Among the top 10 most discussed (and cussed) topics at hometown cafes during harvest season is the test weight of the grain being reported from corn fields in the neighborhood. Test weight is measured in the U.S. in terms of pounds of grain per volumetric bushel. In practice, test weight measurements are based on the weight of grain that fills a quart container (32 quarts to a bushel) that meets the specifications of the USDA-FGIS (GIPSA) for official inspection.
Certain electronic moisture meters, like the Dickey-John GAC, estimate test weight based on a smaller-volume cup. These test weight estimates are reasonably accurate but are not accepted for official grain trading purposes. The official minimum allowable test weight in the U.S. for No. 1 yellow corn is 56 pounds per bushel and for No. 2 yellow corn is 54 pounds per bushel.
Corn grain in the U.S. is marketed on the basis of a 56-pound “bushel” regardless of test weight. Even though grain moisture is not part of the U.S. standards for corn, grain buyers pay on the basis of “dry” bushels (15% to 15.5% grain moisture content) or discount the purchase price to account for the drying expenses they will incur handling wetter corn grain.
Growers worry about low test weight because local grain buyers often discount the offered price paid to farmers for low test weight grain. In addition, growers are naturally disappointed when they deliver a 1000-bushel semi-load of grain that averages 52-pound test weight because they only get paid for 929 56-pound “market” bushels (52,000 lbs ÷ 56 lbs/bu). Plus, they receive a discounted price for the grain. On the other hand, high test weight grain makes growers feel good when they deliver a 1,000 bushel semi-load of grain that averages 60 pound test weight because they will get paid for 1,071 56-pound “market” bushels (60,000 lbs ÷ 56 lbs/bu).
These emotions encourage a belief that high test weight grain (pounds of dry matter per volumetric bushel) is associated with high grain yields (pounds of dry matter per acre) and vice versa. However, there is little evidence in the research literature that grain test weight has a strong positive relationship with grain yield. Hybrid variability exists for grain test weight, but also does not necessarily correspond to differences in genetic yield potential.
Grain test weight for a given hybrid often varies from field to field or year to year, but does not necessarily correspond to the overall yield level of an environment. Similarly, grain from high yielding fields does not necessarily have higher test weight than that from lower yielding fields. In fact, test weight of grain harvested from severely stressed fields is occasionally higher than that of grain from non-stressed fields.
Conventional dogma suggests that low test weight corn grain decreases the processing efficiency and quality of processed end-use products like corn starch, although the research literature does not consistently support this belief. Similarly, low test corn grain is often thought to be inferior for animal feed quality, although again the research literature is not in agreement on this.
Whether or not low test weight grain is inferior to higher test weight grain may depend on the cause of the low test weight in the first place.
Common causes of low grain test weight
Back in the 2009 harvest season in Indiana, there were more reports of low test weight corn grain than good or above average test weights. There were primarily six factors that accounted for most of the low test weight grain in 2009 and four shared a common overarching effect. Grain Moisture First and foremost, growers should understand that test weight and grain moisture are inversely related. The higher the grain moisture, the lower the test weight. As grain dries in the field or in the dryer, test weight naturally increases as long as kernel integrity remains intact. Test weight increases as grain dries partly because kernel volume tends to shrink with drying and so more kernels pack into a volume bushel and partly because drier grain is slicker, which tends to encourage kernels to pack more tightly in a volume bushel. Therefore in a year like 2009 with many of the initial harvest reports of grain moisture ranging from 25% to 30% instead of the usual starting moisture levels of about 20% to 23%, it should not be surprising that test weights were lower than expected. Here is a simple formula for estimating the increase in test weight with grain drying. In its simplest form, the equation is (A/B) x C; where A = 100 – dry moisture content, B = 100 – wet moisture content, and C = test weight at wet moisture content. The author (Hellevang) does not say, but I suspect this simple formula is most applicable within a “normal” range of harvest moistures up to moistures in the mid- to high 20s.
Example: Dry moisture = 15%, Wet moisture = 25%, Test weight at 25% = 52 lbs/bu.
Estimated test weight at 15% moisture = ((100 – 15) / (100 – 25)) x 52 = (85/75) x 52 = 58.9 lbs/bu
Stress during grain fill
Secondly, thirdly, and fourthly, drought stress, late-season foliar leaf diseases (primarily gray leaf spot and northern corn leaf blight), and below normal temperatures throughout September of 2009 all resulted in a significant deterioration of the crop’s photosynthetic machinery beginning in early to mid-September that “pulled the rug out from beneath” the successful completion of the grain filling period in some fields. This resulted in less than optimum starch deposition in the kernels. Fifthly, early October frost/freeze damage to late-developing, immature fields resulted in leaf or whole plant death that effectively put an end to the grain-filling process with the same negative effect on test weight.
Finally, there were widespread reports of ear rots (diplodia, gibberella, etc.) throughout many areas of Indiana in 2009. Kernel damage by these fungal pathogens results in light-weight, chaffy grain that also results in low test weight diseased grain, broken kernels, and excessive levels of foreign material. This cause of low test weight grain obviously results in inferior (if not toxic) animal feed quality grain, unacceptable end-use processing consequences (ethanol yield, DDGS quality, starch yield and quality, etc.), and difficulties in storing the damaged grain without further deterioration.