Sorghum Feedstock
Performance Tests:
Coordinator: W.L. Rooney Texas A&M University
Collaborators:
Scott Staggenborg, Kansas State University
Ken Moore, Iowa State University
Todd Pfieffer/Michael Barrett, University of Kentucky
Bissondat Macoon, Mississippi State University
Ron Heiniger, North Carolina State University
Gary Odvody, Texas Agrilife Research
Jim Heilman, Texas A&M University
Jeff Pedersen, USDA-ARS
Objectives
• Establish yield parameters for
different types of sorghums
• Establish quality parameters for
different sorghums across
environments
• Sustainability Analysis
Sorghum Experimental Design
•
•
•
•
•
Medium experimental units (0.05 to 0.10 ha)
3 to 4 replications
Nitrogen as recommended for forage sorghum production
Rainfed, no supplemental irrigation
Harvest
– Single, end of season Harvest (2008)
– Multiple, optimized to Type (2009)
• 6 Genotypes (varies in year)
• Harvest
–
–
–
–
Biomass Yield (Fresh, Dry),
Height
Maturity
Composition
2008
Sorghum Hybrid Selection - 2008
• Forage Sorghum Hybrids
– Graze-All, Graze-n-Bale
– PS and PI
• Silage Sorghum Hybrids
– 22053 and Sugar-T
– PS and PI, BMR and bmr
• Sweet Sorghum Variety
– M81-E
• Grain Sorghum (check)
• No energy sorghum
hybrids available in 2008
2008 Results
• Harvestable Yield in 6/7 locations
– Iowa – not planted due to wet spring
• Planting Dates - mid March to early June
• Harvest Date - late September to late November
• Yields
– Dry Weights
• 9 Mg/ha (grain check) to 26.2 Mg/ha (PS Forage Hybrid)
• Composition
– Biomass composition samples collected in most
locations
2009
Sorghum Hybrid Selection - 2009
• Forage Sorghum Hybrids
– Graze-All (PI)
– Graze-n-Bale (PS)
• Silage Sorghum Hybrids
– 22053, PS bmr
– Sugar-T, PI
• Sweet Sorghum Variety
– M81-E
• Energy Sorghum
– TAM08001
2009 Results
• Harvestable Yield in 6/7 locations
– CC, Texas – not planted due to extreme drought
• Yields – generally very good
• Composition
– Biomass composition samples collected in most
locations (2008 and 2009)
– NIR Scans completed in CS
– Sorghum composition model co-developed by NREL
and TAMU to estimate fiber composition.
Trials Overview
Trial
Location
Planting
Dates
Lead PI
Major Factors
(freeze, flood,
draught, etc.)
Harvest
Date(s),
Length of
Harvest, &
Harvest
Process
College
Station,
Texas
Annually in late
March or early
April
Rooney
Very dry in 2009 with
moisture early and
late
July/Oct
Manhattan,
KS
Early May
Staggenborg
Below average
temps and above
average moisture
Sept/Oct
Ames, IA
Mid to Late
May
Moore
Average year
September
Lexington
KY
Mid to Late
May
Pfieffer/Barr
ett
Average temps,
good moisture
September
Obstacles to
Data
Collection
Extremely wet
fall made
harvest difficult
Other
Information?
Trials Overview (continued)
Trial
Location
Planting
Dates
Lead PI
Major Factors
(freeze, flood,
draught, etc.)
Harvest
Date(s),
Length of
Harvest, &
Harvest
Process
Mississippi
April, replant in
June
Maccoon
Average climate, but
herbicide damage
from drift required
replant
August to
October
Plymouth
NC
Late April/early
May
Heininger
Excellent Year
July to October
Corpus
Christi,
Texas
Mid March
Odvody
Drought, did not
even plant.
None
Obstacles to
Data
Collection
Not Planting
Other
Information?
Texas – Burleson County
Variety
(# cuts)
Fresh
Weight
(MT/ha)
Moisture
%
Dry
Weight
(MT/ha)
BRIX %
Height
(m)
Days to
Flowerin
g
Grazeall 3
(2)
30.8
77
7.0
12.5
2.4
60
Graze-nBale (2)
44.9
81
8.5
7.7
2.2
No
22053 (2)
38.3
75
9.4
14.2
3.0
99
TAM8001
(1)
48.4
70
14.5
8.4
2.8
No
M81E (1)
45.3
82
8.7
10.1
2.8
140
Sugar T
(2)
56.1
77
12.9
12.8
2.9
85
Iowa - O'Brien County
Variety
(# cuts)
Fresh
Weight
(MT/ha)
Moisture
%
Dry
Weight
(MT/ha)
BRIX %
Height
(m)
Grain
(MT/ha)
Grazeall 3
(1)
98.4
76
23.0
13.0
2.7
1.07
Graze-nBale (1)
107.7
76
26.5
9.5
3.0
0.00
22053 (1)
69.5
75
16.4
10.1
3.0
0.74
TAM8001
(1)
47.3
72
13.4
11.7
3.1
0.00
M81E (1)
67.1
76
15.8
13.1
3.0
0.98
Sugar T
(1)
57.6
75
14.4
14.8
2.9
4.38
North Carolina – Washington County
Variety
(# cuts
Fresh
Weight
(MT/ha)
Moisture
%
Dry
Weight
(MT/ha)
BRIX %
Height
(m)
Days to
Flowering
Grazeall 3
(2)
110.9
80
18.9
8.4
2.3
45
Graze-nBale (2)
100.8
80
15.4
7.1
2.2
No
22053 (2)
69.7
74
17.9
11.0
3.1
90
TAM8001
(1)
104.3
67
34.7
9.9
4.5
No
M81E (1)
111.0
72
30.9
10.9
3.6
105
Sugar T (1)
97.5
76
23.5
11.8
3.6
90
Combined – mean (range)
Fresh Weight
(MT/ha)
Moisture %
Dry Weight
(MT/ha)
Grazeall 3
64.7
(19, 110)
74.0
(63, 80)
16.8
(7, 23)
Graze-n-Bale
73.4
(40, 108)
76.0
(67, 81)
17.6
(9, 27)
22053
52.2
(31, 70)
73.5
(70, 75)
13.8
(9, 18)
TAM8001
60.0
(39, 104)
65.9
(40, 111)
68.0
(63, 72)
75.5
(72, 82)
19.2
(13, 34)
16.1
(9, 31)
61.5
(34, 98)
73.5
(66, 77)
16.3
(12, 24)
Variety (# cuts)
M81E
Sugar T
Yield Data and Interpretation
• Multiple Cut Hybrids provide greater
window of harvest, more cost/harvest
• Single Cut Hybrids provide total yield in
single harvest reduce cost/harvest
• Yield of top MC, SC in year is similar
• Adaptation:
• Photoperiod Sensitive
– Higher Yielding
– Less susceptible to drought
Composition
• Sample Collected
• Composition will be estimated
• NIR Calibration Curve
– Collaborative with NREL, NSP
– Standardization is critical
– Estimate on all over years for GxE study
Carbohydrate Composition
Table 3 Summary of the chemical composition data obtained on the calibration set
using dietary fiber analysis
N
Mean
Std Dev
Min
Max
Range
CV†
Lignin
97
13.8
2.9
9.2
20.6
11.4
21.0
Xylan
97
16.5
2.7
10.8
22.5
11.7
16.6
Glucan
97
32.8
5.1
21.9
47.4
25.5
15.4
Solubles
97
23.1
8.0
11.0
44.0
32.9
34.8
Constituent
Data are expressed as wt% dry basis
†CV,
Coefficient of variation
NIR Curve Development
Table 5 Summary of the NIR calibration models built for predicting lignin, xylan, glucan, and
solubles
Constituent Multivariate Math Pre# PCs† N‡ Mean SEC
R2 SECV R2 for
procedure
treatments
CV
Lignin
MPLS
Xylan
PLS
2-8-6-1; MSC
9
90
13.62 0.74 0.93
1.12
0.84
1-4-4-1; D
9
94
16.45 1.34 0.76
1.65
0.64
Glucan
Solubles
†Number
of principal components included in the model
‡Number
of samples used in building the calibration model
Sustainability
• Sustainability analysis initiated in
College Station in 2009
– Soil Carbon
– Nitrogen Requirements
• Initial collections in 2009, no
information available as of now.
2010 Plans
• Continue testing, further refining of
hybrid variety selections.
• Compile three year averages
– Location
– Hybrids
• Additional Emphasis
– Composition Analysis
– Nutrient Analysis
– Economic Analysis
• Additional Locations