# Sorghum Feedstock Performance Tests: Coordinator: W.L . Rooney T exas A&M University Collaborators: Scott Staggenborg, Kansas State University Ken Moore, Iowa State University Todd Pfief

fer /Michael Barrett, University of Kentucky Bissondat Macoon, Mississippi State University Ron Heiniger, North Carolina State University Gary Odvody, T

exas Agrilife Research Jim Heilman, T

exas A&M University Jef f 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
**Tr ial**  **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 Ve ry 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)
**Tr ial**  **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**  **Va riety**  **(# cuts) Fresh** 

**We ight**  **(MT/ha) Moisture** 

**% Dry** 

**We ight**  **(MT/ha) BRIX %**  **Height (m)**  **Days to** 

**Flow erin**  **g** Grazeall 3 (2) 30.8 77 7.0 12.5 2.4 60 Graze- n Bale (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**  **Va riety**  **(# cuts)**  **Fresh**

**We ight**  **(MT/ha) Moisture** 

**% Dry** 

**We ight**  **(MT/ha) BRIX %**  **Height (m)**  **Grain**

**(MT/ha)** Grazeall 3 (1) 98.4 76 23.0 13.0 2.7 1.07 Graze- n Bale (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**  **Va riety**  **(# cuts Fresh** 

**We ight**  **(MT/ha) Moisture** 

**% Dry** 

**We ight**  **(MT/ha) BRIX %**  **Height (m)**  **Days to** 

**Flow ering**  Grazeall 3 (2) 11 0.9 80 18.9 8.4 2.3 45 Graze- n Bale (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)**  **Va riety (# cuts)**  **Fresh W eight**  **(MT/ha) Moisture**  **% Dry**  **We ight**  **(MT/ha)** Grazeall 3 64.7 (19, 11 0) 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
Ta ble 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 Xy lan 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 Ta ble 5 Summary of the NIR calibration models built fo r predicting lignin, xylan, glucan, and solubles Constituent Multivariate

procedure Math Pretreatments # PCs † N ‡ Mean SEC R 2 SECV R 2 fo r CV Lignin MPLS 2 -8- 6- 1; MSC 9 90 13.62 0.74 0.93 1.12 0.84 Xy lan 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