Maize feedstocks with improved digestibility reduce the costs and environmental impacts of biomass pretreatment and saccharification

Table 1 Whole-plant biomass yield (in t ha⁻¹) and digestibility rating of Northern-European maize silage cultivars and experimental hybrids

Accession	Yield (t ha⁻¹)	CWD^a (%)	Digestibility class
HYB-001	18.7	36.6	Excellent
HYB-002	21.1	34.1	Excellent
HYB-003	20.3	33.8	Excellent
HYB-004	19.7	30.7	Excellent
HYB-005	18.5	34.1	Excellent
HYB-006	19.3	28.1	Good
HYB-007	19.4	24.8	Good
HYB-008	18.4	24.3	Good
HYB-009	19.0	25.0	Good
HYB-010	20.5	28.4	Good
HYB-011	17.3	29.3	Good
HYB-012	20.8	15.7	Poor
HYB-013	20.8	19.9	Poor
HYB-014	21.0	14.2	Poor
HYB-015	20.5	18.8	Poor
HYB-016	21.8	17.2	Poor
HYB-017	20.4	15.9	Poor
HYB-018	20.6	15.2	Poor
HYB-010-bm3	17.8	38.8	Cell wall mutant
HYB-011-bm3	15.2	35.0	Cell wall mutant
HYB-006-bm1	15.8	33.2	Cell wall mutant
HYB-009-bm1	16.8	34.3	Cell wall mutant
HYB-014-bm1	16.5	26.0	Cell wall mutant
Mean	19.3	26.7
F probability^b	***	***
L.S.D^c	1.6	5.7

^aCWD: In vitro cell wall digestibility determined as the difference in neutral detergent fiber content before and after sample incubation in rumen liquor for 48 h relative to neutral detergent fiber content prior to incubation
^bSignificance of differences between entries as determined by ANOVA; p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01(**), and p < 0.001(***), NS indicates non-significant differences
^cLeast significant differences of means (5 % level)

ISSN: 2731-3654