NUTRITIVE VALUE AND FODDER POTENTIAL OF DIFFERENT SWEET SORGHUM GENOTYPES UNDER MEDITERRANEAN CONDITIONS

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine biomass yields and feed quality parameters of 21 different sweet sorghums (Sorghum bicolor var. saccharatum (L.) Mohlenbr.) genotypes grown as the second crop after wheat harvest under Cukurova conditions. Field experiments were conducted at the experimental fields of Dogankent-Adana location of Eastern Mediterranean Agricultural Research Institute in randomized blocks design with 4 replications in the years 2016 and 2017 (June-October). According to the results of the variance analyses of tha data obtained from the experimenst, years, genotypes and year x genotype interactions had significant effects on investigated parameters. Averaged over two years, dry matter yield (DMY), days to 50% flowering, crude protein content, NDF, ADF, and RFV of the genotypes varied between 21.6 and 62.9 t ha-1, 55.0 and 99.1 days, 3.66 and 5.43%, 41.78 and 52.42%, 29.14 and 37.72%, and 111.3 and 148, respectively. It was determined that Ramada, Roma, Topper 76, UNL hybrid-3 and No91 genotypes were identified as late genotypes with DM yields of greater than 51 t ha-1; Ramada, Roma and Topper 76 genotypes had the first places in terms of quality and they were superior than the other standard cultivars and genotypes.

Keywords

• Fodder yield
• forage quality
• genotype
• sweet sorghum

References

1. Aguiar, E. M. De., G. F. da C. Lima, M. V. F. dos Santos, F. F. R. de Carvalho, A. Guim, H. R. de Medeiros and A. Q. Borges. 2006. Yield and chemical composition of chopped tropical grass hays. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 35 (6): 2226-2233.
2. Akar, T., M. Kaplan, N. Sagir and A. Gelebur. 2014. Effects of different liquid-manure treatments on yield and quality parameters of second-crop silage corn under reduced tillage conditions. Rom. Agric. Res. 31: 1-11.
3. AOAC. 1990. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official method of analysis. 15th ed. Washington, DC. USA, 66-88.
4. Atis, I., O. Konuskan, M. Duru, H. Gozubenli and S. Yilmaz, 2012. Effect of harvesting time on yield, composition and forage quality of some forage sorghum cultivars. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 14:879‒886.
5. Ayub, M., M. Khalid, M. Tariq, M. Elahi and M. A. Nadeem. 2012. Comparison of sorghum genotypes for forage productıon and quality. J. Anim. Plant. Sci. 22(3):733-737.
6. Cavalaris, C., O. Merkouris, C. Karamoutis, S. Akdemir, D. Mamma, D. Kekos and T. Gemtos. 2017. Effects of row spacing on growth, yield and quality parameters of sweet sorghum. J Agr. Fac. Gaziosmanpasa Uni. 34 (1): 229-237. doi:10.13002/jafag4215.
7. Cilluffo, A. and , N.G. Ruiz. 2019. World populastion projected to nearly stop growing by the end of the century, https:\\pewrsr.ch\zWzNHf.
8. Dagtekin, Z. 2019. Research on the adaptation of some annual warm season grass species to the Cukurova Conditions. MSc thesis, Department of Field Crops ,Institute of Natural and Appllied Sciences, Cukurova University, 141 s (in Turkish).

9. Fedoroff, N.V., D.S. Battisti, R.N. Beachy, P.J.M. Cooper, D.A. Fischhoff and C.N. Hodges. 2010. Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21st century. Sci. 327:833-4.
10. Gnansounou, E., A. Dauriat and C.E. Wyman. 2005. Refining sweet sorghum to ethanol and sugar: economic trade-offs in the context of North China. Bioresour Technol. 96: 985-1002.
11. Godfray, H.C.J., J.R. Beddington, I.R. Crute, L. Haddad, D, Lawrence and J.F. Muir. 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Sci. 327:812-8. Hackmann, T.J., J.D. Sampson and J.N. Spain. 2008. Comparing relative feed value with degradation parameters of grass and legume forages. J. Anim. Sci. 86: 2344–2356.
12. Ileri, O., E.B. Carpici, B. Erbeyi, A. Suleyman and K. Ali. 2018. Effect of sowing methods on silage yield and quality of some corn cultivars grown in second crop season under irrigated condition of central anatolia, turkey. Turk. J. Field Crops. 23: 72-79.
13. Korkmaz, Y., S. Aykanat, H. Yucel, M. Avci, C. Yucel and R. Hatipoglu. 2015. A research on yield and silage quality of silage corn (Zea mays L.) cultivars as second crop in Cukurova Condition. TAGEM (Agricultural Research and Policy General Directorate ) Final Project Report (in Turkish). Kruse, S., A. Herrmann, A. Kornher and T. Friedhelm. 2008. Evaluation of genotype and environmental variation in fibre content of silage maize using a model-assisted approach. Eur. J. Agron. 28 (3): 210-223.
14. Lee, M.A., A.P. Davis, M.G.G. Chagunda and P. Manning. 2017. Forage quality declines with rising temperatures, with implications for livestock production and methane emissions. Biogeosciences 14: 1403–1417.
15. Lema, M., A. Felix, S. Salako and U. Bishnoi. 2000. Nutrient content and in vitro dry matter digestibility of silages made from various grain sorghum and sweet sorghum cultivars. J. Sust. Agr. 17(1): 55-70. DOI: 10.1300/J064v17n01_06.
16. Machado, L.C., W.M. Ferreira and C. Scpinello. 2012. Apparent digestibility of simplified and semi-simplified diets, with and without addition of enzymes, and nutritional value of fibrous sources for rabbits. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 41(7):1662-1670.
17. Madibela, O.R., W.S. Boitumelo, C. Manthe and I. Raditedu. 2002. Chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of twelve local landraces of sweet sorghum in Botswana. Livestock Res. Rural. Dev. 14(4): http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd14/4/madi144.htm.
18. Mahmood, A., H. Ullah, M. Ijaz, M.M. Javaid, A.N. Shahzad and B. Honermeier. 2013. Evaluation of sorghum hybrids for biomass and biogas production. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 7(10):1456-1462.
19. Mastrorilli, M., N. Katerji and G. Rana. 1999. Productivity and water use efficiency of sweet sorghum as affected by soil water deficit occurring at different vegetative growth stages. Eur. J. Agron. 11: 207-215.
20. Mohammed, M. and M. A. Mohamed. 2009. Evaluation of newly developed sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) genotypes for some forage attributes. American-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 6 (4): 434-440.
21. Moore, J.E. and D.J. Undersander. 2002. Relative forage quality: an alternative to relative feed value and quality index. In: Proceedings 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, pp: 16–32, Florida, USA
22. Mumtaz, A., D. Hussaın, M. Saeed, M. Arshad and M.I. Yousaf. 2019. Stability and adaptability of sorghum hybrids elucidated with genotype–environment interaction biplots. Turk J. Field Crops. 24(2):155-163. DOI: 10.17557/tjfc.631130.
23. Neto, A.B., R.H. Pereira dos Reis, L.S. Cabral, J.G. Abreu, D.P. Sousa and F.G. Sousa. 2017. Nutritional value of sorghum silage of different purposes. Ciênc. Agrotec. 41(3):288-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-70542017413038516.
24. Palmgren, M.G., A.K. Edenbrandt, S.E. Vedel, M.M. Andersen, X. Landes and J.T. Østerberg. 2015. Are we ready for back-to-nature crop breeding? Trends Plant Sci. 20: 155-64.
25. Reisi, F. and A. Almodares. 2008. The effect of planting date on amylose content in sorghum and corn”. In: Proceeding of the 3rd Int. Biol. conference (Eds. F Reisi & A Almodares). Tehran, Iran.
26. Schroeder, J.W. 1994. Interpreting forage Analysis. Extention Dairy specialist (NDSU). AS-1080, North Dakota State University.
27. Shanti, M., R. Susheela, A.V. Umakanth, M. Anuradha and T. Shashikala. 2017. Evaluatıon of sweet sorghum genotypes for fodder yıeld and qualıty under dıfferent levels of NPK. Forage Res. 42 (4):238-242.
28. Shukla, S., T.J. Felderhoff, A. Saballos and W. Vermerris. 2017. The relationship between plant height and sugar accumulation in the stems of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). Field Crop. Res. 203:181-191.
29. Tesso, T.T., L.E. Claflin and M.R. Tuinstra. 2005. Analysis of stalk rot resistance and genetic diversity among drought tolerant sorghum genotypes. Crop Sci. 45: 645-652.
30. Turgut, I., U. Bilgili, A. Duman and E. Acikgoz. 2005. Production of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) increases with increased plant densities and nitrogen fertilizer levels. Acta. Agr. Scand. 55 (3):236-240.
31. Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H. and Dicky, D.A. (1997) Principles and Procedures of Statistics, A Biometrical Approach. 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, Inc. Book Co., New York, 352-358. Van Soest, P.J., J.D. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583-3597.
32. Vinutha, K.S., G.S. Anil Kumar, M. Blummel and P.S. Rao. 2017. Evaluation of yield and forage quality in main and ratoon crops of different sorghum lines. Trop. Grassl-Forrajes. 5(1):40-49. DOI: 10.17138/TGFT(5)40-49.
33. Yucel, C., R. Hatipoglu, I. Dweikat, I. Inal, F. Gundel, and H. Yucel. 2018. A Research on determination of biyo-etanol production potential of different sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor var. saccharatum (L.) Mohlenbr.) Genotypes in Cukurova and GAP regions. TUBITAK 1003 Project Final Report (Abstract in English), p.293.
34. Yucel, C., M. Avci, I. Inal and M.R. Akkaya. 2005. Effects of different mixing ratios and cutting time of some annual legume and cereal forage crops on silage quality in Cukurova conditions. TAGEM (Agricultural Research and Policy General Directorate) Final Project Report (in Turkish).