On-farm measurement of the water use and productivity of maize
K. L. Greenwood A B , G. N. Mundy A and K. B. Kelly AA Department of Primary Industries, 120 Cooma Road, Kyabram, Vic. 3620, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: kerry.greenwood@dpi.vic.gov.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(3) 274-284 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA06094
Submitted: 15 March 2006 Accepted: 6 October 2006 Published: 4 February 2008
Abstract
Maize, as a C4 species, is likely to use water more productively than the perennial ryegrass and white clover pastures typically grown for dairy cows in northern Victoria. However, only estimates of water use by irrigated maize crops are available for this region. We measured the growth and water use of three commercial maize crops used for silage in northern Victoria. Crops under centre pivot irrigation were monitored in 2003–04 (Spray 1) and 2004–05 (Spray 2). A border-check irrigated crop (Border-check) was monitored in 2004–05. The Spray 1 crop was irrigated 30 times and received 782 mm of rainfall and irrigation. The crop yielded 22 t DM/ha, giving a water productivity of 28 kg DM/ha.mm (including irrigation, rainfall and change in soil water content). In the cooler, wetter summer of 2004–05, the water productivity was 34 kg DM/ha.mm for the Spray 2 crop and 30 kg DM/ha.mm for the Border-check crop. Crop evapotranspiration was estimated from weather data and a daily soil water balance was computed according to FAO 56. The estimated and measured changes in soil water content were in good agreement and indicated that the basal crop coefficients in the model (Kcb = 1.15 during the mid-season, before correction for non-standard humidity and wind speed) were appropriate to local conditions. Maize grown for silage in northern Victoria has higher water productivity than pastures. However, high yields are required to make it economically viable compared with alternative forages for dairy cows. These data will assist dairy farmers to select the optimum forage mix for their enterprises.
Additional keywords: water use efficiency.
Acknowledgements
Financial support was provided by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and Dairy Australia, through Murray Dairy. We thank Rob Reid and Ian Hamono for their helpful cooperation, and for allowing us to monitor their crops. We thank Mark Wood and Tony Cook for providing additional data on soil water content and water application for the Spray 1 crop; and Mark Pickles and Leon Tepper for their expertise and cooperation in the prompt acquisition and installation of the flow monitoring equipment at the Border-check site. We also thank Stuart Austin, Daryl Wilson, Richard Dabrowski and Graeme Phyland who provided technical assistance during the monitoring of the crops. We are grateful to Richard Allen for his helpful advice on modelling the water balance using FAO-56.
Allen RG
(2000) Using the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient method over an irrigated region as part of an evapotranspiration intercomparison study. Journal of Hydrology 229, 27–41.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Begg JE, Turner NC
(1976) Crop water deficits. Advances in Agronomy 28, 161–217.
|
CAS |
Hodges T, Evans DW
(1992) Leaf emergence and leaf duration related to thermal time calculations in CERES-Maize. Agronomy Journal 84, 724–730.
Mason WK,
Pritchard KE, Small DR
(1987) Effects of early season waterlogging on maize growth and yield. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 38, 27–35.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moran JB,
Kaiser A, Stockdale CR
(1990) The role of maize silage in milk and meat production from grazing cattle in Australia. Outlook on Agriculture 19, 171–177.
Mundy GN,
Greenwood KL,
Kelly KB,
Austin SM, Dellow KE
(2006) Improved soil and irrigation management for forage production. 3. Plant–soil–water relationships. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 327–335.
| Crossref |
Stanhill G
(1986) Water use efficiency. Advances in Agronomy 39, 53–85.
Stockdale CR, Beavis GW
(1994) Nutritional evaluation of whole plant maize ensiled at three chop lengths and fed to lactating dairy cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 709–716.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |