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

2009
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

Obstacles to 

Data 

Collection

Other 

Information?

College 

Station, 

Texas

Annually in late 

March or early 

April

Rooney Very dry in 2009 with 

moisture early and 

late

July/Oct Extremely wet 

fall made 

harvest difficult

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
Trials Overview (continued)

Trial 

Location

Planting 

Dates

Lead PI Major Factors 

(freeze, flood, 

draught, etc.)

Harvest 

Date(s), 

Length of 

Harvest, & 

Harvest 

Process

Obstacles to 

Data 

Collection

Other 

Information?

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 Not Planting
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)

Variety (# cuts)

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)

68.0

(63, 72)

19.2

(13, 34)

M81E 65.9

(40, 111)

75.5

(72, 82)

16.1

(9, 31)

Sugar T

61.5

(34, 98)

73.5

(66, 77)

16.3

(12, 24)
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

Constituent 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

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 

procedure

Math Pretreatments# PCs† N‡ Mean SEC R

2 SECV R2

for 

CV

Lignin MPLS

2-8-6-1; MSC 9 90 13.62 0.74 0.93 1.12 0.84

Xylan PLS

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