ORNL/TM

- 2010/7



# Review of Sorghum Production Practices: Applications for Bioenergy

June 2010

Prepared by

Anthony F. Turhollow, Ph.D.
Erin G. Webb , Ph.D., P.E.
Mark E. Downing, Ph.D.DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

Reports produce d after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge.

**Web site** http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following s ource.

National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 **Telephone** 703

- 605

- 6000 (1

- 800

- 553

- 6847)

**TDD** 703

- 487

- 4639
**Fax** 703

- 605

- 6900
**E**

**- mail**  info@ntis.gov
**Web site** http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm

Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source.

Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 **Telephone** 865

- 576

- 8401
**Fax** 865

- 576

- 5728
**E**

**- mail**  reports@osti.gov
**Web site** http://www.osti.gov/contact.html

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or p rocess disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.ORNL /TM

- 2010/7

Environmental Sciences Division

Review of Sorghum Production Practices: Applications for Bioenergy

Anthony F. Turhollow

Erin G. Webb Mark E. Downing

Date Published : June 2010

Prepared by

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABO RATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

- 628 3 managed by

UT

- BATTELLE, LLC

for the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

under contract DE

- AC05

- 00OR22725iii CONTENTS

Page

Preface

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. vii

Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ ix

1. Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1

2. Sorghum biomass yield experiments

................................ ................................ .............................. 4

3. Sorghum hybrids

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 6

4. Water use

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 7

5. Harvest and storage systems

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9

6. Sorghum and sugar ca ne

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11

7. Crop improvement efforts

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 12

8. Adaptation of modern sorghum varieties and hybrids in developing countries

............................ 15

9. How to approach sorghum research

................................ ................................ .............................. 16

10. Why sorghum a s an energy crop and needed improvements

................................ ........................ 17

11. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17v LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Sorghu m types grown in the US and typical purposes and bioenergy applications for each.

.............. 2

2. Forage sorghum, sorghum x sudangrass, and sudangrass characteristics based on Virginia, USA conditions ( Teutsch, 2006)

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4

3. Sorghum yields and lodging in Indiana, USA in 1990 (Johnson et al, 1991)

................................ ..... 5

4. Sorghum yields in Indiana, U SA in 1989 (Cherney et al, 1990)

................................ ......................... 5

5. Sorghum double cropped with winter rye for four years in Indiana, USA had declining yield a over time (Cherney et al, 1990)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6

6. Biomass production, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency for corn, sorghum, and millet in Northern India in 1979 and 1980 (Singh and Singh, 1995)

................................ ................................ .... 7

7. Yields, harvest index, and irrigation water use efficiency (WUE) for maize and sorghum at Zaragoza, Spain in 1995 (Farré and Faci, 2004)

................................ ................................ ..................... 8

8. Dryland sorghum and winter wheat yields (Mg ha

- 1) in continuous and fallow rotations 1973

- 1987 at Tribune, Kansas, USA (Norwood et al 1990)

................................ ................................ ..................... 8

9. How sweet sorghum sugar content is affected by delay in crushing (Reddy et al, 2008)

.................. 10

10. How harvest timing (days after planting) affect sorghum yield and total ethanol from sorghum in Louisiana (Tew et al, 2008)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12

11. Hybrids relative to variety in India (Reddy et al; 2007, 2008)

................................ ....................... 14

12. How rankings for sugar and grain change between rainy and nonrainy season over 2 years (Reddy et al, 2008)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14v ii PREFACE

The following exhaustive literature review of sorghum production practices was developed by researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to document th e current state of knowledge regarding sorghum production and, based on this, suggest areas of research needed to develop sorghum as a commercial bioenergy feedstock. This work began as part of the China Biofuels Project sponsored by the DOE Energy Effici ency and Renewable Energy Program to communicate technical information regarding bioenergy feedstocks to government and industry partners in China, but will be utilized in a variety of programs in which evaluation of sorghum for bioenergy is needed. This report can also be

used as a basis for data (yield, water use, etc.) for US and international bioenergy feedstock supply modeling eff orts

.ix SUMMARY

Sorghum has great potential as an annual energy crop. While primarily grown for its grain, sorghum

can also be grown for animal feed and sugar. Sorghum is morphologically diverse, with grain sorghum being of relatively short stature and grown for grain, while forage and sweet sorghums are tall and grown primarily for their biomass. Under water

- limited con ditions sorghum is reliably more productive than corn. While a relatively minor crop in the United States (about 2% of planted cropland) , sorghum is important in Africa and parts of Asia. While sorghum is a relatively efficient user of water, it biomass potential is limited by available moisture.

As a cellulosic feedstock for bioenergy, the sweet and forage types are of interest. Energy sorghum is forage sorghum bred for high biomass production. Dual purpose forage

, sweet , and energy sorghums produce b oth biomass and grain. Related sorghums, sudangrass and sorghum x sudangrass, may also have a role as short growing season crops or crops allowing two cuttings in one growing season. At
present about 1 x 10 9 L of ethanol are produced from grain sorghum i n the United States. T here is a small production of energy from sweet sorghums.

Grain sorghums have been bred for dwarf stature and stand 0.6

- 1.2 m (2

- 4’) tall. The maximum potential biomass yield of th e grain sorghum type is about 23 dry Mg ha - 1 . In a n FAO document (from the mid 1990s) on sorghum in China, grain sorghum water requirements are stated as 350 to 700 mm, depending on the length of the growing cycle (short

- growth variety 90 days to long

- growth variety 130 days). For optimum yields on good soil, short

- growth, average

- growth, and long growth varieties requires 500 to 600 (20 to 24), 650 to 800 (26 to 31), and 950 to 1100 (37 to 43) mm (inches) of well distributed rainfall, respectively (Natural Resources Institute, no date).

Sweet and forage sorghums have high yield potential, 20 to 40 dry Mg ha - 1

. A s an annual (instead of a perennial) crop , sorghum can be rotated with other annuals such as corn and soybeans or grown in multiple crop rotations , which can diversify production (reducing risk)

, improve soils and reduce weed and insect control requirements, mak ing sorghum attractive to farmers (e.g. see Ngouajio , no date) . In its breeding program for energy sorghum, Texas A&M University has a yield goal of 45 dry Mg ha - 1
(20 dry tons acre - 1 ) (Sc hill, 2007). Reddy (2008) indicates that sweet sorghum is similar to grain sorghum, but requires 700+ mm of rainfall. Because both sweet and forage sorghums are thick stemmed, they are typically 60% to 70% moisture (wet basis) at harvest and handled as a silage crop, rather than as a hay crop. Sweet sorghum can have sugar content s similar to sugar cane and, like sugar

cane
, it must be processed quickly to avoid losses of sugars . It may be possible t o field dry forage sorghum to lower moisture content if utilized for energy purposes

, rather than as a forage crop where feed quality is important. If the desired storage method is ensiling and the moisture content is too low, it is difficult to store the crop as silage. L ower moisture content can lower tran sport costs.

S orghum planting strategies are l argely determined by site conditions (e.g. available moisture, length of growing season), requirements of the preceding and succeeding crop, and objective(s) in growing sorghum [whether solely for grain, solel y for biomass (and sugar), or for both grain and biomass (and sugar)]. Forage sorghums have higher growing temperature requirements than corn (Roth, 1995). Minimum temperature for forage sorghum growth is about 15 ◦ C (60 ◦ F) and optimum growth occurs

when mean temperatures are between 24 ◦ C (75 ◦ F) and 27 ◦ C (80 ◦ F). Planting should occur when soil temperatures have reached 18 ◦ C (65 ◦ F) at 5.1

- to 10.2

- cm (2

- to 4

- inch) depth.

There are both photoperiod sensitive and photoperiod insensitive sorghums. Photoper iod insensitive sorghums initiate reproductive growth after a set amount of time regardless of day length . Grain sorghum has been bred in temperate climates to do this. Photoperiod sensitive sorghum beginsx reproductive growth (i.e. flowering) when day le ngth reaches a certain threshold. This threshold depends on the particular genotype and ranges from 11.5 to 13.5 hours

. If biomass is the desired product, sorghums with a photoperiod shorter than day length at the end of the growing season (first

frost i n temperate climates) allows the crop to maxim ize biomass production. However, disease and drought may limit how much of the growing season can be utilized and affect the timing of planting. In areas with longer growing seasons, it may be possible to gro w a ratoon crop of sorghum (i.e. sorghum is harvested and then a second crop grows back from the roots). If a rato on crop is desired,

then sorghum with a long er photoperiod or photoperiod insensitive would be selected. Photoperiod sensitive sorghums gene rally do not set seed under Midwestern, USA conditions. Sorghums should be selected for an appropriate photoperiod for the region where they are grown , when they are planted, and the goal for which they are grown (biomass versus bioma ss plus grain).

Rese arch at Purdue University (Cherney et al 1990, Johnson et al 1991) found that lodging resistance is critical for top yields. While two cuttings can reduce lodging, yield was greatly reduced. [Lodging is when plants fall over.] Varietal selection and agr onomic practices may reduce lodging. Taller plants do not necessarily produce higher yields. Sorghum grown in monoculture had declining yields over time. Rye double cropped with sorghum can be a high yielding system.

Hybrids have a long history of use in sorghum production . Properly selected sorghum hybrids can help growers increase yields, use less water , reduce lodging losses, increase feed quality, and manage maturation ( Bean et al 2004, Reddy et al 2008) . Owens (2009) reported 20% higher biomass y ield from sorghum hybrids in trial conducted in the United States in 2008 . Hybrid energy sorghums are

available from at least two American seed companies, Ceres and Edenspace , and research could further enhance traits desired for bioenergy

.

There are app roximately 168,000 sorghum accessions held at repositories around the world, with the

two largest repositories being ICRISAT and USDA. The sorghum genome is the second major cereal crop to be sequenced. China has significant sorghum genetic resources and has exported germplasm to other countries. Many Chine se sorghum varieties are tall and offer a wide range in days to maturity (80 to 190 days). Stresses screened for include drought, cold, saline and alkali soils, and various

diseases (e.g. head smut ) a nd pests (e.g. sugar cane aphid and European corn borer ) . Cold tolerance is an important trait available in Chinese germplasm. For biomass, ICRISAT focuses on sweet sorghum with significant grain yield. In the United States Texas A&M focuses on high

- yie lding energy sorghum ( i.e. for biomass and not grain). There are also brown midrib (BMR) sorghum s that are lower in lignin . BMR sorghum was developed to improve feed quality (higher digestibility) and may also

offer better characteristics than typical so rghum for bio conversion to ethanol.

One of the major challenges facing biomass crops, including sorghum, is logistics (harvest, transport, storage). Grain sorghum is harvested using equipment and systems common to other small grains,

such as wheat. The logistics of grain sorghum (harvest, transport, storage) are well developed and similar to maize grain. Tall sorghums (forage, sweet, energy) are harvested with a forage or sugar cane harvester. High tonnages may require large self

- propelled harvesters, which have a high capital cost.

In areas where field and /or road conditions (combined with economics) limit the use of large

- scale harvest equipment , smaller tractor

- pulled forage harvester s are used (Pari et al, 2008). For cost

effective harvesting it i s advantageous to have an extended harvest season or, in the case of an area also growing sugar cane, to have the sorghum harvest season from the sugar cane harvest season and be able to utilize sugar cane harvesters that would otherwise be idle.

Moistu re content presents a challenge for utilizing forage, sweet, and energy sorghum s . Generally

, these sorghums are thick

- stemmed and high in moisture content at harvest (60% to 70% on a wetxi basis) , requiring either ensiling, or a cost

- effective means of redu cing moisture content below the point that permits dry storage methods (generally below 20%), or quick processing. The cost of biomass transport generally increases with moisture content since the amount of dry biomass carried by a given

container (or tru ck) is reduced by the weight of embedded water. If the sorghum could be reduced to a moisture content of 40%, then the load could be increased , and costs may be reduced 40% under

United States conditions . Road characteristics and local transport regulati ons limit the size and weight

of tra nsport equipment, but generally costs will be reduced as bulk load density and volume are

increased to reach these limits

.

Drying options and harvest logistics depend on use and storage plans. Due to the moisture conte nt, sorghum for feed is generally handled as a silage crop (as opposed to a hay crop). T o store the crop as silage (for feed), moisture content must be above 50%. And while sweet sorghum can produce sugar contents rivaling sugarcane, the sugars must be p rocessed quickly (like sugarcane). F orage sorghum used exclusively for energy could be allowed to dry in the field, but field drying can compromise sorghum’s value for feed, reducing marketing options.

The option of rapid, i ntermediate processing could involve small scale pyrolysis , p elletization or

c ubing , but any of these would demand significant drying ( optimal ly, to a moisture content of about

10% )

. Pyrolysis would pro duce a liquid that might be more economically stored and transported.

D evelopi ng sorghum as an energy crop will need to be supported by an integrative research strategy

that consider s an entire cropping system (where sorghum may be one component) to sustainably and economically produce food, feed , fiber and fuel s

. Preliminary resear ch questions that need to be explored include:

W hat sorghum products are desired ?

**•** Both biomass (lignocellulose alone or lignocellulose and sugar) and grain ?

**•** Primarily biomass (and grain produced, if any, is incidental) ?

**•** Sugars (and possibly grain) with the bagasse as a secondary product?

W hat land will be used ?

**•** Will sorghum replace current food and fe ed crops, or pasture?

**•** Will sorghum be integrated in crop rotation s (potentially increasing long

- term productivity of other crops)?

**•** Will sorghum be part of an expansion into marginal lands or part of recuperation of abandoned and degraded lands?

In addition to land use and product mix, productivity depends on intensity of production and constraining factors such as water. The feasibility of bioenergy from sorghum will depend on costs of required inputs, efficiency of operations, markets and prices for cropping system outputs and technologies available. For example, with today’s conversion technologies, sweet sorghum for conventional ethanol may be the most viable bioenergy option , but in the future

, lignocellulosic conversion technology may favor sorghum varieties with higher biomass yield s per unit of input than sweet sorghum.

A question to research is whether one is better off utilizing sorghum that is s pecialized (e.g. energy sorghum for biomass and grain sorghum for grain) or sorghum that is multipurpose (e.g. sweetxii sorghum that produces both grain and biomass) instead? For example, if grain sorghum is grown on 1 unit of land and energy sorghum on 1 un it of land, will this produce more grain and biomass than dual purpose sorghum (a sorghum developed for both grain and biomass) grown on 2 units of land? The answer is likely to vary be location.

Storage is an issue with any bio energy crop
, particularly those with relatively short harvest seasons.

T o operate a conversion facility year round requires significant storage o r diversification of feedstocks (e.g. woody crops , winter crops) to allow cont i nuous harvest and delivery throughout the year . One

mean s of reducing storage requirements is to ex tend the sorghum harvest season by staggering planting times, using varieties with differing maturities

, and utilizing ratoon ( multiple cutting) management

.

A mong potential annual bioenergy crops, sorghum may b e advantageous where drought tolerance is important and it can enhance production of other crops (e.g. as seasonal cover crop or in rotations). Sorghum allows farmers flexibility in choice of crop from year to year

. It has the potential for high yield (4 0+ dry Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ). Genetic mapping combined with a relatively fast breeding and field testing cycle facilitate further improvements for bioenergy once desired feedstock characteristics and site requirements are clearly defined. Acknowledging that impr ovements for bioenergy could potentially diverge from those for feed and food, the following research agenda is proposed:

1) De fine tr a i t s important for bioenergy and characterize sorghum collections for these traits

2) Develop cost

- effective means to stabilize sweet sorghum juice so it does not need immediate processing

3) Increase sugar yields of s weet sorghum for use in the near term as an ethanol feedstock (or to supplement sugar from sugarcane )

4) Increase grain yields for sweet and energy sorghums to explore mult i

- product potential

5) Develop varieties for high biomass yields (energy sorghum)

6) High and low lignin varieties (high lignin for thermochemical conversion such as gasification or pyrolysis and low lignin for ethanol feedstock)

7) Research cropping systems includ ing

**•** double cropping where sorghum supplement s other grain production to increase overall output while reducing environmental impacts

**•** cover crop and inter

- crop sorghum that helps control weeds and pests for high

- value crops (vegetables) while improving soil s

While perennial biomass crops may be preferred for environmental benefits, annual s such as sorghum provide farmers with more agility to shift crop production in response to market signals

. Both perennials and annuals can play important roles in an inte grated system designed to minimize input requirements and maximize production of multiple food, feed, fiber and fuel products.1 1. BACKGROUND

Sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] has much potential as an annual energy crop. It is morphologically di verse, with grain sorghum being of relatively short stature and grown for grain, while forage/sweet sorghums are tall and grown primarily for their biomass. Sorghum is a more

efficient user of water than corn under water

- limited conditions and is well ada pted to environments where water availability is a constraint.

Different sorghum types can be used as bioenergy feedstocks for a variety of conversion technologies (see Table 1). Sorghum grain can be utilized alongside corn grain in starch

- to

- ethanol f acilities. In

2008

, about 2.5 x 10 6 Mg (100 x 10 6 bushels) of grain sorghum was used to produce about 1.0 x 10 9 L (270 x 10 6 gallons) of ethanol in the United States. There is growing interest in using sweet sorghum juice to produce ethanol. For example, in 2008 Renergie, Inc. received a $1.5 million grant from the state of Florida to design and construct a facility to produce ethanol from sweet sorghum juice (News.mongabay.com, 2008). In India , in Andhra Pradesh S tate, Runsi Distilleries has a sweet

sor ghum to ethanol facility, and Tata Chemicals is

, or has recently finished

, constructing a sweet sorghum to ethanol facility in Maharashtra state (FBAE, 2008; Alibaba.com, 2008). In 2008 , it was

announced that Nigeria Global Biofuels would construct a 1.5 x 10 6 L per day ethanol facility (D

- 8 Secretariat, 2008) in Ondo State . According to the National Sorghum Producers

, sweet sorghum is currently being used in India, South America, and the Philippines to produce ethanol (National Sorghum Producers, no date ). Sweet sorghum juice is also of interest for on

- farm ethanol productio n (Bennett and Anex, 2008).

Figure 1. Sorghum types and bioenergy applications: sorghum grain (left, photo courtesy of USDA ARS) can be utilized much like corn grain in starch

- to

- ethanol facilities while the biomass of forage, or energy, sorghum (right, photo courtesy of Dave Jordan, MacDon Industries, LLC) can be harvested as a

cellulosic feedstock.

As a c ellulosic feedstock, the sweet and forage types are of interest. Energy so rghum is forage sorghum bred for high biomass product ion. Dual purpose forage and energy sorghums produce both biomass and grain , and multipurpose sweet sorghums can produce biomass, sugar, and grain . Related sorghums, sudangrass

, and sorghum x sudangras s may also have a role as short growing season crops or crops allowing two cuttings in one growing season.2 Table 1

. Sorghum types, conventional uses, and bioenergy applications for each

Sorghum type Typical Purposes in US Applicatio ns for Bioenergy and Some Current Examples Grain sorghum Grain harvested for livestock feed Grain can be used in starch to ethanol conversion processes

In 2008, 2.5x 10 6 Mg of grain sorghum used to produce

about 1.0x10 9 L of ethanol in US

Sorghum residu e (stubble) can be used as feedstock for

cellulosic ethanol conversion Sweet sorghum High

- sugar content sorghum

varieties

– sugar harvested for

molasses and/or biomass used as

livestock feed Sweet sorghum juice fermented to produce ethanol; on

farm conver sion processes currently being explored

In 2008, Renergie, Inc. received a grant from state of Florida to design and construct facility to produce ethanol from sweet sorghum juice

In India, two sweet sorghum to ethanol facilities have been publicized by Ru nsi Distilleries and Tata Chemicals Forage sorghum Biomass harvested for livestock feed Good candidate as annual crop for cellulosic ethanol conversion processes; forage sorghums being bred for high biomass yield for bioenergy applications

DOE Regional Fe edstock Partnership is currently conducting energy sorghum field trials in Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina

Sorghums are thought to originate just north of the equator in Africa (in what today are Chad, Ethiopia, and Sudan ) . They are sensitive to day length or photoperiod and need consistent day length of up to 12 hours to trigger an internal mechanism to initiate reproductive growth, first flowers and later seeds. Sorghums have also long been cultivated in China, with records pos sibly dating back to

the 3 rd century A.D., and over time many landraces and varieties developed or were bred (Qingshan and Dahlberg, 2001).

In 2004

, 59% of the land producing sorghum was in Africa

, 25% in A sia , and 11% in North and

Central America. In te rms of production (tons produced) , contributions were Asia 45%, Africa 25%, and North and Central America 21% (ICRISAT, 2009). Productivity in Africa and average productivity in Asia are held down by many factors: lack of improved seeds and technology, la ck of markets and capital, and primarily the fact that most farmers are poor, lack irrigation

, and use marginal

rain f ed lands where their best strategy is to reduce risk with low seeding rates and zero (or minimal)

in vestment in other inputs (fertilizer, weed and pest control)

. In Asia, sorghum yields are lower in India, Pakistan , and Yemen. In China , average sorghum yield is around 4 Mg ha - 1

, simil ar to yield

observed in the United States

.

Grain sorghums have been bred for dwarf s tature and stand 0.6

- 1 .2 m (2

- 4 ft ) tall. In 2008

, average grain sorghum yield in the United States was 3.51 dry Mg ha - 1 (assuming 86 % dry matter) (65.0 bu

a cre - 1 ) . Assuming a grain:residue ratio of 1:1

, 3.51 dry Mg ha - 1 of residue was produced . Grain sorghum types will not be high yielding biomass crops. Under irrigation in California

, yield was 6.59 Mg ha - 1 (105 bu acre - 1 ) in 2006 for a total of biomass yield o f 11.3 dry Mg ha - 1 (assuming a 1:1 grain:residue ratio and 86 % dry matter grain). The maximum yield of grain sorg hum in 2009 in the Yield and Management C ontest by the National Sorghum Producers was 1 3

. 6 Mg ha - 1 (216 bu acre - 1 ) irrigated and 12.4 Mg ha - 1 (197 bu acre - 1 ) rain fed , which would give total biomass yields of 2 3 and 21 dry Mg ha - 1 (assuming 8 6 % grain dry ma tter and grain:residue ratio of 1:1) (National Sorghum Producers 2009). Based on the results of the National Sorghum Producers Yield and Management Content, t he current maximum potential biomass yield of th e grain sorghum type is about 23 dry Mg

ha - 1

.3 Sweet and forage sorghums have high er biomass yield potential ( 20 to 40 dry Mg ha - 1 ) than grain
types

. They are attractive to farmers as they can be g rown as an annual (instead of a perennial) crop

and be rotated with other annuals such as corn and soybean s

. Sorghums for energy can also be grown as an annual energy crop alongside perennial crops to respond to quick shifting feedstock markets. Reddy (2008) indicates that sweet sorgh um is similar to grain sorghum, but requires 700+ mm of

rainfall. Because both sweet and forage sorghums are thick stemmed , the moisture contents at harvest

are typically 60

- 70% (wet basis) and are generally handled as a silage crop rather than as a hay crop. Sweet sorghum can h ave sugar content s similar to sugar cane and like sugar cane requires quick processing to utilize the sugars and avoid degradation . It may be possible t o field dry forage sorghum

to lower moisture content s if utilized for energy purposes rather than as a forage crop where feed quality is important. If t he desired storage method is ensiling and the moisture content is too low (below 50% on a wet basis) , it is difficult to store the crop as silage. Reducing moisture content and handling as a dry crop (<20%) is desirable to reduce transportation and storag e costs.

Forage sorghums have higher growing temperature requirements than corn (Roth, 1995). Minimum temperature for forage sorghum growth is about 15 ◦ C (60 ◦ F) and optimum growth occurs when mean temperatures are between 24 ◦ C (75 ◦ F) and 27 ◦ C (80 ◦ F). Planting should occur when soil temperatures

have reached 18 ◦ C (65 ◦ F) at 5.1

- to 10.2

- cm (2

- to 4

- inch) depth. In Pennsylvania

, Roth (1995) recommends a p lanting depth of 1.9 to 3.2 cm (0.75 to 1.25 inches) . I n Virginia

, Teutsch (2006) recommends 2.5 to 3.8 cm (1.0 to 1.5 inches) (Table 1). The recommended planting depth for sorghum x sudangrass and sudangrass is shallower. Planting rates of 9 to 13 kg h a - 1 (8 to 12 lb acre - 1 )

with 75% emergence results in plant populations of about 210,000 to 370,000 plants ha - 1 (85,000 to 150,000 plants acre - 1 ). Excessive seeding rates can lead to lodging problems (Roth, 1995). [Lodging is when plants fall over. Lodg ed crops are difficult to mechanically harvest.] Planting too early and too deep are common reasons for poor sorghum stands (Teutsch, 2006). For its high biomass sorghum, Ceres (2009) recommends 185,000, 245,000, and 295,000 seeds ha - 1 (75,000, 100,000, and 120,000 seeds acre - 1 ) for marginal nonirrigated , good nonirrigated , and irrigated land, respectively.

Yield can be affected by harvest timing

, fertilization

, and irrigation. Bolsen (2002) reviewed studies of the effect of maturity on yield of grain ( his Table 1) and forage sorghums (his Table 2). He found that for the grain sorghum

, total dry matter increased from the late milk to the late dough stage, but

decreased from the late

- dough to the hard

- grain stage because leaf senescence and broken heads or stalks disconnected from the upper portion of the stalk caused whole

- plant dry matter yields to decrease to the point where it was not greater (i.e. statistically significantly different) at the hard

- grain stage than at the late

- milk stage. For forage sorghums

, dry matter increased from the late

- milk to the late dough stage, and in some studies dry matter increased from the late

- dough to the hard

- grain stage,

but in others decreased. For both grain and forage sorghum

, whole

- plant d ry matter fraction in crease d with maturity. The fraction of moisture in the crop can affect transport costs and storage choices and

losses.

There are a number of different strategies that can be followed when planting sorghum. These are, however, limited and influenced by site conditions (e.g. available moisture, length of growing season), requirements of the preceding and succeeding crop, and objective(s) in growing sorghum [whether solely for grain, solely for biomass (and sugar), or for both grain and biomass (and sugar) ].4 Table 2 . Forage sorghum, sorghum x sudangrass, and sudangrass characteristics based on Virginia, USA conditions (Teutsch, 2006)

Forage sorghum Sorghum x sudangrass Sudangrass

Soil drainage Well drained to somewhat poorly drai ned Seeds per kg 29,000 to 44,000 44,000 121,000 Seeding date 1

- 2 weeks after corn, soil temperature at least 16 ◦ C 2 weeks after corn, soil temperature at least

18 ◦ C Seeding depth (cm) a 2.5

– 3.8 1.3

– 2.5 Seeding rate (kg ha - 1 ) 6

– 11 for wide rows

17

– 22 broadcast 22

– 34 drilled

34

– 45 broadcast 17

– 22 drilled

28

– 39 broadcast Soil pH Will grow at 5.5, optimum

6.0

- 6.5 Optimum 6.0

– 6.5

Forage yield as silage (wet Mg ha - 1 ) 34

- 67 b 27

- 34 at 35% dry matter

a For Virginia with its heavier soils

b N o dry matter percent given

Photoperiod sensitive sorghum s begin reproductive growth (i.e. flowering) when day length reaches a certain threshold ( ranges from 11.5 to 13.5 hours) . This threshold depends on the particular genotype.

If biomass is the desire d product, sorghums with a photoperiod shorter than day length at the end of

the growing season ( first frost in temperate climates ) allows the crop to occupy the maximum amount of the growing season and maximize biomass production. In areas with longer gr owing seasons, it may be possible to grow a ratoon crop of sorghum (i.e. sorghum is harvested and then a second crop grows back from the roots). If a ratoon crop is desired, then a long er photoperiod would be selected. Photoperiod sensitive sorghums gene rally do not set seed under Midwestern, USA conditions. Sorghums should be selected for an appropriate photoperiod for the region where they are grown and the goal for which they are grown (biomass versus biomass plus grain). There are also photoperiod

i nsensitive sorghums. Photoperiod insensitive sorghum will begin reproductive growth after a certain length of time, regardless of day length. Grain sorghum ha s been bred so they are photoperiod insensitive and will mature in a set number of days.

2. SORGHU M BIOMASS YIELD EXPE RIMENTS

Purdue University (United States) carried out a biomass research project in Indiana, a part of which dealt with sorghum (Cherney et al

. , 1990; Johnson et al, 1991) . Small plot studies were used in which plot size was designed to eliminate edge effects (yields are higher on the edge of a field exposed to additional sunlight and less competition. Yields were based on total above ground biomass. Note that

y ields from small plot research studies are generally higher than those ob tained from actual operational

scale farms. Fertilization for other than nitrogen was based on soil tests. They found the following

results:

- When p lanting at two different densities (43,000 and 260,000 seeds ha - 1 )

, there was no yield advantage to the hig her density. [The authors do not indicate specifically whether this applied to both forage and sweet sorghum, but it presumably does.] There was less lodging at the lower density, but not for all varieties ( Table 3 ).

- Two cuttings reduced lodging, but at too great a reduction in yield (Table 4 ).

- Lodging resistance is critical for top yields.

- There was evidence from Caravetta et al

. (1990) that increasing within row spacing may reduce lodging. In addition to breeding for lodging resistance there may also b e agronomic5 management practices that may reduce lodging.

- Taller plants did not necessarily produce higher yields (Table 3 ).

- Sorghum double cropped with winter rye for four consecutive years had declining yields over time (Table 5 ).

- Sweet sorghum and sorgh um x sudangrass interseeded into perennial grasses was not viable, yielding only 0.03

– 3.31 dry Mg ha - 1

.

Table 3 . Sorghum yields and lodging in Indiana, USA in 1990 (Johnson et al, 1991)

Genotype Yield a Height Lodging Popula tion (plants ha - 1 )

Total Grain 4.3 x 10 - 4 2.6 x 10 - 5

Dry Mg ha - 1 m 1=flat, 5=erect

Pioneer 931 24.7 2.02 4.64 4.92 4.83

Vartan 3192 24.1 0.10 4.37 4.50 4.17 NK Sucrosorgo 506 22.6 1.48 4.36 5.00 4.92

Grassl 21.7 0.28 3.69 4.22 3.08

Vartan 3 20.6 0.01 4.21 4.67 4.88

Funk’s G 1990 19.7 0.00 3.74 5.00 4.92

Vartan 2319 19.7 0.01 5.08 4.00 4.17

Pioneer 811F 19.2 0.00 3.38 5.00 5.00

Golden Harvest H

- 58 18.6 3.07 3.32 3.83 3.67

Meridian 81E 18.3 1.11 3.68 4.22 3.67 Asgrow Titan R 17.8 5.30 2.78 3.0 0 2.00 Taylor

- Evans Milkmaker 17.7 4.14 3.04 2.08 1.67

DekalbFS25E 17.5 4.09 3.00 4.33 2.42

Casterline Silo Plus 17.0 4.29 2.91 2.00 1.50 Taylor

- Evans Silomaker 17.0 5.49 2.58 3.58 1.00

Garrison Seed Sile

- All 16.5 4.78 2.96 2.08 1.50

NC + 965 16.5 2.68 3.29 3.58 3.17

PAG FS466 16.4 3.96 2.47 4.08 2.92 Tall corn hybrid (Dekalb 711) b 23.1 10.66

a Crops were harvested on 3 and 12 October (at the end of the growing season) from 2 sites

b Corn hybrid for comparison

Table 4 . Sorg hum yields in Indiana, USA in 1989 (Cherney et al, 1990)

One harvest Two harvests (total) dry Mg ha - 1

Dekalb

- Pfizer FS25E 25.6 17.4

M

- 81E sweet sorghum 27.5 15.6

Vartan 2319 21.4 12.8

PAG FS

- 466 23.1 16.2

Funk’s G 1990 31.4 15.2

Pioneer 931 30.5 1 9.0 NK Sucrosorgo 506 33.0 18.0

Timing of planting can greatly influence yield. In 1988, a severe drought year, sorghum planted in early May, when there was still adequate soil moisture yielded up to 33 dry Mg ha - 1 , while sweet sorghum and sorghum x su dangrass planted in late May averaged only 8.6 dry Mg/ha. Corn planted at6 the same time as the sorghum in early May yielded only 4

– 5 dry Mg ha - 1 . The combined yield of sweet sorghum double cropped with rye was up to 31 dry Mg ha - 1

.

Table 5

. S orghum double cropped with winter rye for four years in Indiana, USA had declining yield a over time (Cherney et al, 1990)

Year Sorghum x sudangrass Sweet sorghum Dry Mg ha - 1

1985 16.4 22.2

1986 12.6 19.1

1987 10.6 15.8

1988 a 8.3 8.9

a Average over 4 nitrogen treatments (0, 50, 100, 150 kg N ha

- 1 ), 4 replicates, 4 sites, 2 tillage treatments

b 1988 was an extreme drought year

Monk et al (1984) report on sorghum improvement for energy. They found a significant correlation between height and biomass production, but note that lodging can be as serious issue with tall sorghums, especially those with significant grain production.

The Regional Feedstock Partnership Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy is conducting field trials of a number of biomass crops, including sorghum (Owens, 2009). In 2008

, sorghum was planted on 0.05 to 0.10 ha plots at 7 sites in Texas (2 sites), Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Two photoperiod

- sensitive energy sorghum hybrids (from Ceres and Edenspace), two photoperiod

- sensitive forage sorghum hybrids, a sweet sorghum, and a grain sorghum (as a check) variety were planted and harvested in 2008. The Iowa site was not harvested in 2008. A single, end of season harvest was made . Nitrogen was applied as recommended for forage sorghum and no irrigation was applied. Grain sorghum, forage sorghum, and energy sorghum yielded 9, 27, and

27

- 34 dry Mg ha - 1 (4, 12, and 12

- 15 dry tons acre - 1 ). [Experimental hybrids resulted in about a 20% yield gain over nonhybrids, a 4.5 to 6.7 to dry Mg ha - 1 (2

- 3 dry tons acre - 1 yield ) increase]. In 2009

, the grain sorghum was not planted and in addition to the two forage , two energy sorghum hybrids

, and

the sweet sorghum variety ; a sweet sorghum hyb rid was to be planted.

Oklahoma State University is looking into developing sweet sorghum as a crop for Oklahoma (Anon, 2008). A t various locations t he u niversity is evaluat ing : yield of 4 varieties, staggered planting dates to develop a larger harvest w indow

, nitrogen response , and effect of irrigation versus no irrigation.

3. SORGHUM HYBRIDS

One strategy for increasing sorghum yield is through the use of hybrids. As noted above, Owens (2009) reported 20% higher yield from experimental sorghum hybrids in 2008. Reddy et al (2006) report that sorghum grain yields in India and China increased by 50% and 47%, respectively, from 1960 to 1996. This corresponds to the period of adaption of hybrids in these countries, although other

factors such as increased fe rtilization and better weed control may also have contributed to increased yields. According to Reddy et al (2008) hybrids are early maturing and need less water than varieties (i.e. sorghums that are not hybrids)

.

As of October 2009, c ommercial seed s fo r energy sorghum in the United States were available from Ceres (200 9) (in cooperation with Texas A&M AgriLife R esearch ) (referred to by Ceres as “high

biomass sorghum”) and Edenspace. Ceres has two sorghum and two sorghum x sudangrass cultivars

available . All four are photoperiod

- sensitive, non

- heading hybrids. The two sorghums are for single cuts, while the two sorghum x sudangrasses are suitable for multiple cuts in a growing season.7 Edenspace refers to their hybrid seed product for cellulosic biofue ls production as Energy Sorghum tm , with Linebacker tm being the first available (National Sorghum Producers, 2008). It is a nontransgenic

, photoperiod

- sensitive forage sorghum.

4. WATER USE

In an FAO document (from the mid 1990s) on sorghum in China, sorg hum water requirements are stated as 350 to 700 mm, depending on the length of the growing cycle (short

- growth variety 90 days to long

- growth variety 130 days). For optimum yields on good soil, short

- growth, average

- growth, and long

- growth varieties requi res 500 to 600 (20 to 24), 650 to 800 (26 to 31), and 950 to 1100 (37 to 43) mm (inches) of well distributed rainfall, respectively (Natural Resources Institute, no date).

Water use efficiency (WUE) is a measure of yield per unit of water consumed. Water use and WUE vary by site conditions. In western Kansas

, grain sorghum requires 46 to 56 cm (18 to 22 inches), while in the eastern ( more humid) part of the state 25 to 50 m m (1 to 2 inches) less is required (KSUAES&CES, 1998). One must be careful when u tilizing the concept of WUE. A description of the complexities of utilizing WUE can be found in Jørgensen and Schelde (2001). One can find statements such as sorghum requires 1/3 less water than corn or sorghum requires only half the water

of corn. The FAO document on China states that for sorghum, maize, and wheat the transpiration ratio is 141, 170, and 241 kg kg - 1 plant material, respectively (Natural Resources Institute, no date). [Note: it is not stated in this reference whether plant material is t otal above ground biomass or just the grain fraction.] For grain sorghum grown in the North Plains of Texas over the 6

- year period of 1998 to 2003, water consumption was 1060 an d 842 kg water kg - 1 grain for dryland and irrigated production, respectively ( New, 2004). [The original units in New (2004) are 213 and 269 lb grain acre - 1 in - 1 water
for dryland and irrigated production, respectively .]

Conventional wisdom suggests that : under the driest conditions millet is preferred to ( produces more

than ) sorgh um and maize (corn), under semi

- arid conditions sorghum is preferred to millet or sorghum,

and with ample moisture corn performs best. Singh and Singh (1995) tested this belief for sorghum, maize, and millet in an experiment during the hot dry season (Apr il

- June) in North India in 1979 and

1980 at four irrigation levels that are described as: unstressed (S 0 ), mildly stressed (S 1 ), moderately stressed (S 2 ), and severely stressed (S 3 ). Results for dry matter production and WUE (based on total above ground b iomass) are shown in Table 6 . They found that maize and sorghum performed best at unstressed conditions. Just because a crop has a higher WUE does not mean it has a higher biomass yield. Different crops draw different amounts of water from different par ts of the soil profile. Sorghum draws water from more of the soil profile than corn. In Tabl e 6 below, at irrigation level S 1 , maize has a higher WUE than sorghum, but it does not have a higher yield (they are equal).

Table 6 . Bi omass production, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency for corn, sorghum, and millet in Northern India in 1979 and 1980 (Singh and Singh, 1995)

Irrigation

level Biomass (dry Mg ha - 1 ) Evapotranspiration (mm) Water use efficiency (dry kg ha - 1 mm - 1 )

Maize Sorghum Millet Maize Sorghum Millet Maize Sorghum Millet

S 1 9.0 9.0 8.3 567 582 568 15.9 15.4 14.6

S 2 5.2 7.1 5.9 403 432 429 12.8 16.4 13.8

S 3 4.7 6.1 5.4 342 329 331 13.7 18.5 16.3

S 4 3.0 4.1 4.0 276 288 224 11.0 14.4 17.9

Farré and F aci (2 004) compared water use for sorghum and maize in Zaragoza, Spain , reporting total above ground biomass and grain yields, harvest index (grain fraction of total above ground biomass)

,8 and irrigation WUE for grain . Plant densities were 52,000 and 217,000 ha - 1 for maize and sorghum, respectively. Reference evapotranspiration was 695 mm from sowing to maturity. Irrigation water was applied such that for 6 treatments water applied decreased from T

- 1 to T

- 6, with T

- 1 receiving the full amount of water required . Consistent with Singh and Singh (1995), they found sorghum extracted more water from the deeper soil layers and maize from the upper soil layers. Yields, harvest index

, and irrigation WUE for the six water treatments are in Table 7

.

Table 7 . Yields, harvest index, and irrigation water use efficiency (WUE) for maize and sorghum at Zaragoza, Spain in 1995 (Farré and Faci, 2004)

Treatment Biomass (dry Mg ha - 1 ) Grain (dry Mg ha - 1 ) Harvest index Irrigation WUE (g grain m - 2 mm - 1 )

Ma ize Sorghum Maize Sorghum Maize Sorghum Maize Sorghum

T

- 1 21.4 18.4 10.8 8.54 0.51 0.49 1.95 1.65

T

- 2 17.4 16.4 8.79 7.42 0.50 0.47 1.85 1.70

T

- 3 11.0 13.0 4.80 6.30 0.43 0.46 1.25 1.75

T

- 4 7.00 10.7 1.95 4.88 0.28 0.46 0.75 2.05

T

- 5 4.85 7.28 0.558 2 .65 0.12 0.37 0.30 1.50

T

- 6 3.57 5.22 0.095 0.643 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.65

McCorkle et al (2007) report that in the Panhandle region of Texas, where the availability of irrigation water is becoming a bigger issue, in field trials over the period 2001 to 2003 , comparing sorghum silage to maize silage, yields ranged from 43.0 to 60.3 Mg ha - 1 (19.2 to 26.9 tons acre - 1 ) for sorghum silage and 53.3 to 57.1 Mg ha - 1 (23.8 to 25.5 tons acre - 1 ) for maize, but to grow sorghum silage required 40 to 53 percent less water than maize silage.

One practice in semi

- arid areas (e.g. western Great Plains and High Plains in the United States) is to fallow (a year in which no crop is planted), such as in wheat

- fallow or sorghum

- fallow (one crop in 2 years), or wheat

- sorghum

- fallo w (2 crops in 3 years) rotations. The fallow year allows moisture to accumulated in the soil and be available for a crop the next year. Although the fallow year allows yields in succeeding years to be greater, over the rotation cycle total yield may not increase by using a fallow year in the rotation (Table 8 , e.g. compare over 2 years continuous sorghum 4.37 Mg ha - 1 versus sorghum

- fallow 4.21 Mg ha - 1 , or over 6 years where continuous sorghum gives a greater yield than any of the rotations utilizing fallo w).

Table 8 . Dryland sorghum and winter wheat yields (Mg ha

- 1) in continuous and fallow rotations 1973

- 1987 at Tribune, Kans as, USA (Norwood et al 1990)

Rotation Continuous

wheat Wheat

- sorghum

- fallow Wheat

- fallow Continuous sorghu m Sorghum

fallow Tillage Conventional 1 Conventional 1 Reduced Conventional 1 Reduced Conventional 1 Conventional 1

Wheat 1.14 c 2.28 b 2.66 a 2.38 ab 2.68 a Sorghum 2.40 c 3.29 b 2.18 c 4.21 a 2 year yield 2.27 2.38 2.68 4.37 4.21

3 year yield 3.41 4.69 5.9 6 6.55

6 year yield 6.82 9.38 11.92 7.14 8.03 13.10 12.63

1 stubble mulch (leaving residue on the surface while farming) was the conventional tillage practice used

Water is a limiting factor of production in many areas. One wants to match an appropri ate crop and genotype or hybrid with available soil moisture. There is no advantage to planting a high yield ing crop9 if the water is not available to support the high biomass yield. According to Koch (no date), sorghum can produce a ton of forage with 6 to 8 cm (2.5 to 3 inches) of [total] water. Sorghums are known for their ability to extract soil moisture.

5. HARVEST AND S TORAGE SYSTEMS

Grain sorghum is harvested in a similar fashion as are other small grains, such as wheat. In modern agriculture, grai n sorghums have been bred for uniform height so they may be efficiently harvested with a combine. The logistics of grain sorghum (harvest, transport, storage) are well developed and similar to maize grain. Sorghum grain is usually dried to a moisture con tent of 10% to 12% and has a bulk density of 520 to 720 kg m - 3 (32 to 45 lb ft - 3 ) which allows for storage and efficient transport (Natural Resources Institute, No date).

Tall sorghums (forage, sweet, energy) are harvested with a forage or sugar cane harv ester (see Figure 2) . High tonnages require large self

- propelled harvesters, which have high capital cost s . However, field and road conditions may not permit, either physically or economically, use of large

- scale harvest equipment and it may make sense t o us a tractor

- pulled forage harvester (Pari et al, 2008). Pari et al (2008) report on European efforts to develop a sweet sorghum harvester appropriately scaled to European conditions.

Figure 2. Energy sorghum harvested as a cellulosic bioenergy feeds tock with a forage harvester (photo courtesy of Dave Jordan, MacDon Industries, LLC).

For cost

- effective harvesting

, it is advantageous to have an extended harvest season or, in the case of an area also growing sugar cane, to have the sorghum harvest seas on offset from the sugar cane harvest season and be able to utilize sugar cane harvesters that would otherwise be idle. Sweet sorghum is similar to sugar cane in that the juice (sugar) in the stalk needs to be processed fairly rapidly ; otherwise sugars in the stalk are lost . Reddy et al (2008) show data on how the amount of sugar decreases over

the course of four days (Table 9 ). Given that the sugar in sweet sorghum, like in sugar cane, needs to be processed rapidly, technologies need to be developed to stabilize the juice and maintain the sugar for later processing so that the processing season for the sugar could be extended

. At Oklahoma State University, USA

, Anon ( 2008) refers to a process that includes a newly designed field harvester that10 can press and collect juice from sweet sorghum in a single pass and utilization of large bladders for on farm fermentation. Grassi (no date) refers to a “first commercial innovative mechanical drying and compaction technology” for stabilization of “humid” lignocel lulosic residues that can produce pellets (with neither predrying nor a binder) at a processing cost of about 35 Mg - 1 and a bulk density of about 600 kg m - 3 . The moisture content of the pellets is not given. [The Grassi reference is from 2005 or

later as it references prices from November 2005 in its third slide.]

Table 9 . How sweet sorghum sugar content is affected by delay in crushing (Reddy et al, 2008)

Crushing (days after harvest) Juice extraction (L

x 10 3 ha - 1 ) Brix reading Sugar yield (Mg ha - 1 ) Sugar reduction from harvest day (%)

0 42.4 18.5 2.62

- 1 40.6 19.2 2.47 5.7

2 35.0 20.9 2.18 16.8

3 37.6 21.4 2.20 16.0

An additional question with sweet sorghum (and other high tonnage sorghums) is whether the whole plant shou ld be processed or whether the leaves should be discarded. For sweet sorghum, should only the stalk be processed and both the grain and leaves be discarded? For sweet sorghum with little grain

, this is not an issue, but if sweet sorghum is developed for both its sugar and grain, appropriate harvesting technology must be developed to harvest both the stalk and grain.

Moisture content presents a challenge for utilizing non

- grain sorghum. Generally

, sorghums grown for biomass will be high in moisture con tent at harvest (60% to 70% on a wet basis), although when grown for biomass, as opposed to for animal feed, it may be possible to field dry to a lower moisture

content. High moisture content may limit the amount of dry matter that can be carried in a tru ck load. For example, in the United States the typical maximum load that can be carried by a truck is about 22.7 Mg (50,000 lb) and the largest volume a trailer can have is about 140 m 3 (5,000 ft 3 ). At 60%

moisture content

, the maximum dry matter content of the load is 9.1 dry Mg (20,000 dry lb). In this largest sized trailer

, this load is achieved with a density of 64 dry kg m - 3 (4.0 dry lb ft - 3 ). Chopped sorghum has a density of between about 70 and 120 dry kg m - 3 (4.4 and 7.5 dry lb ft - 3 ), which is m uch lower than grain sorghum. At this high moisture content the load is limited by the weight, and the volume would not be fully utilized. If the sorghum could be reduced to a moisture content of 40%, then the load could be 13.6 dry Mg (30,000 dry lb) an d the maximum weight allowable would be achieved by a density of 96 dry kg m - 3 (6.0 dry lb ft - 3 ). Transport options are limited by moisture. It may also be that road characteristics limit the size of trailer, and a higher bulk density may be desirable, i f highway conditions support the higher load weight.

Texas A&M is working to design a collection system similar to a cotton module for packaging sorghum for transport and storage. [ A cotton module is built in a module builder (about 9 meters long,

4 mete rs high, and 3 meters wide) by dumping a number of loads of harvested cotton into the module builder and compressing each load (as a garbage truck does with garbage) until the module is built and discharged. It is shaped similar to a giant bread loaf and weights about 10 Mg (Cotton.org, 2010 Wikipedia, 2010)

. ] This most likely will require modification of the cotton module technology. After harvest the sorghum is transferred to the module builder using a silage wagon. The biomass is then compressed into a module and surrounded with a protective cover. The high moisture content of sorghum is a challenge in compressing the material into a module (Fannin, 2009). H igh moisture

content s may necessitate the use of ensiling for storing sorghum, or a cost effec tive means of reducing sorghum moisture content below 20% so that a dry storage method such as baling could be used.11 Another option is some type of distributed intermediate processing. For example, a pyrolysis unit

could be used to process the sorghum in to a liquid that would be far denser than the sorghum biomass

itself . The liquid can be stored and more economically transported. In the case of pyrolysis the optimal feedstock moisture content is around 10%. Pelletization and cubing are other options, but again optimal moisture content is around 10%.

Storage is an issue with biomass crops and sorghum is no exception. The seasonality of production and the desire to operate a conversion facility year round may necessitate storage of biomass. One

means of minimizing storage is to pursue strategies for expanding the sorghum harvest season (e.g. planting varieties with differing maturities or utilizing multiple cuttings on some sorghum fields). Another is to utilize multiple feedstocks with differing harv est seasons along with sorghum (e.g. winter rye or trees).

6. SORGHUM AND SUGAR CA NE

While sweet sorghum can give sugar yields comparable to sugar cane, it is not used for refined sugar production because its high sugar content interferes with sucrose cryst allization and hastens the inversion of sucrose to glucose and fructose (Tew et al, 2008).

One proposed use of sweet sorghum is to plant it at times when sugar cane lands are fallow. Sugar cane is a hybrid with multiple parents. Sugar cane is vegetative ly propagated because the seed produced does not breed true (i.e.

, it could express any of the parents and would not produce a uniform field or product) . U nder normal Florida conditions, for example, the seed produced will not germinate. Sugar cane, thoug h a perennial

, needs to be replanted about every two to five years in the United

States

. [In other parts of the world, replanting may occur less frequently, every 7+ years.] In the

continental United States

, sugar cane fields are replanted in Louisiana f rom August through October, usually in September (Tew et al, 2008) and in Florida from late August through January (Bau cum et al, 2006). Part of existing sugar cane production fields are used to take vegetative material and replant

fields. The later one waits to replant the sugar cane field, the less area one has to sacrifice to seed cane, as the per unit area production of sugar cane increases from August through September. However, research in Louisiana has found that planting in August lead s to higher subsequent sugar yields in three out of five hybrids that occupy 99% of sugar cane acreage in Louisiana (Viator et al, 2005). In the continental US

, sugar cane is harvested for sugar in November through March. If sugar cane fields that need to be replan ted are replanted by January, then there is no fallow period. However, if a sugar cane field is not replanted by January, then one has to wait until the subsequent August

- January period to replant and those fields will be fallow from after harvest until r eplanting (i.e. during a summer growing season). Sweet sorghum could be planted instead of fallowing the land (Baucum et al, 2006). Another possible crop to grow in this potentially fallow period is soybeans.

For sorghum to be grown during fallow on sug ar cane lands, it would need to be harvested not later

than mid

- August, to allow optimum replanting of sugar cane. In an experiment near Schriever, LA,

USA in 2003 and 2004

, Tew et al (2008) evaluated how sorghum yield ( five sweet sorghum varieties

and tw o sorghum x sudangrass varieties) and total ethanol produced are affected by harves t date (Table

9 ). (Only the highest yielding v arieties are reported in Table 10 .) Planting occurred on 29 April 2003 and 6 May 2004. Stalks were stripped of leaves and se ed heads to simulate what would likely occur if the sorghum were harvested with a sugar cane harvester. A mid

- April planting and mid

- August harvest would allow approximately a 120 day growing season. Note that in 2003 and 2004, 26 August and 2 September were 119 days after planting, respectively. In 2004 16 August was 101 days after planting. A m id

- April planting might result in a lower yield than indicated in Table 10 (at equal days12 after planting) because of less growing degree days.

According to inf ormation presented by Reddy et al (2008)

, sweet sorghum needs less water than sugar

cane . A sweet sorghum crop growing in India needed 4,000 m 3 for a 4

- month period versus 36,000 m 3

of water for a sugar cane crop growing over 12 months. It is possible un der Indian conditions to grow

two sweet sorghum crops while a single sugar cane crop is growing . The two sweet sorghum crops would require 8 ,000 m 3 of water. They report that the sugar in the stalk of two sweet sorghum crops

and one sugar cane crop would produce 2800 and 5600 l ha - 1 , respectively. In addition the sweet sorghum can produce 2.0 to 2.5 Mg ha - 1 grain. [The original source for the sweet sorghum water use is Soltani and Almodares (1994).]

Table 10 . How harvest timing (days after planting) affect sorghum yield and total ethanol from sorghum in Louisiana (Tew et al, 2008)

Days

after planting MMR

33/47 a Theis b M81

- E b MMR

33/47 Theis M81

- E MMR

33/47 Theis M81

- E

Hexose sugars (Mg ha - 1 ) Fiber (Mg ha - 1 ) Ethanol c (L ha - 1 )

8 5 3.2 5.0 4.7 10.0 14.2 11.0 5,670 8,300 6,930

101 5.0 8.1 6.6 14.2 14.2 12.8 8,330 10,220 8,800

119 6.4 9.8 8.0 20.2 15.3 13.4 11,450 11,620 9,860

138 8.3 10.1 9.5 23.4 16.6 15.5 13,840 12,340 11,570

a Sorghum X sudangrass hybrid

b Sweet sorghum

c Estima ted theoretical ethanol , b ased on assuming 1.7 and 2.65 kg hexose sugar and fiber per L ethanol, respectively

7. CROP IMPROVEMENT EFF ORTS

Klein et al (2008) identify five distinct phases for grain sorghum improvement efforts in the United

States: 1) i ntroducti on of a limited number of cultivars (1878

- 1908)

, 2) s election of early maturing plants of short stature from heterogeneous populations (1904

- 1936)

, 3) b reeding of improved cultivars (short stature, photoperiod insensitive) that are combine harvestable (1930s

- 194 0s)

, 4) h ybrid seed production (1946

- present) , and 5) c onversion of tropical sorghums (tall, photoperiod sensitive) to sorghum usable in temperate climates (short, photoperiod insensitive) and the use of diverse sorghum germplasm for breeding (1963

- present)

Sta rting in 1963

, a cooperative effort, now known as the Sorghum Conversion Program, between USDA and Texas A&M University was begun to convert tropical photoperiod sensitive sorghum into sorghums that would f lower and set seed within 50 to 75 days after plan ting and be ready for harvest within 120 days after planting . These traits would make sorghum a useful crop in the temperate latitudes for grain production. Tropical sorghums are converted by crossing the photoperiod insensitive tropical sorghums with a variety that is insensitive to day length . During the winter

, the crossed plants are grown at the Tropical Agricultural Research Station in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico and

seed from these are collected and sent to Chillicothe , Texas to be grown during the summe r, and display genetic variability for height and maturity. Seeds from short plants with early maturity are sent back to Mayaguez for further crossing. The crossing process continues for 5 to 7 years, until the plants are converted. In addition to heigh t and maturity

, breeders incorporate insect and disease resistance, drought tolerance, and improved grain quality (Adams, 1995). According to Klein et al (2008): “The13 conversion program was designed to move recessive dwarfing and photoperiod insensitive g enes from

a four

- dwarf temperate zone variety into the genomes of exotic lines. Through this program over 840 converted and partially converted lines have been developed thereby providing new diverse germplasm that now provides an important source of germ plasm used in sorghum improvement programs throughout the world.”

During the 1960s through 1990s

, four sweet sorghum varieties were developed by the USDA Sugar Crops Field Station in Meridian, MS; the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Stati on; and other experiment stations in the southeastern United States (msucare.com, 2009). Four varieties were released (date of release in parentheses): Dale (1970), 115 day maturity; Theis (1974), 130 day maturity; M81

- E (1981), 130 day maturity; and Topp er 76

- 6 (1994), 120 day maturity.

The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi

- Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has engaged in research to develop sorghum hybrid parents and from these parents hybrids adapted to Asia, Africa,

and the Americas. ICRISAT w as established in 1972 in Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India with a directive to improve the productivity of sorghum in the semi

- arid tropics of Asia, sub

- Saharan Africa, and Latin America. Research on hybrid parents began at Patancheru, India in 1978, Sot uba, Mali in 1982, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe in 1985, and Nairobi, Kenya in the early 1990s. Work on hybrid parents done at ICRISAT is documented in Reddy et al (2006). They divide the research into 3 phases, 1978

- 1988, 1989

- 1998, and 1999 onwards. ICRISAT has de velop ed hybrid parents for grain and forage yields. In addition it has worked on resistance to major biotic (e.g. grain mold, shootfly resistance) and

ab i otic (e.g. moisture) stresses, developed lines with increased high sugar content in the stalks of sweet sorghum, increased forage yield, and developed hybrids adapted to postrainy (or nonrainy) season

conditions (for climates such as India). Hybrids are developed on a regional basis.

R esearch began in 1980 to identify sweet sorghum lines with high su gar content stalks (high Brix values) from the world sorghum germplasm collection at ICRISAT. Two cultivars were selected . I n addition, several high Brix sweet sorghum lines from Nigeria

, Zimbabwe and from within advance d breeding progeny at ICRISAT were selected. Sweet sorghum research was discontinued at ICRISAT in the late 1990s, but restarted in 2002. By 2005

, ICRISAT had releas ed a few varieties (e.g. SSV 84

and SSV 74 and is developing hybrids.

ICRISAT is interested in sorghums that provide both g rain and biomass. This is consistent with work

in China, where the s weet sorghum hybrid Shennong No. 2 was developed (FAO, 1994).

Reddy et al (2008) presented data for India showing that hybrids of sweet sorghum gave much higher yields of grain and slig htly lower sugar yields than [nonhybrid] sweet sorghum varieties tested during

both the rainy and nonrainy season s

. Sweet sorghum varieties are more photoperiod sensitive than hybrids studied . Hybrids are earlier maturing and need less water than “pure

- li ne” varieties (Reddy et al, 2005)

. Reddy et al (2007, 2008) also compared two hybrids to a control variety and report days to 50% flowering was 6 to 9 day s less with the hybrids (Table 11 ). The days to flowering gives an

indication of the rate of develop ment of sorghum. They compared hybrids during the rainy and nonrainy season and found that if one wants sugar then one should breed separately for the rainy and post rainy seasons (Table 12 ).14 Table 11 . Hybrids relative t o va riety in India (Reddy et al; 2007, 2008)

Days to 50%

flowering Brix a Juice (kl

ha - 1 ) Sugar (Mg

ha - 1 ) Grain (Mg

ha - 1 ) ICSA749 x SSV74 (hybrid) 85 18.0 27.2 9.15 3.28 ICSA511 x SSV74 (hybrid) 88 18.0 22.7 7.84 5.79 SSV84 (variety

– control) 94 16.6 16.8 4.98 2.67

a Reddy et al list no units for Brix. Typically Brix is as Degrees Brix ( ◦ Bx)

, a measure of dissolved sugar to water. A 25 ◦ Bx solution would be 25 g of sugar and 75 g of water.

Table 12 . How rankings for sugar and gr ain change between rainy and nonrainy season over 2 years (Reddy et al, 2008)

Brix (%) a Sugar (Mg ha - 1 ) Grain (Mg ha - 1 ) Hybrid Rainy Nonrainy Rainy Rank Nonrainy Rank b Rainy Rank Nonrainy Rank b

ICSA675 x

SSV74 16.6 10.3 6.3 1 1.1 9 6.7 8 7.1 8

ICSA675 x SP V 422 17.3 11.7 6.1 2 0.9 14 6.6 9 6.7 10

ICSA324 x

SSV422 16.5 16.1 4.8 13 1.7 2 4.9 17 3.9 20

ICSA474 x E36

- 1 13.5 14.3 4.8 14 1.7 3 6.3 14 6.2 15

NSSH104 (check) 18.5 19.8 5.9 3 1.2 8 4.2 18 7.2 3

a Reddy et al list the units as %. Typically Brix is as Degrees Brix ( ◦ Bx)

, a measure of dissolved sugar to water. A 25 ◦ Bx solution would be 25 g of sugar and 75 g of water.

b There were a total of 20 sorghum hybrids grown. Only selected sorghum hybrids are shown

The research in progress at ICRISAT fo r sweet sorghum identified several promising varieties and several hybrid seed parents and restorers, developed hybrids that are relatively less photoperiod and

thermo sensitive and earlier maturing than varieties, and identified several sweet

- stalked hybr ids that are higher yielding than the best control hybrid (ICRISAT, 2007). Three sweet sorghum varieties had days to 50% flowering ranging from 69 to 96, while two hybrids had days to 50% flowering of 65 to 74, depending on the month of planting during Nov em ber to March. The hybrids ( days to

50% flowering ) were much less af f ected by month of planting and varying day length than the varieties (Reddy et al, 2008).

ICRISAT is cooperating with the Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR) and the University of Los Baños in the Philippines on production and development of sweet sorghum hybrid s (Hernandez, 2009). After the 2008 growing season six hybrids were identified for seed production and

characterization.

Texas A&M University is curren tly conducting sorghum r esearch on both high biomass and sweet sorghum , and is cooperating with Ceres on research on and commercialization o f biomass sorghum. For biomass sorghum

, they are developing parental lines with maternal lines that are short to facilitate

seed collection a nd hybrids to produce tall high

- biomass plants. The se hybrids are photoperiod sensitive do not initiate flowering until day length is less than 12 hours, thereby maximizing the length of growing season and biomass produced. Breeding for a thick stalk h elps prevent lodging. In 2007

, the forage sorghums used in the breeding program grew to 3.0 to 3.7 m (10 to 12 feet) tall and yielded 25 to 29 dry Mg ha - 1 (11 to 13 dry tons acre - 1 ). The yield goal is 34 to 38 dry Mg ha - 1 (15 to 17 dry

tons acre - 1 ) in th e next few years and 45 dry Mg ha - 1 (20 dry tons acre - 1 ) within the next decade, based on conventional breeding. No transgenic breeding is planned because sorghum easily hybridizes with15 johnsongrass [ Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.], an aggressive weedy spec ies. For sweet sorghum

, seed is also an issue because the plant puts much of its sugar into the stalk and not seed and the plant is tall, making it mechanically difficult to harvest seed. Texas A&M is breeding the maternal line short to aid

in seed colle ction. The program seeks to exploit hybrid vigor in sweet sorghum (Schill, 2007).

Qingshan and Dahlberg (2001) describe Chinese efforts in sorghum improvement. Comprehensive and systematic Chinese research on sorghum began in 1951 after the establishmen t of the People’s Republic. From 1956 to 1984 germplasm was collected throughout China, preserving the germplasm resources and laying the foundation for improving sorghum. Most varieties were grain sorghum, but some fodder and sugar varieties were colle cted. Traits have been identified, including agronomic and nutrition characteristics and screenings for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. There is wide variation in days to maturity, from 80 to 190 days. Most local varieties are photoperiod and thermo insensitive. Many accessions are tall, with the tallest being 4.5 m (15’). Stresses screened for include drought, cold, saline and alkali soils, and various diseases such as head smut, and pests such as the sugar cane aphid and European corn bore r. Starting in the late 1950s

, improved sorghum varieties began to be released. Chinese sorghum germplasm has been exported to other countries, including the United States, the former USSR, and Australia. Cold tolerance is an important trait available i n Chinese germplasm.

As of 2008, there were approximately 168,000 sorghum accessions held at repositories around the world, with the two largest repositories being ICRISAT and USDA. However these collections have not been adequately explored for traits i mportant to the biofuels industry. While the sorghum genome is the second major cereal crop to be sequenced, genetic improvement is difficult without clear targets. At the International Conference on Sorghum for Biofuels in 2008, the feedstock developmen t group stated that for rapid genetic improvements, traits important to the biofuels industry must be defined. They noted that critical traits must take account of cultures and conditions in individual countries and regions. Until other criteria are defi ned, yield is the most important trait on which to concentrate. Because sorghum is a diploid, compared to other biofuel crops, it is relatively genetically simple and allows for multiple breeding cycles per year (Pederson and Dahlberg, 2008).

There are a lso sorghums that are lower in lignin content; brown midrib (BMR) mutant lines. The brown midrib trait was identified in sorghum in 1978. The brown midrib trait is available in forage sorghum and sorghum x sudangrass. Standability is an issue with brown midrib sorghum. Forage analysis (e.g. in vitro dry matter digestibility) and animal feeding trials have shown improved digestibility (Burmood, 2003). The lower lignin content may lead to better conversion into ethanol. ICRISAT has been breeding brown m idrib sorghums (Reddy et al, no date).

8. ADAPTATION OF MODERN SORGHUM VARIETIES AN D HYBRIDS IN

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Tannins can limit the nutritional value of grains, including sorghum. Some tannins form complexes with proteins and proteases in the alim entary tract, reducing protein digestibility. However, the tannins impart bird and insect resistance, and in some cases in traditional foods the phenolics found in red sorghum give desired color and flavor. (Grain sorghum comes in a number of colors, inc luding white, brown, pink, red, and yellow. White sorghum is generally preferred for food products.) (Phenolics are naturally organic compounds and can give foods tastes and smells.) Traditional varieties are generally

taller than the dwarf varieties br ed for mec hanical harvest. However, traditional varieties are open pollinated and farmers can retain seed at harvest for the next planting season. Modern hybrids are generally higher yielding, but only make economic sense when grown with the required inp uts of fertilizer, weed control, pest control, and water management. Hybrid seed is more expensive and16 cannot be retained for the next planting season. Varieties with resistance to disease, insects, birds, drought, and acceptable yields of both grain and fodder are preferred by resource

- limited farmers (Natural Resources Institute, no date).

9. HOW TO APPROACH SORG HUM RESEARCH

D eveloping sorghum as an energy crop will need to be supported by an integrative research strategy

that consider s an entire croppin g system (where sorghum may be one component) to sustainably and economically produce food, feed , fiber and fuel s

. Preliminary research questions that need to be explored include:

W hat sorghum products are desired ?

**•** Both biomass (lignocellulose alone or lignocellulose and sugar) and grain ?

**•** Primarily biomass (and grain produced, if any, is incidental) ?

**•** Sugars (and possibly grain) with the bagasse as a secondary product?

W hat land will be used ?

**•** Will sorghum replace current food and fe ed crops, or pasture?

**•** Will sorghum be integrated in crop rotation s (potentially increasing long

- term productivity of other crops)?

**•** Will sorghum be part of an expansion into marginal lands or part of recuperation of abandoned and degraded lands?

In addition to land use and pro duct mix, productivity depends on intensity of production and constraining factors such as water. The feasibility of bioenergy from sorghum will depend on costs of required inputs, efficiency of operations, markets and prices for cropping system outputs a nd technologies available. For example, with today’s conversion technologies, sweet sorghum for conventional ethanol may be the most viable bioenergy option , but in the future

, lignocellulosic conversion technology may favor sorghum varieties with higher b iomass yield s per unit of input than sweet sorghum.

A question to research is whether one is better off utilizing sorghum that is specialized (e.g. energy sorghum for biomass and grain sorghum for grain) or sorghum that is multipurpose (e.g. sweet sorghum that produces both grain and biomass) instead? For example, if grain sorghum is grown on 1 unit of land and energy sorghum on 1 unit of land, will this produce more grain and biomass than a dual purpose sorghum (a sorghum developed for both grain and bio mass) grown on 2 units of land?

The answer is likely to vary be location.

Another issue to consider is what conversion technologies are available. This will affect the choice of crops grown. For example, sweet sorghum is high in sugar that can be conve rted into ethanol using currently available technology, whereas conversion of lignocellulose to ethanol is still in the developmental stage. The choice of type of sorghum today would likely be sweet sorghum, but in the future with improvements in lignocel lulosic conversion technology it would likely be an energy sorghum that would yield more biomass per unit land area than sweet sorghum.17 10. WHY SORGHUM AS AN EN ERGY CROP AND NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS

A mong potential annual bioenergy crops, sorghum may be advantag eous where drought tolerance is important and it can enhance production of other crops (e.g. as seasonal cover crop or in rotations). Sorghum allows farmers flexibility in choice of crop from year to year . It has the potential for high yields (40+ dry Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ). Genetic mapping combined with a relatively fast breeding and field testing cycle facilitate further improvements for bioenergy once desired feedstock characteristics and site requirements are clearly defined. Acknowledging that improvements for bioenergy could potentially diverge from those for feed and food, the following research agenda is proposed:

1) Define tr a i t s important for bioenergy and characterize sorghum collections for these traits

2) Develop cost

- effective means to stabilize sweet sor ghum juice so it does not need immediate processing

3) Increase sugar yields of s weet sorghum for use in the near term as an ethanol feedstock (or to supplement sugar from sugarcane )

4) Increase grain yields for sweet and energy sorghums to explore multi

- product potential

5) Develop varieties for high biomass yields (energy sorghum)

6) High and low lignin varieties (high lignin for thermochemical conversion such as gasification or pyrolysis and low lignin for ethanol feedstock)

7) Research cropping systems including

**•** doubl e cropping where sorghum supplement s other grain production to increase overall output while reducing environmental impacts

**•** cover crop and inter

- crop sorghum that helps control weeds and pests for high

- value crops (vegetables) while improving soils

While perennial biomass crops may be preferred for environmental benefits (e.g. lower soil erosion

, lower fertilizer requirements), annual s such as sorghum provide farmers with more agility to shift crop production in response to market signals

. Sorghum ’s fast breeding cycle

, compared to perennials

, can help increase bioenergy f eedstock production while perennials are being developed. Both perennials and annuals can play important roles in an integrated system designed to minimize input requirements

and maximi ze production of multiple food, feed, fiber and fuel products.

11. REFERENCES

Adams, Sean. 1995. Resetting sorghum’s internal clock. Agricultural Research , 43(12):18

- 19.

Accessed at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/IS/AR/archive/dec95/sorghum1295.pdf

Alibaba.com. 2008. Tata Chemicals’ ethanol plant validates claims on sorghum. Accessed at: http://news.alibaba.com/article/detail/chemicals/100016077

- 1

- tata

- chemicals%2527

- ethanol

- plant

validates.html

Anon. 2008. Sweet sorghum: Q & A with Dr. Dani Bellmer. Sorghum Grower , March 2008, p. 17.

Baucum, L.E., R.W . Rice, and T.J. Schueneman. 2006. An overview of Florida sugarcane . SS

AGR

- 232. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, university of Florida. Accessed at: http://www.floridaplants.com/Reprints/An%20Overview%20of%20Florida%20Sugarcane.htm18 Bennett, A. S., R. P. Anex. 2008. Farm

- Gate Production Costs of Sweet Sorghum as a Bioethanol

Feedstock. Transactions of the ASABE 51(2): 603

- 613

Bolsen, Keith K. 2002. Grain and forage sorghum silages: A review of cultivar, maturity, and processing effects . Accessed at: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/pr_silage/publicatio ns/Sorghum%20Silage%20A%20Review.pdf

Burmood, Tom. 2003. Brown midrib sorghum forage . Accessed at: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/wfc/proceedings2003/bmr.htm

Caravetta, G.J., J.H. Cherney, and K.D. Johnson. 1990. Within

- row spacing influences on diverse sorghum genotypes. Agronomy Journal 82:206

- 210.

Ceres. 2009. High biomass sorghum . Accessed at: http://www.bladeenergy.com/Bladepdf/Blade_ProductGuide2010.pdf

Cherney, J.H., K.D. Johnson, J.J. Volenec, E.J. Kladivko, and D.K. Greene. 1990. Evaluation of potential herbaceous biomass crops on marginal crop lands: 1) Agronomic potential, final report
1985

- 1989 . ORNL/Sub/85

- 27412/5&P1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Available

at: http://bioenergyornl.gov

Cotton.org. 2010. Cotton: From field to fabric, harvesting & seed cotton storage . Accessed at: http://www.cotton.org/pubs/cottoncounts/fieldtofabric/harvest.cfm

D

- 8 Secretariat. 2008. Nigeria’s first biorefinery to be constructed . Agriculture Energ y Industry News 29 April 2008, D

- 8 Organization for Economic Cooperation. Accessed at: http://www.developing8.org/2008/04/29/nigerias

- first

- biofuel

- re finery

- to

- be

- constructed/

FAO. 1994 . Breeding and cultivation of sweet sorghum . Ch 2 IN Lu Nan, Gustavo Best, and Carlos Coelho de Carvalho Neto (eds.): Integrated energy systems in China

– The cold northeastern region experience. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Accessed at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t4470E/t4470e05.htm#2.%20breeding%20and%20cultivation% 20of%20s weet%20sorghum

Fan nin, Blair. 2009. Texas Agrilife research showcases bioenergy program at media day . AgriLife News, August 14, 2009. Accesses at: http://agnews.tamu.edu/showstory.p hp?id=1363

Farré, Imma and José María Faci. 2004. Comparative response of maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L Moench) to irrigation deficit in a Mediterranean climate . Paper presented at 4 th
International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane , Australia, 26 September

– 1 October 2004. Accessed

at: http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/poster/1/3/2/1240_farreiok.htm

FBAE. 2008. Sweet sorghum: A new smart biofuel crop that ensures food security . 19 May 2008. Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education. Accessed at: fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/biofuels_sweet

- sorghum .html

Grassi, Guiliano. No date. Low cost production of bioethanol from sweet sorghum . European Biomass Industry Association. Accessed at: http://www.sseassociation.org/SS%20Publications/eubia/giulianograssi%20greenpower%20conference .pdf19 Hernandez, Eloisa E. 2009 . Six promising sweet sorghum hybrids identified . BAR Chronicle 10(1) (January 2009). Accessed at: http://www.bar.gov.ph/barchronicle/2009/jan2009_news1.asp

ICRISAT. 2007. Sweet sorghum: A water saving, bio

- energy crop for the Philippines . The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi

- Ari d Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.

ICRISAT. 2009. Sorghum production practices

– Area and distribution of sorghum . Accessed at: http://www.icrisat.org/vasat/learning_resources/crops/sorghum/sorghum_prodpractices/html/m2l1/inde

x.html

Johnson, K.D., J.H.Cherney, D.K. Greene, and J.J. Volenec. 1991. Evaluation of switchgrass and sorghum biomass potential, final report 1989

- 1991 . Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Available at: http://bioenergyornl.gov

Jørgensen, Uffe and Kirsten Schelde. 2001. Energy crop water and nutrient use efficiency . The

Inter national Energy Agency, IEA Bioenergy Task 17, Short Rotation Crops. Accessed at: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/17/16275.pdf

KSUAES&CES. 1998. Grain sorghum production handbook . C

- 687. Kansas State U niversity Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Manhattan, KS. Accessed at: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/crpsl2/c687.pdf

Klein, Robert R., John E. Mullet, D avid R. Jordan, Frederick R. Miller, William R. Rooney, Monica A. Menz, Cleve D. Franks, and Patricia E. Klein. 2008. The effect of tropical sorghum conversion and inbred development on genome diversity as revealed by high

- resolution genotyping. The Pla nt Genome [A Supplement to Crop Science] 48(S1):S12

- S26.

Koch, Dave. No date. Sorghums and sudangrass

– Management for supplemental and emergency forage . SMRR Info Source. Accessed at: http: //www.wyorange.net/Drought/sorghum.html

McCorkle, Dean, Dan Hanselka, Brent Bean, Ted McCollum, Steve Amosson, Stephen Klose, and

Mark Waller. 2007. The economic benefits of sorghum silage as an alternative crop . MKT

- 3557L 06/07. AgriLife Extension, Texas A&M System.

Monk, R.L., F.R. Miller, and G.G. McBee. 1984. Sorghum improvement for energy production.

Biomass 6:145

- 153.

Msucares.com. 2009. Sorghum production in Mississippi . Accessed at: http://msucares.com/crops/sorghum/descriptions.html

National Sorghum Producers. 2008. Edenspace announces Energy Sorghum tm seed products. Sorghum e

- notes, November 6, 2008. Accessed at: http://www.sorghumgrowers.com/Sorghum%20Notes/2008%20Sorghum%20Notes/November%206, %202008.pdf

National Sorghum Producers. 2009. 2009 National Sorghum Yield & Management Contest Results

. Acce ssed at: http://www.sorghumgrowers.com/Yield%20Contest/2009%20Yield%20Contest%20Results.pdf20 National Sorghum Producers. No date. Sorghum for ethanol prod uction

.

Natural Resources Institute. No date. Sorghum: Post

- harvest operations . Food Security Department.

Accessed at: http://www.fao.org/inpho/content/compend/text/ch07.htm

New, Leon. 2004. Grain sorghum irrigation . B

- 6152, 6

- 04. Texas Cooperative Extension

– Amarillo, TX. Accessed at: http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1 /87197/pdf_1843.pdf?sequence=1

News.mongabay.com. 2008. Renergie receives $1.5 million grant for sweet sorghum ethanol production. 8 March 2008. Accessed at: http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2008/03/renergie

receives

- 15

- million

- grant

- for.html

Ngouajio, Mathieu, J. Breinling, R. Goldy, M. Hausbeck, G. McManus, D. Mutch,S. Snapp, D. Warncke, and B. Zandstra. No date. Cropping systems to improve v egetable production under short crop rotation. GR02

- 057, MSU Dept. of Horticulture. Accessed at: http://fieldcrop.msu.edu/documents/GR02

- 057.pdf

Norwood , C.A., A.J. Schlegel, D.W. Morishita , and R.E. Gwin. 1990. Cropping system and tillage effects on available soil water and yield of grain sorghum and winter wheat. Journal of Production Agriculture 3(3):356

- 362.

Owens, Vance. 2009. The Regional Feedstock Partnership: Herbaceous energy crops and CRP land for biomass production across environmental gradients

. Biomass 2009 , 17

- 18 March 2009, Washington, DC. Accessed at: http://www1.eere.ener gy.gov/biomass/pdfs/Biomass_2009_Sustainabiliy_III_Owens.pdf

Pari, Luigi, Giuliano Grassi, and Stefano Capaccioli. 2008. State of the art: Harvesting, storage and logistic of the sweet sorghum . pp. 174

- 177 in Proceedings of the 16 th European Biomass C onference

& Exhibition 2

- 6 June 2008, Valencia, Spain. Accessed at: http://web.etaflorence.it/uploads/media/OD4.5_paper_01.pdf

Pederson, Jeff and Jeff Dahlberg. 2008. Feedstock development. International Conference on sorghum for biofuels , 19

- 22 August 2008, Houston, TX. Accessed at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/meeti ngs/Sorghum/Final%20Report%20on%20the%20international%20Conf erence.pdf

Qingshan, Lu and Jeffrey Dahlberg. 2001. Chinese sorghum genetic resources. Economic Botany 55(3):401

- 425.

Reddy, Belum VS, A. Ashok Kumar, and William D. Bar. No date. Overview of sorghum breeding at ICRISAT: Opportunities and constraints . Accessed at: http://www.ifad.org/events/sorghum/b/Reddy.pdf

Reddy, Belum VS, S. Ramesh, P. Sanjana Reddy, B. Ramaiah, P.M. Sa limath, and Rajashekar Kachapur. 2005. Sweet sorghum

– A potential alternative raw material for bio

- ethanol and bio

energy. Sorghum and Millets Newsletter 46:79

- 96.

Reddy, Belem VS, HC Sharma, RP Thakur, S Ramesh, Fred Rattunde, and Mary Mgonja. 2006. Sorghum hybrid parents research at ICRIAT

– Strategies, status, and impacts. SAT ejournal |21 ejournal.icrisat.org 2(1):1

- 24.

Reddy, Belum VS, A. Ashok Kumar, and S. Ramesh. 2007. S weet sorghum: A water saving bio

energy crop . International Conference on Linkages between Energy and Water Management for Agriculture in Developing Countries , 29

- 30 January 2007, IWMI, ICRISAT Campus, Hyderabad

, India. Accessed at: http://www.icrisat.org/Biopower/BVSReddyetalSweetSorghumWatersavingJan2007.pdf

Reddy, Belum V.S., William D. Dar, P. Parthasarathy Rao, P. Srinivasa Rao, A. Ashok Kumar, and P. Sanjana Reddy. 2008. Sweet sorghum as a bioethanol feedstock: Challenges and opportunities

. International Conference on Sorghum for Biofuel, 19

- 22 August 2008, Houston, TX.

Accessed at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/meetings/Sorghum/presentations/Red dy.pdf

Roth, Gregory W. 1995. Forage sorghum . Agronomy Facts 48.Penn State, College of Agricultural Sciences, cooperative Extension. Accessed at: http://cropsoil.psu.edu/Extension/F acts/agfact48.pdf

Schill, Susanne Retka. 2007. Tall Texas sorghum. Ethanol Producer Magazine , November 2007.

Accessed at: www.ethanolproducer.com/article

- print.jsp?arti cle_id=3424

Singh BR and DP Singh. 1995. Agronomic and physiological responses of sorghum, maize and pearl millet to irrigation. Field Crops Research 42:57

- 67.

Soltani, A. and A. Almodares. 1994. Evaluation of the investments in sugar beet and sweet sorghum production

. National Convention of Sugar production from Ag riculture products, 13

- 16 March 1994, Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz, Iran.

Teutsch, Chris. 2006. Warm

- season annual grasses for summer forage . Publication 418

- 004

. Communication and Marketing, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Accessed at: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/418/418

- 004/418

- 004.pdf

Tew, Thomas L., Robert M. Cobill, and Edward P. Richard, Jr. 2008. Evaluation of sweet sorghum and sorghum x sudangrass hybrids as feedstocks for ethanol production. Bioenergy Research 1:147

- 152

Thomasson, J. A., B. E. Hartley, J. D. Gibson, R. Sui, S. W. Searcy. 2009. Characteristics of High

Biomass Sorghum as a Biofuel. Paper number 090015. ASABE Annual International Meeting, June

21

– June 24, 2009, Reno Nevada.

Viator, Ryan P., Edward P. Richard, Jr., Donnie D. Garrison, Edwis O. Dufrene, Jr., and Thom as L. Tew. 2005. Sugarcane cultivar yield response to planting date. Journal American Society Sugar Cane Technologies 25(2005):78

- 87.

Wikipedia. 2010. Cotton module builder. Accessed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_module_builder