Diyarbakır koşullarında farklı tatlı sorgum çeşitlerinin biyokütle verimi ve silaj kalite özelliklerinin belirlenmesi

Year 2025, Volume: 30 Issue: 2, 277 - 292, 21.08.2025

Suat Kaplan , Celal Yücel , Muzaffer Denli

https://doi.org/10.37908/mkutbd.1583524

Abstract

Bu araştırma, Diyarbakır koşullarında bazı tatlı sorgum (Sorghum bicolor var. saccharatum (L.) Mohlenbr.) çeşitlerinin biyokütle verimi ile silaj kalite özelliklerini belirlemek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Hasat, bitkinin salkımdaki tanelerin süt-hamur olum döneminde yapılmıştır. Araştırmada çeşitlere bağlı olarak, bitki boyunun 326.1-373.7 cm, sap kalınlığının 19.20-21.43 mm, bitkideki yaprak sayısının 13.55-14.40 adet, yaş ot (hasıl) veriminin 8785.7-11635.7 kg da-1 ve kuru madde veriminin 2698.6-3496.5 kg da-1 arasında değiştiği saptanmıştır. Ayrıca önemli silaj kalite özelliklerinde pH değeri 4.18-4.59, HP oran %2.06-2.91, ham kül içeriği %7.55-9.43, ham selüloz oranı %24.40-31.04, nişasta içeriği %7.46-10.70, NDF %47.23-59.33, ADF içeriği %29.96-39.05, ADP oranı %0.38-0.86, sindirilebilir kuru madde oranı %58.74-65.76, kuru madde tüketimi %2.05-2.54, nispi yem değeri 94.1-129.6, net enerji laktasyon içeriği 1.34-1.46 Mkal kg-1, Mg %0.27-0.36, Ca %1.09-1.20 ve P içeriği %0.19-0.21 arasında değişim göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak araştırma sonuçlarımız No91, M81E ve Topper-76 sorgum çeşitlerinin kuru madde verimi açısından, Roma ve Ramada çeşitlerinin ise silaj kalite özellikleri bakımından ilk sıralarda yer aldığını göstermiştir.

Keywords

Tatlı sorgum , Çeşit , Kalite , Silaj , Verim

Supporting Institution

Şırnak Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü

Project Number

2020.FLTP.13.09.05

Thanks

Çalışma, Şırnak Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü (2020.FLTP.13.09.05) tarafından finansal olarak desteklenmiştir. Ayrıca tarla denemelerinin yürütülmesi ve yem kalite analizleri Dicle Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi’nde yapılmıştır. Desteklerinden dolayı kurumlarımıza teşekkür ederiz.

Determination of biomass yield and silage quality characteristics of different sweet sorghum varieties in Diyarbakır condition

Abstract

This research was carried out to determine the biomass yield and silage quality characteristics of certain sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor var. saccharatum (L.) Mohlenbr.) varieties in Diyarbakır conditions. Plant material was harvested during the milk-dough maturation period of the grains in the panicle of the plant. In the research, although it varies depending on the varieties, the plant height was 326.1-373.7 cm, the stem thickness was 19.20-21.43 mm, the number of leaves was 13.55-14.40 number plant-1, the biomass yield was 8785.7-11635.7 kg da-1 and the dry matter yield was 2698.6-3496.5 kg da-1. In addition, it was determined that pH varied between 4.18 and 4.59, CP content between 2.06 and 2.91%, crude ash between 7.55 and 9.43%, crude fiber between 24.40 and 31.04%, starch content between 7.46 and 10.70%, NDF between 47.23 and 59.33%, ADF between 29.96 and 39.05%, ADP between 0.38 and 0.86%, digestible dry matter ratio between 58.74 and 65.76%, dry matter intake between 2.05 and 2.54%, relative feed value between 94.1 and 129.6, and net energy lactation between 1.34 and 1.46 Mcal kg-1, Mg between 0.27 and 0.36%, Ca between 1.09 and 1.20% and P between 0.19 and 0.21%. In conclusion, our results showed that the No91, M81E, and Topper-76 sorghum varieties stood out in terms of dry matter yield, while the Roma and Ramada varieties ranked highest in terms of silage quality characteristics.

Keywords

Sweet sorghum , Cultivar , Quality , Silage , Yield

Project Number

2020.FLTP.13.09.05

References

• Acar, R., & Akgün, N. (2009). Şeker darısının (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench var. saccharatum) yeşil ot verimi ve verim öğelerine farklı azot dozlarının etkisi. Türkiye 8. Tarla Bitkileri Kongresi, 19-22 Ekim 2009, s. 637-640, Hatay.
• Afzal, M., Ahmad, A., & Ahmad, A.H. (2012). Effect of nitrogen on growth and yield of sorghum forage (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench cv.) under three cuttings system. Cercetari Agronomice In Moldova, 45, 57-64. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10298-012-0065-y
• Aksoy, M., Çelik, A.E., M.Dok, M., Yücel, C., & Aydın, K. (2023). Çukurova koşullarında yetiştirilen tatlı sorgum genotiplerinin selülozik biyoetanol veriminin belirlenmesi. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 20 (1), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1065433
• Ali, M.L., Rajewskı, J.F., Baenziger, P.S., Gill, K.S., Eskridge, K.M., & Dweikat I. (2008). Assessment of genetic diversity and relationship among a collection of US sweet sorghum germplasm by SSR markers. Molecular Breeding, 21, 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-007-9149-z
• Ankom Technology (2004). The ANKOM 200 Fiber Analyzer. Fairport, NY; 2004. Available:http://www.ankom.com
• Anonim (2004). TSE, Türk Standardları Enstitüsü. ISO 6493 TS No’lu Hayvan yemleri - Nişasta muhtevasının tayini-polarimetrik metot, (Erişim tarihi: 27.06.2020), https://intweb.tse.org.tr/standard/TSISO6493
• Anonim (2010). Tarımsal değerleri ölçme denemeleri teknik talimatı, sorgum (Sorghum spp.), Tohumluk Tescil ve Sertifikasyon Merkezi Müdürlüğü. http://www.ttsm.gov.tr/TR/belge/1-296/teknik-talimatlar.html, Ankara, Son Erişim Tarihi:14.01.2020.
• Anonim (2018). SGS Agrifood Laboratories. Feed/forages calculations. http://www.agtest.com/articles/feed%20and%20forages%20calculations_new.pdf
• Anonim (2020a). Deneme alanı topraklarının bazı özellikleri. Dicle Ünivirsitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, Toprak Labaratuvarı Sonuçları.
• Anonim (2020b). Araştırmanın yürütüldüğü Diyarbakır ilinin aylara göre hava durumu ortalamaları. MGM Diyarbakır ili bazı iklim parametreleri. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/
• AOAC (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official method of analysis. 15th ed. Washington, DC. USA, 66-88.
• Atis, I., Konuskan, O., Duru, M., Gozubenli, H., & Yilmaz, S. (2012). Effect of harvesting time on yield, composition and forage quality of some forage sorghum cultivars. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 14, 879-886.
• Audilakshmi, S., Mall, A.K., Swarnalatha, M., & Seetharama, N. (2010). Inheritance of sugar concentration in stalk (brix), sucrose content, stalk and juice yield in sorghum. Biomass Bioenergy, 34, 813-820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.025
• Başbağ, M., Çaçan, E., & Sayar, M.S. (2018). Bazı buğdaygil bitki türlerinin yem kalite değerlerinin belirlenmesi ve biplot analiz yöntemi ile özellikler arası ilişkilerin değerlendirilmesi. Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 27 (2), 92-101. https://doi.org/10.21566/tarbitderg.501484
• Bean, B., McCollum, T., Villarreal, B., Blumenthal, J., Robinson, J., Brandon, R., Buttrey, E., Van Meter, R., & Pietsch, D. (2009). Texas panhandle forage sorghum silage trial. AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Amarillo. Accessed May 1, 2012. http:// amarillo-tamu-edu.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/11/ Forage-Sorghum-2009-Variety-Report-Final.pdf
• Bellmer, D., Huhnke, R., Whiteley, R., & Godsey, C. (2010). The untapped potential of sweet sorghum as a bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels, 1 (4), 563-573, https://doi.org/10.4155/bfs.10.34
• Blümmel, M., Rao, S.S., Palaniswami, S., Shah, L., & Reddy, B.V.S. (2009). Evaluation of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) used for bio-ethanol production in the context of optimizing whole plant utilization. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, 9, 1-10.
• Bogapov, I., Memeshov, S., Kibalnik, O., & Sagalbekov, U. (2024). Sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) genotypes assessment for food, fodder, and energy values in Northern Kazakhstan. SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics, 56 (1), 156-167. http://doi.org/10.54910/sabrao2024.56.1.14
• Broderick, G.A., & Radloff, W.J. (2004). Effect of molasses supplementation on the production of lactating dairy cows fed diets based on alfalfa and corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 87 (9), 2997-3009. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73431-1
• Cattani, M., Guzzo, N., Mantovani, R., & Bailoni, L. (2017). Effects of total replacement of corn silage with sorghum silage on milk yield, composition, and quality. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 8, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0146-8
• Contreras-Govea, F.E., Marsalis, M.A., Lauriault, L.M., & Bean, B.W. (2010). Forage sorghum nutritive value: A review. Online, Forage and Grazinglands. https://doi.org/10.1094/FG-2010-0125-01-RV
• Çelik, E.A., Aksoy, M., Dok, M., Aydın, K., & Yücel, C. (2023). Farklı tatlı sorgum genotiplerinin Şanlıurfa ekolojik koşullarındaki lignoselülozik biyoetanol verimleri. Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13 (4), 3064-3074. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1274305
• Dok, M., Aksoy, M., Efendioğlu Çelik, A., & Yücel, C. (2022). Farklı tatlı sorgum [Sorghum bicolor var. saccharatum (L.) Mohlenbr.] genotiplerinin posasından yapılan peletlerin bazı fiziksel özelliklerinin belirlenmesi. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9 (3), 304-313. https://doi.org/10.19159/tutad.1127371
• Durul, G. (2016). Farklı biçim zamanlarının tatlı sorgum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench var. saccharatum) ve fasulye (Phaseolus vulgaris) silaj karışımlarında bazı kalite özelliklerine etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tarla Bitkileri Ana Bilim Dalı, 72 s.
• Dündar, M., Unlü, M., & Yücel, C. (2019). Çukurova koşullarında farklı su düzeylerinin ikinci ürün tatlı sorgumun biyokütle ve biyoetanol verimine etkileri. MKU Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Özel Sayı 24, 211-221. https://doi.org/10.16882/derim.2020.689049
• Dweikat, I. (2020). Sorghum diversity paper, sweet energy crop article. http://agronomy.unl.edu/sweetsorghum. Erişim Tarihi:16 Ağustos 2020.
• Ekefre, D.E., Mahapatra, A.K., Latimore, M. Jr., Bellmer, D.D., Jena, U., Whitehead, G.J., & Williams, A.L. (2017). Evaluation of three cultivars of sweet sorghum as feedstocks for ethanol production in the Southeast United States. Heliyon, 3 (2), e00490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00490
• Elseed, A.M.A.F., Eldaim, N.I.N., & Amasaib, E.O. (2007). Chemical composition and in situ dry matter degradability of stover fractions of five sorghum varieties. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3 (10), 1141-1145.
• Ertekin, İ., & Yılmaz, Ş. (2022). The effects of sowing designs on forage yield and quality of sweet sorghum and mung bean mixtures under mediterranean conditions. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 27 (2), 188-199. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.1077392
• Esen, S., Okuyucu, B., Koç, F., & Özdüven, M.L. (2022). Deterrmination of nutritional quality and aerobic stability of sorghum, maize, and sorghum-maize mixture silages. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 19 (1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.889657
• Filya, İ. (2003). The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages. Journal Dairy Science, 86 (11), 3575-3581. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73963-0
• Fribourg, H.A. (1995). Summer annual grasses. p.463-472. In: Forages. v.1. An introduction to grassland agriculture. Barnes, R. F.; Miller, D. A. and Nelson, C. J., eds. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
• Fulgueira, C., Amigot, S., Gaggiotti, M., Romero, L., & Basílico, J. (2007). Forage quality: Techniques for testing. Fresh Produce, 1, 121-131.
• Gomes, S.O., Pitombeira, J.B., Neiva, J.N.M., & Candidado, M.J.D. (2006). Agronomic behavior and forage composition of sorghum cultivars in the State of Ceará. Revista Ciência Agronômica, 37 (2), 221-227.
• Grassi, G., Qiong, Z., Grassi, A., Fjällström, T., & Helm, P. (2002). Small-scale modern autonomous bioenergy complexes: development instrument for fighting poverty and social exclusion in rural villages. Proceedings of the “12th European Conference on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Change”, Amsterdam (The Netherlands), 17-21 June.
• Harmini, H., Fanindi, A., Sutedi, E., Herdiawan, I., & Sajimin, S. (2022). Nutritional content, performance and ratooning ability of four sorghum genotypes. In: E3S Web of Conf. 335: 00020. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202233500020
• Huhtanen, P., Khalili, H., Nousiainen, J.I., Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S., Heikkila, T., & Nouisiainen, J. (2002). Prediction on the relative intake potential of grass silage by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science, 73, 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00279-2
• Iyanar, K., Vijayakumar, G., & Fazllullah Khan, A.K. (2010). Correlation and path analysis in multicut fodder sorghum. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 1 (4), 1006-1009.
• İnal, İ., Yücel, C., Yücel, D., & Hatipoğlu, R. (2021). Nutritive value and fodder potential of different sweet sorghum genotypes under Mediterranean conditions. Turk Journal of Field Crops, 26 (1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.943445
• Jacques, K., Lyons, T.P., & Kelsall, D.R. (1999). The Alcohol Textbook. 3rd Eds. P.388. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/2993570/mod_resource/content/1/The_Alcohol_Textbook-%204%20Ed.pdf
• Jafarinia, M., Almodares, A., & Khorvash, M. (2005). Using sweet sorghum bagasse in silo In: Proceeding of the 2nd Congress of Using Renewable Sources and Agric. Wastes (Eds. M Jafarinia, A Almodares & M Khorvash). Khorasgan Azade University, Isfahan, Iran.
• Jung, H.G., & Allen, M.S. (1995). Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 2774-2790. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7392774x
• Junior, M.A.P.O., Retore, M., Manarelli, D.M., de Souza, F.B., Ledesma, L.L.M., & Orrico, A.C.A. (2015). Forage potential and silage quality of four varieties of saccharine sorghum. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 50 (12), 1201-2007. https://doi:10.1590/S0100-204X2015001200010
• Kaiser, A.G., Plitz J.W., Burns H.M., & Griffiths, N.W. (2004). Successful silage. Dairy Australia NSW Department of Primary Industries, 468 p.
• Karthikeyan, B.J., Babu, C., & Amalraj, J.J. (2017). Nutritive value and fodder potential of different sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) Cultivars. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6 (8), 898-911. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.608.112
• Keskin, B., Akdeniz, H., Temel, S., & Eren, B. (2018). Determination of agricultural characteristics of some silage sorghum and Sudangrass varieties grown as second product. Yüzüncü Yıl Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 28 (4), 412-418. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.358318
• Kidambi, S.P., Matches, A.G., & Gricgs, T.C. (1989). Variability for Ca, Mg, K, Cu, Zn, and K/(Ca + Mg) ratio among 3 wheatgrasses and sainfoin on the southern high plains. Journal of Range Management, 42, 316-322.
• Kirchgessner M. (1985). Hayvan Besleme, TÜBİTAK Fotoğraf Klişe Laboratuvarı ve Ofset Tesisleri, Ankara.
• Kjeldahl, J. (1883). Neue methode zur bestimmung des stickstoffs in organischen körpern. (New method for the determination of nitrogen in organic substances). Zeitschrift für analytische Chemie, 22 (1), 366-383.
• Korpos, M.G., Feczak, J., & Reczey, K. (2008). Sweet sorghum juice and bagasse as a possible feedstock for bioethanol production. Hungarian Journal of Industrial Chemistry, 36 (1-2), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.1515/177
• Lema, M., Felix, A., Salako, S., Cebert, E., & Bishnoi, U. (2001). Nutrient content and in vitro dry matter digestibility of silages made from various grain sorghum cultivars. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 19, 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2001.9706717
• Lv, X., Chen, L., Zhou, C., Zhang, G., Xie, J., Kang, J., Tan, Z., Tang, S., Kong, Z., Liu, Z., & Du, Z. (2023). Application of different proportions of sweet sorghum silage as a substitute for corn silage in dairy cows. Food Science & Nutrition, 11, 3575-3587. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3347
• Machado, L.C., Ferreira W.M., & Scpinello, C. (2012). Apparent digestibility of simplified and semi-simplified diets, with and without addition of enzymes, and nutritional value of fibrous sources for rabbits. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 41, 1662-70. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982012000700015
• Madibela, O.R., Boitumelo, W.S., Manthe, C., & Raditedu, I. (2002). Chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of local landraces of sweet sorghum in Botswana. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 14 (4).
• Mahmood, A., Ullah, H., Ijaz, M., Javaid, M.M., Shahzad, A.N., & Honermeier, B. (2013). Evaluation of sorghum hybrids for biomass and biogas production. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 7 (10), 1456-1462.
• McDonald, P., Henderson, A.R., & Heron, S. (1991). The biochemistry of silage. 2nd ed. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow, ISBN 0-948617-225, 340 p.
• Monti, A., Di Virgilio, N., & Gianpietro Venturi, G. (2008). Mineral composition and ash content of six major energy crops. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32 (3), 216-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.09.012
• Murray, S.C., Rooney W.L., Martha T., Hamblin M.T., Sharon E., Mitchell S.E., & Kresovich, S. (2009). Sweet sorghum genetic diversity and association mapping for brix and height. Plant Genom, 2, 48-62. https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2008.10.0011
• Negro, M.J., Solano, M.L., Ciri, P., & Carrasco, J. (1999). Composting of sweet sorghum bagasse with other wastes. Bioresour Technology, 67, 89-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00100-5
• Neto, A.B., Pereira dos Reis, R.H., Cabral, L. da S., Abreu, J.G., Sousa, D.P., & Sousa, F.G. (2017). Nutritional value of sorghum silage of different purposes. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 41 (3), 288-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-70542017413038516
• Norman, H.C., Masters, D.G., & Barrett-Lennard, E.G. (2013). Halophytes as forages in saline landscapes: Interactions between plant genotype and environment change their feeding value to ruminants. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 92, 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.07.003
• NRC, National Research Council (2001). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th Ed. National Academies Press, Washington, USA. https://profsite.um.ac.ir/~kalidari/software/NRC/HELP/NRC%202001.pdf
• Oktem, A., Yucel, C., & Oktem, A.G. (2021). Assesment of biochemical forage quality of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ssp. Saccharatum). Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences, 9 (3), 1-9. Article no.AJOCS.65405. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajocs/2021/v9i319071
• Penner, G.B., & Oba, M. (2009). Increasing dietary sugar concentration may improve dry matter intake, ruminal fermentation, and productivity of dairy cows in the postpartum phase of the transition period. Journal of Dairy Science, 92 (7), 3341-3353. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1977
• Perazzo, A.F., Carvalho, G.G.P., Santos, E.M., Bezerra, H.F.C., Silva, T.C., Pereira, G.A., Ramos, R.C.S., & Rodrigues, J.A.S. (2017). Agronomic evaluation of sorghum hybrids for silage production cultivated in semiarid conditions. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, 1088. https://doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01088
• Poehlman, J.M. (1994). Breeding sorghum and millet. In Breeding field crops, 3rd ed, ed. J.M. Poehlman, 508-541. Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press.
• Reddy, B.V.S., & Sanjana, R.P. (2003). Sweet sorghum: characteristics and potential. International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, 44, 26-28.
• Rodrigues, F.O., França A.F. de S., Oliveira, R.de P., Oliveria, E.R. de., Rosa, B., Soares, T.V., & Mello, S.Q.S. (2006). Produção e composição bromatológica de quatro híbridos de sorgo forrageiro (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) submetidos atrês doses de nitrogênio. Ciência Animal Brasileira, 7, 37 48. https://doi.org/10.5216/cab.v7i1.389
• Rodriguez, V.R., Cruz, C.T., Fernendiz, S.J.M., Roldon, C.T., Mendoza, C.A., Saucedo, C.G., & Tomasini, C.A. (1999). Use sugarcane bagasse pith as solid substrate for P. chrysosporium growth. Folia Microbiology, 44, 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02816245
• Rooney, W.L., Blumenthal, J., Bean, B., & Mullet, J.E. (2007). Designing sorghum as a dedicated bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 1, 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.15
• Rosa, M.A.B., Tardin, F.D., Souza, J.M.S., Santos, J.A.P., Macedo, T.F., Santos, J., Freitas, M.H., Todescatto, F., Parrella, R.A.C., Figueiredo, J.E.F., Behling Neto, A., & Pereira, D.H. (2022). Characterization of forage, sweet and biomass sorghum for agronomic performance and ensilability. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo, v21, e1239. https://doi.org/10.18512/rbms2022v21e1239
• Schroeder, J.W. (1994). Interpreting forage Analysis. Extention Dairy specialist (NDSU). AS-1080, North Dakota State University. https://library.ndsu.edu/ir/bitstream/handle/10365/9133/AS-1080-1994.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
• SPSS (2018). PASW Statistics for Windows, v. 22.0, Statistical Package For The Social Sciences. Chicago, SPSS Inc.
• Stuart, P. (1984). Summer forage crops for silage. p.58-62. In: Silage in the 80’s. Kempton, T. J., Kaiser, A. G.; and Trigg, T. E., Eds. University of New England Press, Armidale.
• Subramanian, S.K. (2013). Agronomical, physiological and biochemical approaches to characterize sweet sorghum genotypes for biofuel production. M.S.,Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, India, 2003. An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Agronomy College of Agriculture. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
• Taş, T., Yucel, C., Gündel, F.D., Öktem, A., & Cetiner, I.H. (2021). Evaluation of sweet sorghum bagasse as an alternative feed resource for livestock in semi arid regions. MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 6 (2), 303-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.52520/masjaps.50
• Teixeira, A. de M., Junior, G. de O.R., Velasco, F.O., Júnior, W.G. de F., Rodriguez, N.M., Rodrigues, J.A.S., McAllister, T., & Gonçalves, L.C. (2014). Intake and digestibility of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor, L. Moench) silages with different tannin contents in sheep. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 43 (1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982014000100003
• Turgut, I., Bilgili, U., Duman, A., & Acikgoz, E. (2005). Production of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) increases with increased plant densities and nitrogen fertilizer levels. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B, 55 (3), 236-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710510029051
• Turhollow, A. (1994). The economics of energy crop production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 6 (3), 229-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(94)90077-9
• Undersander, D.J., Smith, L.H., Kaminski, A.R., Kelling, K.A., & Doll, J.D. (2003). Sorghum forage. In: Alternative Field Crop Manual, University of Wisconsin-Exension, Cooperative Extension, http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/forage.html
• Usman, S., Dele, P.A., & Jimoh, S.O. (2021). Physical, fermentative, and nutritional quality of silages made from three Sorghum bicolor varieties as affected by ensiling duration in Southwest Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 53 (2), 239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-021-02657-8
• Van Soest, P.J., Robertson J.D., & Lewis B.A. (1991). Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal Dairy Science, 74, 3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
• Vendruscolo, T.P.S., Barelli, M.A.A., Castrillon, M.A.S., da Silva, R.S., de Oliveira, F.T., Corrêa, C.L., Zago, B.W., & Tardin, F.D. (2016). Correlation and path analysis of biomass sorghum production. Genetics and Molecular Research, 15 (4), gmr15049086. https://doi.org/10.4238/gmr15049086
• Yücel, C., Avcı, M., İnal, İ., & Akkaya, M.R. (2015). Mısır ve soyanın farklı karışım oranları ve biçim dönemlerinin ot verimi (hasıl) ve silaj kalitesine etkileri. TAGEM, Doğu Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü, Sonuç Raporu, Proje NO: TAGEM/TA/11/01/005, Yayın No: 12.01DATAEM.F.F08.2015.01, 75 s.
• Yücel, C., Hatipoğlu, R., Dweikat, I., İnal, İ., Gündel, F., Yücel, H. vd. (2018). Farklı tatlı sorgum (Sorghum bicolor var. saccharatum (L.) Mohlenbr.) genotiplerinin Çukurova ve GAP bölgelerinde biyo-etanol üretim potansiyellerinin saptanması. TUBITAK 1003 114O945 Nolu Proje Sonuç Raporu. 293 S.
• Yücel, C. (2020). Evaluation of sweet sorghum biomass as an alternative livestock feed. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research, 4 (1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiaar.2020.238.2
• Yücel, C., & Erkan, M.E. (2020). Evaluation of forage yield and silage quality of sweet sorghum in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Journal of Animal and Plant Science, 20 (4) (August), 923-930. https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2020.4.0108
• Yücel, C., Yücel, D., Hatipoğlu, R., & Dweikat, İ. (2022). Research on the potential of some sweet sorghum genotypes as bioethanol source under Mediterranean conditions. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 46, 141-151. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-2104-51
• Yücel, C., Hatipoğlu, R., Bilgin, F.D., & İnal,, İ. (2023). Bagasse yield and quality traits of silage made from juice-extracted sweet sorghum stalks. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 35 (4), 379-387. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2023.v35.i4.3017. 2023-04-11
• Yücel, C., Yücel, H., & Oluk, C.A. (2024). Tatlı Sorgum Posası ile Yapılan Silajların Bazı Kalite Özellikleri. MAS Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, 9 (1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10612690
• Zhang, S.J., Chaudhry, A.S., Osman, A., Shi, C.Q., Edwards, G.R., Dewhurst, R.J., & Cheng, L. (2015). Associative effects of ensiling mixtures of sweet sorghum and alfalfa on nutritive value, fermentation and methane characteristics. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 206, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.05.006
• Zhang, S., Wang, J., Lu, S., Chaudhry, A.S., Tarla, D., Khanaki, H., Raja, I.H., & Shan, A. (2024). Effects of sweet and forge sorghum silages compared to maize silage without additional grain supplement on lactation performance and digestibility of lactating dairy cows. Animals, 14, 1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111702