Main Article Content
In this study, it was aimed to determine some forage quality characteristics of sweet sorghum genotypes in semi-arid climatic conditions. The experiment was set up in randomized complete block design with 4 replicates. Research was carried out in 2016 and 2017 under Harran Plain second crop conditions, Sanliurfa, Turkey. In the study 21 genotypes of sweet sorghum were used. Crude protein content, crude ash, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), dry matter digestibility, dry matter consumption, were determined in the study. Significant differences were found between the genotypes for tested characteristics (P≤0.01). According to average of two years, crude protein content ranged from 4.20% (Tracy) to 5.90% (USDA S.Africa), crude ash from 4.44% (Theis) to 6.90% (Topper 76), acid detergent fiber (ADF) from 27.84% (Nebraska sugar) to 36.30% (USDA-Zaire). The highest NDF value was obtained from USDA-Zaire genotype (56.49%) whereas the lowest values were seen at N98 genotype (43.11%). Dry matter digestibility values were between 60.62% (USDA-Zaire) and 67.21% (Nebraska sugar), dry matter consumption between 2.14% and 2.85%. The highest relative feed value was obtained from N98 genotype (148.95) whereas the lowest values were seen at USDA-Zaire genotype (101.00). Net energy values ranged from 1.38 Mcal kg-1 (USDA-Zaire) to 1.50 Mcal kg-1 (Nebraska sugar). Considering the properties examined in terms of feed quality, it was seen that the crude protein content and net energy value was low. But ADF, NDF, digestible dry matter, dry matter consumption and relative feed values were within acceptable levels. Nebraska sugar, Topper 76, N98, Roma, M81E, Tracy and Corina genotypes were found as the best for forage quality in sweet sorghum. It was determined that sweet sorghum can be used as a forage source.
Nahar K. Sweet sorghum: An alternate feedstock for bioethanol. Iranica J. Energy Environ. 2011;2:58-61.
Almodares A, Hotjatabdy RH, Mirniam E. Effect of drought stress on biomass and carbohydrate contents of two sweet sorghum cultivars. JEB, J. of Env. Biology. 2013;34:585-589.
Tesso TT, Claflin LE, Tuinstra MR. Analysis of stalk rot resistance and genetic diversity among drought tolerant sorghum genotypes. Crop Sci. 2005;45:645-652.
Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Wyman CE. Refining sweet sorghum to ethanol and sugar: economic trade-offs in the context of North China. Bioresour Technol. 2005;96:985-1002.
Almodares A, Taheri R, Adeli S. Stalk yield and carbohydrate composition of sweet sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] cultivars and lines at different growth stages. J. Malaysian Appl. Biol. 2008;37: 31-36.
Smith CW, Frederiksen RA. Sorghum: Origin, history, technology, and production. John Wiley and Sons, New York; 2000.
Contreras-Govea FE, Marsalis MA, Lauriault LM, Bean BW. Forage sorghum nutritive value: A review. Forage and Grazinglands; 2010.
Amer S, Seguin P, Mustafa AF. Effects of feeding sweet sorghum silage on milk production of lactating dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Science. 2012;95:859‑863.
Rodrigues FO, França AF de S, Oliveira R.de P, Oliveria ER de, Rosa B, Soares TV, Mello SQS. Produção e composição bromatológica de quatro híbridos de sorgo forrageiro [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] submetidos atrês doses de nitrogênio. Ciência Animal Brasileira. 2006;7:37‑48.
Junior MAPO, Retore M, Manarelli DM, de Souza FB, Ledesma LLM, Orrico ACA. Forage potential and silage quality of four varieties of saccharine sorghum, Pesq. Agropec. Bras. Brasília. 2015;50(12):1201-7.
Mosali J, Rogers J, Huhnke R, Bellmer D, Cook B. Effect of nitrogen fertilization timing on juice and bagasse quality of sweet sorghum for biofuel production. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World 48, 1-6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia. Published on DVD; 2010.
Kumari NN, Reddy YR, Blümmel M, Nagalakshmi D, Monica T. Effect of feeding sweet sorghum bagasse silage with or without chopping on nutrient utilization in deccani sheep, Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology. 2013;13:243-249.
Khota W, Pholsen S, Higgs D, Cai Y. Fermentation quality and in vitro methane production of sorghum silage prepared with cellulase and lactic acid bacteria). Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2000;30:1568-1574.14.
Inra. Alimentation Des Bovins, Ovins Et Caprins. Besoins Des Animaux-Valeurs Des Aliments. Tables Inra 2007. Quae Éditions; 2007.
Anonymous. Climatic data for Sanliurfa. Meteorological Station Bulletin. Sanliurfa. Turkish; 2016.
Anonymous. Climatic data for Sanliurfa. Meteorological Station Bulletin. Sanliurfa. Turkish; 2017.
Kjeldahl J. Neue Methode zur Bestimmung des Stickstoffs in organischen Körpern. (New method for the determination of nitrogen in organic substances). Zeitschrift für analytische Chemie. 1883;22(1):366-383.
ANKOM Technology. The ANKOM 200 Fiber Analyzer. Fairport, NY; 2004.
Van Soest PJ, Robertson JD, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science. 1991;74:3583–3597.
Schroeder JW. Interpreting forage analysis. Extention Dairy specialist (NDSU). AS-1080, North Dakota State University; 1994.
Sheaffer CC, Peterson MA, Mccalin M, Volene JJ, Cherney JH, Johnson KD, Woodward WT, Viands DR. Acide detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber concentration and relative feed value. North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Minneapolis; 1995.
Van Dyke NJ, Anderson PM. Interpreting a forage analysis. Alabama cooperative extension. Circular ANR-890; 2000.
Van Soest PJ. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant (2nd Ed.). Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University Press; 1994.
Moore JE, Undersander DJ. Relative forage quality: Alternative to relative feed value and quality index. Proceedings 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium. 2002;16-32.
Redfearn D, Zhang H, Caddel J. Forage quality interpretations. Oklahoma Cooperative, Extension Service F-2117, Oklahoma, USA; 2006.