Sorghum Feedstock Performance Tests:Coordinator: W.L. Rooney Texas A&M University

Collaborators: Scott Staggenborg, Kansas State University Ken Moore, Iowa State UniversityTodd Pfieffer/Michael Barrett, University of KentuckyBissondat Macoon, Mississippi State UniversityRon Heiniger, North Carolina State UniversityGary Odvody, Texas Agrilife ResearchJim Heilman, Texas A&M UniversityJeff Pedersen, USDA-ARS

Objectives

• Establish yield parameters for different types of sorghums

• Establish quality parameters for different sorghums across environments

• Sustainability Analysis

Sorghum Experimental Design• Medium experimental units (0.05 to 0.10 ha)

• 3 to 4 replications• Nitrogen as recommended for forage sorghum

production• Rainfed, no supplemental irrigation• Harvest

– Single, end of season Harvest (2008)– Multiple, optimized to Type (2009)

• 6 Genotypes (varies in year)• Harvest

– Biomass Yield (Fresh, Dry), – Height– Maturity– Composition

2008

Sorghum Hybrid Selection - 2008 • Forage Sorghum

Hybrids– Graze-All, Graze-n-Bale– PS and PI

• Silage Sorghum Hybrids– 22053 and Sugar-T– PS and PI, BMR and bmr

• Sweet Sorghum Variety– M81-E

• Grain Sorghum (check)

• No energy sorghum hybrids available in 2008

2008 Results• Harvestable Yield in 6/7 locations

– Iowa – not planted due to wet spring• Planting Dates - mid March to early June• Harvest Date - late September to late November

• Yields – Dry Weights

• 9 Mg/ha (grain check) to 26.2 Mg/ha (PS Forage Hybrid)

• Composition– Biomass composition samples collected in most

locations

2009

Sorghum Hybrid Selection - 2009 • Forage Sorghum

Hybrids– Graze-All (PI)– Graze-n-Bale (PS)

• Silage Sorghum Hybrids– 22053, PS bmr– Sugar-T, PI

• Sweet Sorghum Variety– M81-E

• Energy Sorghum– TAM08001

2009 Results• Harvestable Yield in 6/7 locations

– CC, Texas – not planted due to extreme drought• Yields – generally very good• Composition

– Biomass composition samples collected in most locations (2008 and 2009)

– NIR Scans completed in CS – Sorghum composition model co-developed by

NREL and TAMU to estimate fiber composition.

Trials Overview

Trial Location

Planting Dates

Lead PI Major Factors (freeze, flood, draught, etc.)

Harvest Date(s),

Length of Harvest, &

Harvest Process

Obstacles to Data

Collection

Other Information?

College Station, Texas

Annually in late March or early April

Rooney Very dry in 2009 with moisture early and late

July/Oct Extremely wet fall made harvest difficult

Manhattan, KS

Early May Staggenborg Below average temps and above average moisture

Sept/Oct

Ames, IA Mid to Late May

Moore Average year September

Lexington KY

Mid to Late May

Pfieffer/Barrett

Average temps, good moisture

September

Trials Overview (continued)

Trial Location

Planting Dates

Lead PI Major Factors (freeze, flood, draught, etc.)

Harvest Date(s),

Length of Harvest, &

Harvest Process

Obstacles to Data

Collection

Other Information?

Mississippi April, replant in June

Maccoon Average climate, but herbicide damage from drift required replant

August to October

Plymouth NC

Late April/early May

Heininger Excellent Year July to October

Corpus Christi, Texas

Mid March Odvody Drought, did not even plant.

None Not Planting

Texas – Burleson County

Variety (# cuts)

Fresh Weight (MT/ha)

Moisture %

Dry Weight (MT/ha)

BRIX % Height (m)

Days to Flowering

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

Variety (# cuts)

Fresh Weight (MT/ha)

Moisture %

Dry Weight (MT/ha)

BRIX % Height (m)

Grain (MT/ha)

Grazeall 3 (1) 98.4 76 23.0 13.0 2.7 1.07

Graze-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 CountyVariety (# cuts

Fresh Weight (MT/ha)

Moisture %

Dry Weight (MT/ha)

BRIX % Height (m)

Days to Flowering

Grazeall 3 (2) 110.9 80 18.9 8.4 2.3 45

Graze-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)

Variety (# cuts)

Fresh Weight (MT/ha) Moisture %

Dry Weight (MT/ha)

Grazeall 3 64.7(19, 110)

74.0(63, 80)

16.8(7, 23)

Graze-n-Bale 73.4(40, 108)

76.0(67, 81)

17.6(9, 27)

22053 52.2(31, 70)

73.5(70, 75)

13.8(9, 18)

TAM8001 60.0(39, 104)

68.0(63, 72)

19.2(13, 34)

M81E 65.9(40, 111)

75.5(72, 82)

16.1(9, 31)

Sugar T 61.5(34, 98)

73.5(66, 77)

16.3(12, 24)

Yield Data and Interpretation

• Multiple Cut Hybrids provide greater window of harvest, more cost/harvest

• Single Cut Hybrids provide total yield in single harvest reduce cost/harvest

• Yield of top MC, SC in year is similar• Adaptation: • Photoperiod Sensitive

– Higher Yielding– Less susceptible to drought

Composition

• Sample Collected• Composition will be estimated• NIR Calibration Curve

– Collaborative with NREL, NSP– Standardization is critical– Estimate on all over years for GxE

study

Carbohydrate Composition

Table 3 Summary of the chemical composition data obtained on the calibration set using dietary fiber analysis

Constituent N Mean Std Dev Min Max Range CV†

Lignin 97 13.8 2.9 9.2 20.6 11.4 21.0

Xylan 97 16.5 2.7 10.8 22.5 11.7 16.6

Glucan 97 32.8 5.1 21.9 47.4 25.5 15.4

Solubles 97 23.1 8.0 11.0 44.0 32.9 34.8

Data are expressed as wt% dry basis

†CV, Coefficient of variation

NIR Curve Development

Table 5 Summary of the NIR calibration models built for predicting lignin, xylan, glucan, and solublesConstituent Multivariate

procedureMath Pre-treatments

# PCs† N‡ Mean SEC R2 SECV R2 for CV

Lignin MPLS2-8-6-1; MSC 9 90 13.62 0.74 0.93 1.12 0.84

Xylan PLS1-4-4-1; 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