set up for each treatment. In conclusion, average disease severity, incidence and yield losses of all the maize cultivars in pre-pollination inoculations (PrePI) were 3.8, 20.7 and 45.5%, whereas in post-pollination (PostPI) inoculations, they were 0.9, 15.7 and 35.9%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • The Entho-Ecology of Crop Diversity in a Central Mexican
    THE ENTHO-ECOLOGY OF CROP DIVERSITY IN A CENTRAL MEXICAN COMMUNITY A THESIS Presented to The Southwest Studies Program The Colorado College In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Arts By John R. Fields April/2012 Eric P Perramond _____________________ Mario Montaño ______________________ 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract..........................................................................................3 Introduction……………………….……………………….…….3 Maize in Mexico……………………………………….....3 Studying Agrobiodiversity………………………………..8 The Place of this Study…………………………………12 Methods……….…………………………………………..…….14 Results, Discussion……………………………………………..16 Measures of Diversity…………………………………..16 Agricultural Practices and Values…………….……….23 The Ecology of Diversity……………………….….……30 An Ethnographic Glimpse………………………..…….34 Conclusion……………………………………………..….……39 Appendix: Photo Essay…………………………………..…….47 Acknowledgements………………………………………….....50 Works Cited………………………………………….………...50 2 Abstract: While central Mexico continues to be a cradle of agrobiodiversity, there have been major changes to the agricultural model since the 1960’s, characterized by an overall decrease in crop diversity and a shift from low-input subsistence farming to high-input commercial farming (Sanderson 1986). In light of this trend, this study focuses on agrobiodiversity and the specific practices associated with seed selection, cultivation, and use of diverse crops in central Mexico. Most related efforts have been made at the scale of “farm” or “nation;” the dynamics of agrobiodiversity at the scale of landscape are less well-understood. This study examines crop diversity within a specific community in central Mexico. Both quantitative measures of crop diversity and qualitative ethnographic data are interpreted through the frameworks of ethnobotany, economic botany, agroecology and human ecology. The agro-system of this community appears to be a relatively stable and sustainable form of agricultural syncretism containing high levels of agrobiodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliografi 2003 Proquest
    BIBLIOGRAFI 2003 PROQUEST Accumulation of fumonisins B1 and B2 in freshly harvested Brazilian commercial maize at three locations during two nonconsecutive seasons/Simone M. Camargos, Lucia M. Valente Soares, Eduardo Sawazaki, Denizart Bolonhezi, Jairo L. Castro, Nelson Bortolleto. Mycopathologia. Dordrecht:May 2003. Vol. 155, Iss. 4, p. 219-228 Best types of maize hybrids for the Western High Plains of the USA/F R Guillen-Portal, W K Russell, D D Baltensperger, K M Eskridge, et al. Crop Science. Madison:Nov/Dec 2003. Vol. 43, Iss. 6, p. 2065-2070 Canning Gold: Northern New England's Sweet Corn Industry/ Derek Oden. Agricultural History. Berkeley:Fall 2003. Vol. 77, Iss. 4, p. 617-619 Canopy Structure, Light Interception, and Photosynthesis in Maize/D W Stewart, C Costa, L M Dwyer, D L Smith, et al. Agronomy Journal. Madison:Nov/Dec 2003. Vol. 95, Iss. 6, p. 1465-1474 Chaco corn import /Constance Holden. Science. Washington:Oct 24, 2003. Vol. 302, Iss. 5645, p. 561 Characterization of the stimulating effect of low-dose stressors in maize and bean seedlings/Peter Nyitrai, Karoly Boka, Laszlo Gaspar, Eva Sarvari, et al. Journal of Plant Physiology. Stuttgart:Oct 2003. v. 160, Iss. 10, p. 1175-83 Comparing methods for integrating exotic germplasm into European forage maize breeding programs1/Domagoj Simic, Thomas Presterl, Gunter Seitz, Hartwig H Geiger. Crop Science. Madison:Nov/Dec 2003. Vol. 43, Iss. 6, p. 1952-1959 Bibliografi Hasil Penelitian Pertanian : Komoditas Jagung 1 Comparison of Broiler Performance When Fed Diets Containing Grain from Yield Gard1 Rootworm (MON863), YieldGard Plus (MON810 W MON863), Nontransgenic Control, or Commercial Reference Corn Hybrids/M L Taylor, Y Hyun, G F Hartnell, S G Riordan, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • ZEA MAYS a Monograph
    ZEA MAYS A Monograph GABRIEL VELASCO REYES Agricultural Science 2016-17 Colegio Bolivar 1 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 4 ECOLOGY 5 ECOLOGY 5 Affinities 5 Origin 5 Present Distribution 6 Environmental Factors 6 Elevation 6 Climate 8 Rainfall 8 Temperature 9 Geology Soils 9 Veg Components 10 Associated Species 10 Relationship with Animals/Insects 10 BIOLOGY 11 CHROMOSOME COMPLEMENT 11 LIFE CYCLE AND PHENOLOGY 11 Life cycle 11 Phenology 12 Deciduousness 12 Flowering and fruiting 12 Year-to-year variation in flowering and fruiting 13 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY 13 Pollen 13 Sexuality 14 Anthesis 14 Pollination and potential pollinators 15 Fruit development and seed set 16 Ovule development 16 Ovary wall development 16 3.4 ECOPHYSIOLOGY 16 PROPAGATION AND MANAGEMENT 17 NATURAL REGENERATION 17 NURSERY PROPAGATION 18 Propagation from seed 18 2 Pre- preparation and implication for germination 20 Sowing and the germination process 21 Storage 22 Vegetative propagation 22 Grafting 22 PLANTING 23 MANAGEMENT 23 Fruiting 23 Pest and disease control 24 EMERGING PRODUCTS, POTENTIAL MARKETS 25 THE OVERALL PICTURE 25 FOOD ITEMS BASED ON PULP, SKIN AND JUICE 26 Fresh fruit 26 Corn: 26 Confectionary 26 Cake Mixes: 26 Candies: 26 Carbonated Beverages - Coke: 26 Cookies: 27 Corn Flakes: 27 Juice, nectar, puree and flavoured products 27 Instant Coffee & Tea: 27 Yogurt: 28 Alcoholic beverages 28 Beer: 28 Whiskey: 28 ITEMS BASED ON KERNELS 28 BIBLIOGRAPHY 29 3 INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________________________________________ This monograph is a research document about Zea mays, more commonly as corn. It is a complete ​ ​ investigation of its origins and uses. In the first chapter its ecology is discussed.
    [Show full text]