Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2020, 68(3), 529-537 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun202068030529

Effect of Variety, Sowing Date and Location on Yield and Nutritional Characteristics of Sorghum

Ivana Koláčková1, Daria Baholet1, Hana Abigail Gruberová1, Vladimír Smutný2, Petr Elzner3, Pavel Horký1, Jiří Skládanka1, Michal Rábek2
1 Department of Animal Nutrition and Forage Production, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2 Department of Agrosystems and Bioclimatology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
3 Department of Crop Science, Breeding and Plant Medicine, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Sorghum is a forage species important in animal nutrition with an increased potential in the upcoming difficulties in agricultural practices in regard to climate change. Therefore, this paper describes its yield and nutritional parameters depending on growing conditions simulated on two locations (humid and fertile Obora, less fertile and dry Písky), two sowing dates (29. 5. and 25. 6.), and variety (11 varieties). Fresh matter yield was determined by weighing the sample on the field immediately after harvest, Dry matter yield and nutritional content were determined in laboratory by Weende analysis from dried and homogenized samples. Nutritional parameters measured were crude fibre, fat, nitrogen and ash content. Additionally, digestibility of organic as well as dry matter was determined.
No significant differences in average fresh matter yield or dry matter yield were found between the two locations and sowing dates in general. There were significant differences among varieties, the highest yields were measured in KWS Zerberus (51.57 ± 3.76 t/ha of fresh matter yield, 15.98 ± 1.34 t/ha of dry matter yield, with higher values observed on Písky). Our data suggest, that sowing date does significantly affect fat content (higher in June sowing). Other nutritional parameters were also higher in sorghum sown in June, with the exception of ash. Nutritional composition of samples did not significantly differ variety to variety, however, there were differences in digestibility of the biomass. Organic matter digestibility was 70.58-85.67%, dry matter digestibility was 73.21-86.70%, with highest digestibility in DMS 45-480. Varieties with the highest importance to farmers in the area are KWS Zerberus, KWS Tarzan and KWS Kallisto (based on dry matter yield), and Triumfo BMR, Sweet Susana and DSM 45-480 (based on digestibility). Sorghum was able to perform well even on dry sandy soil with lower fertilization, which shows the high variability and suitability of sorghum in agricultural practice.

Keywords: drought-resistance, feed quality, forage grass
Grants and funding:

The research was financially supported by the AF-IGA-2018-tym001: Comparison of the impact of climate change on photosynthesis C3 and C4 plants cycles which are used in livestock feed.

Received: March 24, 2020; Accepted: May 14, 2020; Published: July 1, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Koláčková, I., Baholet, D., Gruberová, H.A., Smutný, V., Elzner, P., Horký, P., Skládanka, J., & Rábek, M. (2020). Effect of Variety, Sowing Date and Location on Yield and Nutritional Characteristics of Sorghum. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 68(3), 529-537. doi: 10.11118/actaun202068030529
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ABDOLLAHI, M. R., RAVINDRAN, V. and SVIHUS, B. 2014. Influence of feed form on growth performance, ileal nutrient digestibility, and energy utilisation in broiler starters fed a sorghum-based diet. Livestock Science, 165: 80-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.04.002 Go to original source...
    2. ARE, A. K. et al. 2019. Chapter 3 - Application of Plant Breeding and Genomics for Improved Sorghum and Pearl Millet Grain Nutritional Quality. In: TAYLOR, J. R. N. and DUODU, K. G. (Eds.). Sorghum and Millets (Second Edition). AACC International Press, pp. 51-68. Go to original source...
    3. BEAN, S. R. et al. 2019. Chapter 6 - Starch and Protein Chemistry and Functional Properties. In: TAYLOR, J. R. N. and DUODU, K. G. (Eds.). Sorghum and Millets (Second Edition). AACC International Press, pp. 131-170. Go to original source...
    4. DE MORAIS CARDOSO, L. et al. 2017. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.): Nutrients, bioactive compounds, and potential impact on human health. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57(2): 372-390. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2014.887057 Go to original source...
    5. CARMI, A. et al. 2006. Effects of irrigation and plant density on yield, composition and in vitro digestibility of a new forage sorghum variety, Tal, at two maturity stages. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 131(1): 121-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.02.005 Go to original source...
    6. FAOSTAT. 2020. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. [Online]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home [Accessed: 2020, March 16].
    7. CZECH NORMALIZATION INSTITUTE. 1998. Testing methods for feeding stuffs - Part 3: Determination of moisture content. ČSN 46 7092-3 (467092). Prague: ČSN.
    8. HERMUTH, J. 2012. Sorghum - Sorghum bicolor (L.) MOENCH: options for use in Czech Republic: methodology for practice [in Czech: Čirok obecný - Sorghum bicolor (L.) MOENCH: možnosti využití v podmínkách České republiky: metodika pro praxi]. Praha: Výzkumný ústav rostlinné výroby. Available at: https://www.vurv.cz/sites/File/Publications/ISBN978-80-7427-093-2.pdf [Accessed: 2020, March 16].
    9. HORKÝ, P. 2014. Effect of Protein Concentrate Supplement on the Qualitative and Quantitative Parameters of Milk from Dairy Cows in Organic Farming. Annals of Animal Science, 14(2): 341-352. DOI: 10.2478/aoas-2014-0008 Go to original source...
    10. KANBAR, A. et al. 2019. Morphological and molecular characterization of sweet, grain and forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) genotypes grown under temperate climatic conditions. Plant Biosystems, 154(1): 1126-3504. Go to original source...
    11. KAPLAN, M. et al. 2019. Water deficit and nitrogen affects yield and feed value of sorghum sudangrass silage. Agricultural Water Management, 218: 30-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.021 Go to original source...
    12. KIM, K.-I. et al. 2008. Do Synergistic Relationships between Nitrogen and Water Influence the Ability of Corn to Use Nitrogen Derived from Fertilizer and Soil? Agronomy Journal, 100(3): 551-556. DOI: 10.2134/agronj2007.0064 Go to original source...
    13. LYONS, S. E. et al. 2019. Optimal harvest timing for brown midrib forage sorghum yield, nutritive value, and ration performance. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(8): 7134-7149. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2019-16516 Go to original source...
    14. NAKMEE, P. S., TECHAPINYAWAT, S. and NGAMPRASIT, S. 2016. Comparative potentials of native arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to improve nutrient uptake and biomass of Sorghum bicolor Linn. Agriculture and Natural Resources, 50(3): 173-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.anres.2016.06.004 Go to original source...
    15. PATIL, J. V. 2016. Millets and Sorghum: Biology and Genetic Improvement. John Wiley & Sons. Go to original source...
    16. POVOLNY, M. and HAMPL, B. 2015. Results of field trials from harvest 2014 Sorghum [in Czech: Výsledky zkoušek užitné hodnoty ze sklizně 2014 čirok]. Available at: http://eagri.cz/public/web/file/291588/Cirok_2013.pdf [Accessed: 2020, March 16].
    17. QUEIROZ, V. A. V. et al. 2015. Nutritional composition of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] genotypes cultivated without and with water stress. Journal of Cereal Science, 65: 103-111. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcs.2015.06.018 Go to original source...
    18. RONDA, V. et al. 2019. Chapter 14 - Sorghum for Animal Feed. In ARUNA, C. et al. (Eds.). Breeding Sorghum for Diverse End Uses. Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 229-238. Go to original source...
    19. SELLE, P. H. et al. 2018. Outlook: Sorghum as a feed grain for Australian chicken-meat production. Animal Nutrition, 4(1): 17-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2017.08.007 Go to original source...
    20. TARI, I. et al. 2013. Response of Sorghum to Abiotic Stresses: A Review. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 199(4): 264-274. DOI: 10.1111/jac.12017 Go to original source...
    21. TAYLOR, J. R. N. 2019. Chapter 1 - Sorghum and Millets: Taxonomy, History, Distribution, and Production. In: TAYLOR, J. R. N. and DUODU, K. G. (Eds.). Sorghum and Millets (Second Edition). AACC International Press, pp. 1-21. Go to original source...
    22. TREUOVA, A. 2017. Cultivation of Zea mays and its use in current economic conditions in Czech republic [in Czech: Pěstování a využití kukuřice seté v ekonomických podmínkách České republiky]. Bachelor Thesis. Brno: Mendelova Univerzita v Brně.
    23. WANG, J. et al. 2018. Effect of Climate Change on the Yield of Cereal Crops: A Review. Climate, 6(2): 41. DOI: 10.3390/cli6020041 Go to original source...
    24. WONG, J. H. et al. 2010. Principal component analysis and biochemical characterization of protein and starch reveal primary targets for improving sorghum grain. Plant Science, 179(6): 598-611. DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.08.020 Go to original source...
    25. YANG, Y. et al. 2019. Production performance, nutrient digestibility, and milk fatty acid profile of lactating dairy cows fed corn silage- or sorghum silage-based diets with and without xylanase supplementation. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(3): 2266-2274. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2018-15801 Go to original source...
    26. YOSEF, E. et al. 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 and Technology, 152(1): 1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.01.018 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content