some plots. Soybean yields were 50% of those obtained in monoculture in the Carrillo can<strong>to</strong>n (Costa Rica), in very similar soil and climatic conditions. Table 1. Production costs of maize for silage making (Pacific Coast, Costa Rica, 1999). Cost component Units/ha Unitary cost Total cost (US$) (US$) Land preparation (h) 4 11.70 46.80 Planting Maize seed (kg) Soybean seed (kg) Inoculant (kg) Fertilizer (10:30:10) (kg) Labor (h) Crop maintenance Fertilizer (urea, kg) Herbicide (atrazine, L) Labor (h) Harvest Baby corn (h) Mature maize (h) Forage (cut-and-carry) (h) Stationary chopper (t) Silage (heap silo) Plastic (t) Compaction (t) Labor (h) 18.0 16.0 0.32 100 36 300 2 12 14 14 40 25 25 25 25 38 0.85 0.40 13.35 0.30 1.09 0.20 5.00 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.17 0.42 1.12 1.09 15.30 6.40 4.27 30.00 39.24 60.00 10.00 13.08 15.26 15.26 76.00 4.25 10.50 28.00 27.25 Total (US$) 401.61 Conclusions Mixed cropping of maize and soybean for silage making has great potential in the Pacific region of Costa Rica, not only for increasing the amount of protein in the final product, but also because of the economic effect on the final value of the product and partial use of the maize harvest. Results show that it was possible <strong>to</strong> pay 77.5% of the cost of making silage, including planting, harvest, and maintenance.
Table 2. Yields per hectare in different methods of cultivating maize and soybean for silage making (Pacific Coast, Costa Rica, 1999). Treatment In association Harvest of 50% BC Harvest of 50% MM No harvest Alternate Harvest of 50% BC Harvest of 50% MM No harvest Monoculture Harvest of 50% BC Harvest of 50% MM No harvest Averages Harvest of 50% BC Harvest of 50% MM No harvest In association Alternate Monoculture General Production (no./hectare) Fresh (kg/ha) 39 Forage Dry (kg/ha) c BC a MM b Maize Soybean Maize Soybean 14,780 0 0 14,890 0 0 15,533 0 0 15,067 0 0 15,067 0 15,870 0 0 13,358 0 0 14,645 0 0 14,624 0 14,624 28,194 29,584 40,834 26,528 24,930 33,958 31,944 24,306 30,972 28,888.7 26,273.3 35,254.7 32,870.7 28,472.0 29,074.0 30,138.9 10,278 7,084 11,458 13,820 12,362 14,270 10,556 10,278 11,216 11,551.3 9,908.0 12,314.7 9,606.7 13,484.0 10,683.3 11,258.0 a. BC = baby corn. b. MM = mature maize. c. In parenthesis, the percentage of each associated component in <strong>to</strong>tal dry matter. 9,365.4 (74.9) 11,131.2 (82.9) 14,150.8 (79.0) 9,829.4 (70.4) 8,999.8 (71.2) 12,267.4 (73.0) 9,795.2 (76.8) 8,448.4 (70.9) 11,386.8 (74.6) 9,663.3 (74.0) 9,526.5 (75.0) 12,601.7 (75.5) 11,549.1 (78.6) 10,365.5 (71.5) 9,876.8 (74.1) 10,597.2 (75.0) 3,014.6 (25.1) 2,285.4 (17.1) 3,679.0 (21.0) 4,158.4 (29.6) 3,597.0 (28.8) 4,248.0 (23.0) 3,002.8 (23.2) 3,239.4 (29.1) 3,872.8 (25.4) 3,391.9 (26.0) 3,040.6 (25.0) 3,933.3 (24.5) 2,993.0 (21.4) 4,001.1 (28.5) 3,371.7 (25.9) 3,455.3 (25.0) In this case, if cropping conditions are improved, especially in terms of appropriate fertilization and improved soil drainage in some plots, then yields will improve and more mature maize can be sold, allowing 100% or more of the initial investment <strong>to</strong> be recovered.
- Page 1 and 2: Feeding Systems with Legumes to Int
- Page 3 and 4: Holmann, Federico and Lascano, Carl
- Page 5 and 6: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
- Page 7 and 8: At the CIAT-Quilichao station (Depa
- Page 9 and 10: In collaboration with Nicaragua’s
- Page 11 and 12: (Continued) Component Activity Outs
- Page 13 and 14: Activity 2.1. On-farm evaluation of
- Page 15 and 16: FINAL REPORT OF THE TROPILECHE CONS
- Page 17 and 18: RESEARCH RESULTS Component 1: Optim
- Page 19 and 20: during the rainy season, samplings
- Page 21 and 22: Ncidence (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
- Page 23 and 24: Table 3. Effect of three types of p
- Page 25 and 26: References Cipagauta, M.; Velasquez
- Page 27 and 28: Table 1. Effect of incorporating St
- Page 29 and 30: Evaluation of Milk Production Syste
- Page 31 and 32: Table 2. Quality of milk produced b
- Page 33 and 34: Table 1. Effect of level and freque
- Page 35 and 36: Effects of Feeding Fresh and Ensile
- Page 37 and 38: Table 1. Daily intake of dry matter
- Page 39 and 40: argentea (taking into account cutti
- Page 41 and 42: Evaluation of Cratylia argentea as
- Page 43 and 44: A 3 x 3 Latin square changeover des
- Page 45 and 46: argentea is recommended over the us
- Page 47 and 48: The silos were left to ferment for
- Page 49 and 50: References Argel, P. J. and Lascano
- Page 51: y the Grain and Seed Research Cente
- Page 55 and 56: Table 1. Treatments evaluated for m
- Page 57 and 58: Table 3. Dry matter and crude prote
- Page 59 and 60: Activity 1.3 Functional relationshi
- Page 61 and 62: increase in milk yield when offered
- Page 63 and 64: Milk Production in Dual-Purpose Cow
- Page 65 and 66: associated pasture. Also, the perce
- Page 67 and 68: that of cows grazing sole cropped p
- Page 69 and 70: Effect of Age of Regrowth and Cutti
- Page 71 and 72: Average DM yields/plant at 60 days
- Page 73 and 74: Percentage 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 F
- Page 75 and 76: Effect of Supplementing Fresh and E
- Page 77 and 78: Table 1. Average milk production, t
- Page 79 and 80: Lucas, H. L. 1983. Design and analy
- Page 81 and 82: U = overall mean Tj = effect of the
- Page 83 and 84: In the case of king grass, estimate
- Page 85 and 86: Milk production during the season o
- Page 87 and 88: Jorge Vela IIAP, Peru Use of Stylos
- Page 89 and 90: Use of Stylosanthes guianensis with
- Page 91 and 92: Activity 2.3. Integration of inform
- Page 93 and 94: Application of the Model to Researc
- Page 95 and 96: Table 3. Actual and predicted milk
- Page 97 and 98: Usefulness of the CNCPS Model The T
- Page 99 and 100: Annual Meeting February 1998, Costa
- Page 101 and 102: Regional Consultation Meeting Octob
- Page 103 and 104:
Ex-Ante Analysis of New Forage Alte
- Page 105 and 106:
Resource prices and capital investm
- Page 107 and 108:
Table 3. Direct production costs, g
- Page 109 and 110:
Production costs decreased as produ
- Page 111 and 112:
Ex-ante analysis for Nicaragua. The
- Page 113 and 114:
Real interest (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10
- Page 115 and 116:
With this alternative, the milk pro
- Page 117 and 118:
Early Adoption of Arachis pintoi in
- Page 119 and 120:
Table 2. Change in area of improved
- Page 121 and 122:
Table 5. Profitability of Arachis p
- Page 123 and 124:
with a dry season between May and A
- Page 125 and 126:
From 21% to 73% of the farmers grew
- Page 127 and 128:
Research Recommendations Based on r
- Page 129 and 130:
Materials and Methods Data for this
- Page 131 and 132:
Prices of Inputs/Outputs and Use of
- Page 133 and 134:
Table 3. Amount of feed supplements
- Page 135 and 136:
adoption level requires the lowest
- Page 137 and 138:
Table 6. Use of a simulation model
- Page 139 and 140:
The production cost/kg milk was low
- Page 141 and 142:
level of adoption can be regarded a
- Page 143 and 144:
income was lower or equal to 6 mont
- Page 145 and 146:
Table 10. Annual seed requirements
- Page 147 and 148:
Nicaragua. In addition, this level
- Page 149 and 150:
Analysis of the Milk Market of Smal
- Page 151 and 152:
Results and Discussion Collection o
- Page 153 and 154:
Table 2. Characteristics of milk an
- Page 155 and 156:
The third need identified in Hondur
- Page 157 and 158:
artisan cheese factories milk with
- Page 159 and 160:
Tropileche Newsletter Federico Holm
- Page 161 and 162:
Tropileche on Internet Anderson Med
- Page 163 and 164:
Production of Brochures for Extensi
- Page 165 and 166:
with heavy soils and frequent rains
- Page 167 and 168:
systems, its use by ruminants can b
- Page 169 and 170:
Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110: Cu
- Page 171 and 172:
growing this cultivar in Costa Rica
- Page 173 and 174:
Technical bulletins Argel, P. J. an
- Page 175 and 176:
International Seminars Argel, P. J.
- Page 177 and 178:
LIST OF PROJECT PROPOSALS DEVELOPED