1. Sorghum Feedstock Performance Tests: Coordinator: W.L. Rooney Texas A&M University Collaborators: Scott Staggenborg, Kansas State University Ken Moore, Iowa State University Todd Pfieffer/Michael Barrett, University of Kentucky Bissondat Macoon, Mississippi State University Ron Heiniger, North Carolina State University Gary Odvody, Texas Agrilife Research Jim Heilman, Texas A&M University Jeff Pedersen, USDA-ARS

2. Objectives Establish yield parameters for different types of sorghums Establish quality parameters for different sorghums across environments Sustainability Analysis

4. 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

5. 2008

6. 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

7. 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

8. 2009

9. 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

10. 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.

11. Trials Overview Trial Location Planting Dates Lead PIMajor 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 RooneyVery dry in 2009 with moisture early and late July/OctExtremely wet fall made harvest difficult Manhattan, KS Early MayStaggenborgBelow average temps and above average moisture Sept/Oct Ames, IAMid to Late May MooreAverage yearSeptember Lexington KY Mid to Late May Pfieffer/Barr ett Average temps, good moisture September

12. Trials Overview (continued) Trial Location Planting Dates Lead PIMajor Factors (freeze, flood, draught, etc.) Harvest Date(s), Length of Harvest, & Harvest Process Obstacles to Data Collection Other Information? MississippiApril, replant in June MaccoonAverage climate, but herbicide damage from drift required replant August to October Plymouth NC Late April/early May HeiningerExcellent YearJuly to October Corpus Christi, Texas Mid MarchOdvodyDrought, did not even plant. NoneNot Planting

13. Texas – Burleson County Variety (# cuts) Fresh Weight (MT/ha) Moisture % Dry Weight (MT/ha) BRIX %Height (m) Days to Flowerin g Grazeall 3 (2) 30.8777.0 12.52.4 60 Graze-n- Bale (2) 44.9818.5 7.72.2No 22053 (2) 38.3759.4 14.23.0 99 TAM8001 (1) 48.47014.5 8.4 2.8No M81E (1) 45.3828.7 10.1 2.8140 Sugar T (2) 56.17712.9 12.82.9 85

14. Iowa - O'Brien County Variety (# cuts) Fresh Weight (MT/ha) Moisture % Dry Weight (MT/ha) BRIX %Height (m) Grain (MT/ha) Grazeall 3 (1) 98.47623.013.02.71.07 Graze-n- Bale (1) 107.77626.59.53.0 0.00 22053 (1) 69.57516.410.13.00.74 TAM8001 (1) 47.37213.411.73.1 0.00 M81E (1) 67.17615.813.13.00.98 Sugar T (1) 57.67514.414.82.94.38

15. North Carolina – Washington County Variety (# cuts Fresh Weight (MT/ha) Moisture % Dry Weight (MT/ha) BRIX %Height (m) Days to Flowering Grazeall 3 (2) 110.98018.98.42.345 Graze-n- Bale (2) 100.88015.47.12.2No 22053 (2) 69.77417.911.03.190 TAM8001 (1) 104.36734.79.94.5 No M81E (1) 111.07230.910.93.6105 Sugar T (1) 97.57623.511.83.690

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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

20. Carbohydrate Composition Table 3 Summary of the chemical composition data obtained on the calibration set using dietary fiber analysis ConstituentNMeanStd DevMinMaxRangeCV † Lignin9713.82.99.220.611.421.0 Xylan9716.52.710.822.511.716.6 Glucan9732.85.121.947.425.515.4 Solubles9723.18.011.044.032.934.8 Data are expressed as wt% dry basis † CV, Coefficient of variation

21. NIR Curve Development Table 5 Summary of the NIR calibration models built for predicting lignin, xylan, glucan, and solubles Constituent Multivariate procedure Math Pre- treatments # PCs † N‡N‡ MeanSECR2R2 SECV R 2 for CV LigninMPLS 2-8-6-1; MSC99013.620.740.931.120.84 XylanPLS 1-4-4-1; D99416.451.340.761.650.64 Glucan Solubles † Number of principal components included in the model ‡ Number of samples used in building the calibration model

22. Sustainability Sustainability analysis initiated in College Station in 2009 –Soil Carbon –Nitrogen Requirements Initial collections in 2009, no information available as of now.

23. 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