Evaluation of forage yield and quality in the local and foreign cultivars, lines, and hybrids of forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Animal Science Research Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

2 Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj,

3 Assistant Professor, Animal Science Research Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj,

Abstract

Introduction: Forage sorghum is a valuable plant that tolerates environmental stresses such as drought and heat, which can be used for direct grazing, green forage, dry forage and silage. One of the most important advantages of sorghum is having diverse genotypes that allow the use of appropriate cultivars based on the type of consumption at the time required by the farmer for Their farm animals. Forage quality is highly correlated with fiber components such as NDF (neutral detergent insoluble fiber), ADF (acid detergent insoluble fiber) and lignin (Gholami, 2014; Moore, 1994). To compare forage quality, agronomists and livestock nutritionists use common shortcut units such as RFV (relative value of forage) and RFQ (relative quality of forage), which are highly correlated with the amount of milk and meat produced by livestock. Relative Forage Value (RFV) is a quality comparison index based on digestible dry matter content (DDM) and livestock forage consumption (DMI), which is obtained indirectly from NDF and ADF. Relative forage quality (RFQ) is also a quality comparison index based on total digestible nutrients (TDN) and DMI, which is more accurate than the RFV index due to NDF digestibility (Moore and Andersander, 2000). Due to the production potential and high growth rate in forage sorghum genotypes and also the high resistance of this plant to environmental stresses, this plant seems to have a good ability to produce forage in semi-arid regions. However, there is little information about forage quality in domestic and foreign cultivars and hybrids of forage sorghum in the country and most of the available information emphasizes the quantitative performance of sorghum cultivars; Therefore, the present study was conducted to investigate the potential of forage production in domestic and foreign genotypes of forage sorghum and considering both forage quantity and quality indices to the most suitable domestic and foreign cultivars of forage sorghum for high forage production and nutritional value Be properly identified. Material and methods: Eighteen cultivars, lines and hybrids of forage sorghum were evaluated, planted and harvested at Karaj Seed and Plant Breeding Research Institute. In order to determine the dry matter yield and also to evaluate the quality traits, five plants from each plot were randomly selected and weighed in an oven at 60 ° C until reaching a constant dry weight. Finally, dry matter yield was calculated in the samples. To determine the quality traits, the dried samples were ground. Qualitative traits of forage including crude protein content, ADF, NDF and lignin were determined by the Iranian Institute of Animal Sciences Research by chemical analysis (AOAC, 2002). The digestibility of the samples was determined by the gas test method and the amount of metabolizable energy in the forage was estimated using the amount of gas produced in the twenty-fourth hour and the amount of crude protein (Menke and Steingass, 1988). The means were compared by LSD method at the level of 5% probability. Results and discussion: The results showed that the studied genotypes in terms of plant height, number of tillers and number of leaves per plant were significantly different at the level of one percent probability, while the effect of genotype on stem diameter was not significant. Among the internal genotypes, maximum fresh forage yield (103.84 tons per hectare) was obtained by Pegah cultivar and minimum yield (63.16 tons fresh forage per hectare) was obtained by KFS2 line. The highest dry matter yield (20.61 t / ha) was obtained by Siloking cultivar and the lowest (8.83 t / ha) was obtained by Juicy Sweet BMR SSH.2 cultivar. There was a narrow difference in forage crud protein content, so that the average of crude protein in all studied genotypes was 6.357, internal genotypes was 6.363 and external genotypes 6.354%. The mean NDF in all studied genotypes was 60.36%, internal genotypes 62.06% and external genotypes were 59.51%. Among the studied genotypes, the highest amount of NDF (69.75%) was obtained in Titan cultivar and the lowest NDF content (54.25%) in PHFS-27 cultivar. The average lignin content in all studied genotypes was 1.78, internal genotypes was 1.71 and external genotypes 1.82%. The average metabolizable energy in all studied genotypes was 2.41, internal genotypes 2.33 and external genotypes 2.44 Mcal per kg of dry matter. Juicy Sweet BMR SSH.2 and PFS-21 cultivars had the highest ME levels with 2.67 and 2.64 Mcal of metabolizable energy per kilogram of dry matter, respectively, while Speedfed and Titan cultivars had the highest metabolizable energy ( Produced 2.13 and 2.17 Mcal per kilogram, respectively. The average relative value of forage (RFV) in all studied genotypes was 99.74, domestic genotypes 96.96 and foreign genotypes was 101.13%. The maximum RFV index among external genotypes was obtained by PHFS-27 cultivar (115.75%) and among domestic genotypes by Pegah cultivar (111.38%); While the minimum relative value of forage was observed among foreign genotypes by Titan cultivar (76.28%) and among domestic genotypes by Speedfed cultivar (79.73%). Conclusion: Siloking cultivar, which while producing the most dry matter per unit of area had a high rate of relative forage quality index, is introduced as the most suitable cultivar in terms of quantity and quality of forage. Among domestic genotypes, Speedfed hybrid was able to produce the highest dry matter yield, but was not of good quality. Therefore, planting SpeedFeed cultivar to produce forage will be recommended in situations where only the quantity of forage is important for the farmer. Pegah cultivar, which had good dry matter yield and good forage quality, is introduced as the best domestic genotype for forage production.

Keywords

References

Amanullah A, Khan AA, Nawab K, Khan A and Islam B, 2007. Growth characters and fodder production potential of sorghum varieties under irrigated conditions. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 23: 265-268.
AOAC, 2002. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Method of Analysis. 17th Ed. AOAC. Arlington. VA.
Ashoori N, Abdi M, Golzardi F, Ajalli J and Ilkaee MN, 2021. Forage potential of sorghum-clover intercropping systems in semi-arid conditions. Bragantia 80: e1421.
Attis I, Konuskan O, Duru M, Gozubenli H and 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(6): 879-886.
Ayub M, Khalid M, Tariq M, Elahi M and Nadeem MA, 2012. Comparison of sorghum genotypes for forage production and quality. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 22: 733-737.
Ayub M, Nadeem MA, Tahir M, Ghafoor A, Ahmed Z and Naeem M, 2010. Comparitive studies on the growth forage yield and quality of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) varieties under irrigated conditions of Faisalabad. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences 8: 94-97.
Baghdadi A, Balazadeh M, Kashani A, Golzardi F, Gholamhoseini M and Mehrnia M, 2017. Effect of pre-sowing and nitrogen application on forage quality of silage corn. Agronomy Research 15(1): 11-23.
Baghdadi A, Paknejad F, Golzardi F, Hashemi M and Ilkaee MN, 2021. Suitability and benefits from intercropped sorghum–amaranth under partial root‐zone irrigation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 101(14): 5918-5926.
Bakhtiyari F, Zamanian M and Golzardi F, 2020. Effect of mixed intercropping of clover on forage yield and quality. Southwestern Journal of Horticulture, Biology and Environment 11(1): 49-66.
Bean B, Becker J, Robinson J and Pietsch D, 2011. Limited irrigated Texas panhandle sorghum hay trial. AgriLife Extension Texas A&M System, Amarillo, TX, USA.
Berumen CAN, Serna RR, Ocampo R J, Carreon FOC, Martinez PAD and Ortiz MM, 2017. Yield and nutritional value of three sweet sorghum varieties grown at four environments in Durango. Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Pecuarias 8(2): 147-155.
Bibi A, Zahid MI, Sadaqat HA and Fatima B, 2016. Correlation analysis between forage yield and qualitycomponents in sorghum sudangrass hybrids under waterstress conditions. Global Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology 5(4): 444-448.
Buxton DR, Mertens DR and Fisher DS, 1996. Forage Quality and Ruminant Utilization. p. 229-226. In L. E. Moser et al., (Eds.) Cool-Season Forage Grasses. American Society of Agronomy Monograph Series, Madison, Wisconsin.
Casler MD, 2000. Breeding forage crops for increased nutritional value. Advances in Agronomy 71: 51-107.
Chohan MSM, Naeem M, Khan AH and Salahuddin S, 2003. Performance of newly developed forage varieties of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 2: 48-50.
Coblentz WK, Akins MS, Cavadini JS and Jokela WE, 2017. Net effects of nitrogen fertilization on the nutritive value and digestibility of oat forages. Journal of Dairy Science 100: 1739-1750.
Contreras-Govea FE, Marsalis MA, Lauriault LM and Bean BW, 2010. Forage sorghum nutritive value: a review. Forage Grazing 8(1): 1-6.
Farhadi A, Paknejad F, Golzardi F, Ilkaee MN and Aghayari F, 2022. Effects of limited irrigation and nitrogen rate on the herbage yield, water productivity, and nutritive value of sorghum silage. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 53(5): 576-589.
Fouman A and Khazaei A, 2014. Evaluation of forage yield of forage sorghum lines under Karaj conditions in Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 16(3): 181-190.
Gholami H, 2018. Nutrition Tables of Iranian Animal Feeds. First Edition. Agricultural Research, Education and Promotion Organization. Iranian Institute of Animal Science Research. Karaj. Iran.
Gholami H, Khazaei A and Amir Sadeghi M, 2019. Comparison of nutritional value of modified BMR and conventional forage sorghum cultivars. Eighth Iranian Animal Science Congress. Kurdistan. Iran.
Gholami H and Babaei M, 2020. Introducing a linear model for estimating the metabolizable energy of forage sorghum using fiber components. Journal of Animal Science Researches 12(3): 265-276.
Gholami H, 2014. Estimation of Metabolizable and Net Energy in Iranian Feedstuff Based on Chemical Compositions and Prediction Equations. Final Research Project Report. Iranian Institute of Animal Science Research.
Glamoclija D, Jankovic S, Rakic S, Maletic R, Ikanovic J and Lakic Z, 2011. Effects of nitrogen and harvesting time on chemical composition of biomass of Sudan grass, fodder sorghum, and their hybrid. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 35: 127-138.
Golzardi F, Nazari Sh and Rahjoo V, 2019. Sorghum Cultivation. ETKA Publication.
Habte E, Muktar M S, Abdena A, Hanson J, Sartie AM, Negawo AT, Machado JC, Ledo FJS and Jones CS, 2020. Forage performance and detection of marker trait associations with potential for napier grass (Cenchrus purpureus) improvement. Agronomy Journal 10: 542.
Hakan K and Sahan BD, 2019. Yield and quality feature of some silage sorghum and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid cultivars in ecological conditions of Kırşehir Province. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Natural Science 6(3): 388-395.
Holman JD, Obour A, Roberts T and Maxwell S, 2018. Forage type and maturity effects on yield and nutritive value. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports 4(8): 1-4.
ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research), 2013. Nutrient requirements of animals. Nutrient requirements of sheep, goat and rabbit. Directorate of Information and Publication on Agriculture, ICAR, New Delhi, India.
Jahanzad E, Jorat M, Moghadam H, Sadeghpour A, Chaichi MR and Dashtaki M, 2013. Response of a new and a commonly grown forage sorghum cultivar to limited irrigation and planting density. Agricultural Water Management 117: 62-69.
Jain SK and Patel PR, 2016. Genetic diversity and principle component analyses for fodder yield and their component traits in genotypes of forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). Annals of Arid Zone 55: 17-23.
Janmohammadi H, Taghizadeh A, Shodja J and Olyayee M, 2022. Chemical compositions, mineral contents and gross energy value of barley and wheat grains and wheat bran from East Azerbaijan Province. Journal of Animal Science Research 32(2): 1-16.
Jarrige R. 1989. Ruminant nutrition. INRA. Paris, France.
Karadag Y and Ozkurt M, 2014. Effect of different row spacings on the yield and quality of silage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench) cultivars to be second crop grown. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University 31(1): 19-24.
Khalilian ME, Habibi D, Golzardi F, Aghayari F and Khazaei A, 2022. Effect of maturity stage on yield, morphological characteristics, and feed value of sorghum cultivars. Cereal Research Communications 50(4): 1095-1104.
Khazaei A, Fouman A, Rahjoo V, and Golzardi F, 2019. Sorghum Cultivation (Handbook). Agricultural Education Publication.
Khazaei A, Torabi M, Mokhtararpour H and Beheshti AR, 2020. Evaluation of yield stability of forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] genotypes using AMMI analysis. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 21(3): 225-236.
Khazaei A, Golzardi F, Torabi M, Feyzbakhsh MT, Azarinasrabad A, Nazari L, Ghasemi A and Mottaghi M, 2023. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of promising sorghum lines in the warm-temperate regions of Iran. Journal of Crop Improvement 37(4): 506-522.
Marsalis MA, Angadi SV and Contreras-Govea FE, 2010. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of corn, forage sorghum, and BMR forage sorghum at different plant populations and nitrogen rates. Field Crops Research 116(1-2): 52-57.
McDonald P, Edward RA, Greenhalgh JFD and Morgan CA, 2002. Animal Nutrition (6th Edition). Longman Scientific a Technical. Harlow. England.
Menke KH and Steingass H, 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas Production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28: 7-55.
Millner JP, Silungwe D and McGill CR, 2011. Forage quality of sorghum, sudan-grass sorghum×sudangrass and pearl millet cultivars in manawatu. Agronomy New Zealand 41: 13-22.
Miron J, Ephraim Z, Dgnit S and Gabriel A, 2005. Yield, composition, in vitro digestibility of new forage sorghum varieties and their ensilage characteristics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 120: 17-32.
Miron J, Zuckerman E, Adin G, Solomon R, Shoshani E and Nikbachat M, 2007. Comparison of two forage sorghum varieties with corn and the effect of feeding their silages on eating behavior and lactation performance of dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 139: 23-39.
Moore JE and Undersander DJ, 2002. Relative Forage Quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Nabi CG, Riaz M and Ahmed G, 2006. Comparison of some advanced lines of Sorghum bicolor L. Monech for green fodder/dry matter yield and morpho economical parameters. Journal of Agricultural Research 44: 191-196.
Neumann M, Restle J, Alves Filho DC, Brondani IL, Pellegrini LG and Freitas AK, 2002. Nutritional evaluation of the plant and silage of different sorghum hybrids (Sorghum bicolor, L. Moench). Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia 31: 293-301.
NRC, 2007. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of small ruminant. National Academic Science, Washington, DC, USA.
Pires DA, Moura MMA, Costa RF, Rodrigues JAS and Alves KA, 2017. Nutritional characteristics of sorghum hybrids hay (Sorghum sudanense vs. Sorghum bicolor). Acta Scientiarum-Animal Sciences 39(3): 229-234.
Pushparajah S and Sinniah J, 2018. Evaluation of dry matter yield and nutritive value of Sugar graze and Jumbo plus at different spacing in the yala season in the dry zone of Sri Lanka. Agriculture and Food Security 7: 22.
Rafiee M, 2018. Effect of sowing time on growth and yield of forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) cultivars in second cropping in temperate region of Lorestan province. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 20(3): 180-192.
Singh S, Bhat BV, Shukla GP, Singh KK and Gehrana D, 2018. Variation in carbohydrate and protein fractions, energy, digestibility and mineral concentrations in stover of sorghum cultivars. Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales 6(1): 42-52.
Undersander DJ, Smith LH, Kaminski AR, Kelling KA and Doll JD, 2003. Sorghum forage. In: Alternative Field Crop Manual, University of Wisconsin-Extension, and Cooperative Extension.
Weiss WP, 1993. Predicting Energy Values of Feeds. Journal of Dairy Science 76(6): 1802-1811.
Yousef E, Carmi A, Nikbachat M, Zenou A, Umiel N and Miron J, 2009. Characteristics of tall versus short-type varieties of forage sorghum grown under two irrigation levels for summer and subsequent fall harvests, and digestibility by sheep of their silages. Animal Feed Science Technology 152: 1-11.
Zamir MSI, Iqbal A, Ahmad A, Hussain M, Asim M, Ali I, Islam N, Mursaleen M and Malik A, 2016. Growth yield and quality comparison of different forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) cultivars harvested at different flowering intervals. Transylvanian Review 24(9): 1550-1560.
 
Animal Science Research
Volume 32, Issue 4
June 2023
Pages 133-156

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 November 2020
  • Revise Date: 23 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 24 November 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics