sorghum feedstock performance tests: coordinator: w.l. rooney texas a&m university...
TRANSCRIPT
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