Acta Natura et Scientia
ISSN (Online): 2718-0638

Original article    |    Open Access
Acta Natura et Scientia 2023, Vol. 4(2) 172-185

The Effects of Harvesting Heights at Different Stubble Heights on Forage Yield and Quality in Sorghum Sudangrass Hybrid Cultivars

Nuri Erecek, Ahmet Gökkuş & Fırat Alatürk

pp. 172 - 185   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/actanatsci.2023.354.6

Publish Date: December 13, 2023  |   Single/Total View: 54/362   |   Single/Total Download: 71/578

PDF Download

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the forage yield and quality of three sorghum sudangrass hybrid cultivars (Greengo, Hay Buster BMR and Cattleman’s Choice) harvested at different stubble heights (5, 10, and 15 cm). The research was conducted in Kalafat village of Çanakkale Province during 2019 and 2020. The experiment was established using a randomized complete block design with 3 replications. Cultivar and stubble heights were considered as two different factors. Crude protein, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and digestible dry matter ratios along with the yields of hay and crude protein determined in this study. The hay yield of sorghum cultivars decreased depending on the increase in remaining stubble heights. The crude protein ratio showed a difference only in terms of cultivars, but crude protein yield differed significantly only according to stubble heights. NDF and ADF ratios along with the digestible dry matter ratios changed significantly only between the years. According to the overall results of this study, the Cattleman’s Choice cultivar and the cutting height of 5 cm could be recommended in sorghum × sudangrass hybrid cultivation for roughage production in summer under ecological conditions similar to Çanakkale province.

Keywords: Sorghum × sudangrass hybrid cultivar, Forage yield, Nutrient value, Digestibility

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Erecek, N., Gokkus, A., & Alaturk, F. (2023). The Effects of Harvesting Heights at Different Stubble Heights on Forage Yield and Quality in Sorghum Sudangrass Hybrid Cultivars. Acta Natura et Scientia, 4(2), 172-185. https://doi.org/10.29329/actanatsci.2023.354.6

Harvard
Erecek, N., Gokkus, A. and Alaturk, F. (2023). The Effects of Harvesting Heights at Different Stubble Heights on Forage Yield and Quality in Sorghum Sudangrass Hybrid Cultivars. Acta Natura et Scientia, 4(2), pp. 172-185.

Chicago 16th edition
Erecek, Nuri, Ahmet Gokkus and Firat Alaturk (2023). "The Effects of Harvesting Heights at Different Stubble Heights on Forage Yield and Quality in Sorghum Sudangrass Hybrid Cultivars". Acta Natura et Scientia 4 (2):172-185. https://doi.org/10.29329/actanatsci.2023.354.6

References
  1. Açıkgöz, E. (2001). Yem Bitkileri. Uludağ Üniversitesi Güçlendirme Vakfı Yayın No: 182, Vipaş A.Ş. Yayın No: 58. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akdeniz, H., Karslı, M. A., Nursoy, H., & Yılmaz, İ, (2003). Bazı tane sorgum çeşitlerinin besin madde kompozisyonu ve sindirilebilir kuru madde veriminin belirlenmesi. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 27(6), 1349-1355. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akdeniz, H., Yılmaz, İ. H., Keskin, B., & Arvas, Ö. (2002). The effects of different nitrogen levels on yield and yield components of some silage sorghum (Sorghum vulgare L.) varieties grown under irrigated conditions in Van-Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 7(2), 52-60. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alatürk, F., Gökkuş, A., Baytekin, H., & Ali, B. (2022). Effects of different harvesting practices on the agronomic characteristics of some sweet sorghum and sorghum x sudangrass hybrid varieties. 4th. International Conference on Natural Sciences and Technologies (ICONAT-2022), Antalya, Türkiye. pp. 57. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ali, M. (2013). Climate Change Impacts on Plant Biomass Growth. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5370-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Altın, M., & Gökkuş, A. (1988). Erzurum sulu koşullarında bazı yem bitkileri ile bunların karışımlarının değişik ekim şekillerindeki kuru ot verimleri üzerinde bir araştırma. Doğa Tarım ve Orman Dergisi, 12(1), 24-36. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ammar, H., López, S., González., J. S., & Ranilla, M. J. (2005). Relationship between chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of some Spanish browse plant species. In E. Molina Alcaide, H. Ben Salem, K. Biala & P. Morand-Fehr (Eds.), Sustainable Grazing, Nutritional Utilization and Quality of Sheep and Goat Products (pp. 327-332). CIHEAM, Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n. 67. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ansa, J. E. O., & Garjila, Y. A. (2019). Effect of cutting frequency on forage growth and yield in elephant grass in the southern rainforest of Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental & Agriculture Research, 5(7), 1-5. [Google Scholar]
  9. AOAC. (1990). Official Method of Analysis (15th Edition). Association of Official Analytical 12 Chemists, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 66-88. [Google Scholar]
  10. Avcıoğlu, R., Geren, H., & Kavut, Y. T. (2009). Sorgum sudanotu ve sorgum × sudanotu melezi. In R. Avcıoğlu, R. Hatipoğlu, Y. Karadağ (Eds.), Yembitkileri Buğdaygil ve Diğer Familyalardan Yembitkileri (ss. 680-701). TKB TÜGEM. [Google Scholar]
  11. Awika, J. M., & Rooney, L. W. (2004). Sorghum phytochemicals and their potential aspects on human health. Phytochemistry, 65(9), 1199-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2004.04.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Aydın, İ., & Albayrak, S. (1995). Samsun ekolojik şartlarında II. ürün olarak yetiştirilen bazı bitkilerin farklı biçim zamanlarında ot ve ham protein verimleri üzerine bir araştırma. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 71-81. [Google Scholar]
  13. Balabanlı, C., & Türk, M. (2005). Sorgum, Sudanotu melez ve çeşitlerinin Isparta koşullarında verim ve kalite özelliklerinin belirlenmesi üzerine bir araştırma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(3), 1-5. [Google Scholar]
  14. Beta, T., Rooney, L. W., Marovatsanga, L. T., & Taylor, J. R. N. (2000). Effect of chemical treatments on polyphenols and malt quality in sorghum. Journal Cereal Science, 31(3), 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcrs.2000.0310 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Budak, T., & Kır, H. (2019). Sıra aralıklarının sorgum ve sorgum-sudanotu melez çeşitlerinin verim ve kalite üzerine etkisi. 21. Yüzyılda Fen ve Teknik, 6(12), 49-58. [Google Scholar]
  16. Buso, W. H. D., Morgado, H. S., Silva, L. B., & França, A. F. S. (2011). Utilização do sorgo forrageiro na alimentação animal. PUBVET, 5(23), 1145. https://doi.org/10.22256/pubvet.v5n23.1145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Büyükburç, U. (1997). Silage production possibility of Sorghum vulgare, S. sudanense and their hybrids on the second crop condition of Tokat-Turkey. XVIII. International Grassland Congress, Canada, Vol. 2, Session 19, 9-10. [Google Scholar]
  18. CCCF. (2011). Working Paper on Sycotoxins in Sorghum. Joint FAO / WHO Food Standards Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF). [Google Scholar]
  19. Çiğdem, İ., & Uzun, F. (2006). Samsun ili taban alanlarında ikinci ürün olarak yetiştirilebilecek bazı silajlık sorgum ve mısır çeşitleri üzerine bir araştırma. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 14-19. [Google Scholar]
  20. Deinum, B. (1976). Effects of age, leaf number and temperature on cell wall and digestibility of maize. In: B. Gaillard (Ed.), Carbohydrate Research in Plants and Animals (pp. 29-41). Miscellaneous Papers 12, Landbouwhoge school, Wageningen, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dicko, M. H., Gruppen, H., Traore, A. S., van Berkel, W. J. H., & Voragen, A. G. J. (2005). Evaluation of the effect of germination on phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities in sorghum varieties. Journal Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(7), 2581-2588. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0501847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Doggett, H. (1988). Sorghum (2nd ed.) Longman Scientific & Technical. [Google Scholar]
  23. FAO. (1995). Sorghum and Millet in Human Nutrition. FAO Food and Nutrition Series No. 27, ISBN 92-5-103381-1. [Google Scholar]
  24. Glover, J., & Duthie, D. W. (1958). The nutritive ratio/crude-protein relationships in ruminant and non-ruminant digestion. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 50(2), 227-229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600031075 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Gökkuş, A., & Coşkun, E. (2023). Geleceğin Türkiye’sinde Doğal Çayır ve Meraların Önemi. Acta Natura et Scientia, 4(1), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.29329/actanatsci.2023.353.06 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Gökkuş, A., Birer, S., & Alatürk, F. (2017). Farklı anız yükseklikleri kalacak şekilde yapılan biçimlerin arpanın ot verimi ve kalitesine etkileri. KSÜ Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(Özel Sayı), 121-125. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksudobil.349008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Griebel, S., Webb, M. M., Campanella, O. H., Craig, B. A., Weil, C. F., & Tuinstra, M. R. (2019). The alkali spreading phenotype in Sorghum bicolor and its relationship to starch gelatinization. Journal of Cereal Science, 86, 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2019.01.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Güven, Y. (2017). Biçim Sıklığı ve Yüksekliğinin Bursa Koşullarında Sorgum-Sudanotu Melezinin Verim ve Kalitesine Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Iğdır Üniversitesi]. [Google Scholar]
  29. Holt, E. C., & Alston, G. D. (1968). Response of sudangrass hybrids to cutting practices. Agronomy Journal, 60(3), 303-306. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1968.00021962006000030017x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Hoşaflıoğlu, İ. (1998). Sorgum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) ve sorgum×sudanotu (Sorghum bicolor-Sorghum sudanense Stapf.) melezi çeşitlerinin silaj amacıyla ikinci ürün olarak yetiştirme olanakları [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi]. [Google Scholar]
  31. House, L. R. (1985). A Guide to Sorghum Breeding (2nd ed.). International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). [Google Scholar]
  32. İptaş, S. (1993). Tokat yöresinde sorgum ve sorgum × sudanotu melezi çeşitlerinde yararlanma imkânları. Tarla Bitkileri Çayır-Mera ve Yem Bitkileri Kongresi, Türkiye, ss. 341-351. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jardim, A. M., Silva, G. İ. N., Biesdorf, E. M., Pinheiro, A. G., Silva, M. V., Araujo Júnior, G. N., Santos, A., Alves, H. K. M. N., Sa Souza, M., Morais, J. E. F., Alves, C. P., & Silva, T. G. F. (2020). Production potential of Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench crop in the Brazilian semiarid: Review. PUBVET, 14(04), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.31533/pubvet.v14n4a550.1-13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Kang, M. S. (2002). Genotype-environment interaction: Progress and prospects. In M. S. Kang (Ed.), Quantitative Genetics, Genomics and Plant Breeding (pp. 221-243). CABI Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kangama, C. O., & Rumei, X. (2005). Introduction of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) into China. African Journal of Biotechnology, 4(7), 575-579. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaplan, M., & Kızılşimşek, M. (2012). Farklı tane sorgum (Sorghum bicolor L.) hat ve çeşitlerinin besleme değerlerinin belirlenmesi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28(1), 11-14. [Google Scholar]
  37. Karataş, Z. (2011). Çukurova Koşullarında II. Ürün Olarak Bazı Sorgum × Sudan Out Melezi Çeşitlerinin Biçim Zamanının Hasıl Verim ve Kalite Unsurlarına Etkileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi]. [Google Scholar]
  38. Keskin, B., Yılmaz, İ. H., & Akdeniz, H. (2005). Sorgum × Sudanotu melezi (Sorghum bicolor × Sorghum sudanense Mtapf.) çeşitlerinde hasat zamanının verim ve verim unsurlarına etkisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(2), 145-150. [Google Scholar]
  39. Koca, Y. O., & Erekul, O. (2016). Changes of dry matter, biomass and relative growth rate with different phenological stages of corn. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 10, 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.09.015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Lang, B. (2001). Sudan/Sorghum Forage Management. Iowa State Univ. Ext., Fact Sheet BL-50, 6p. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lee, S. M. (2005). Effect of the cultivation method and cutting time on the growth characteristics, dry matter yield and voluntary intake in sorghum × sudangrass hybrid. Journal of the Korea Society of Grassland Science, 25(1), 7-16. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mahyuddin, P. (2008). Relationship between chemical component and in vitro digestibility of tropical grasses. HAYATI Journal of Biosciences, 15(2), 85-89. https://doi.org/10.4308/hjb.15.2.85 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Nazlı, R. İ. (2011). Sorgum Sudanotu Melezi Tarımında Bazı Organik Atıkların Kullanım Olanakları [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi]. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nazlı, R. İ., İnal, İ., Kuşvuran, A., Sezer, M. C., & Tansı, V. (2013). Çukurova koşullarında bazı sorgum × sudanotu melezi çeşitlerinin verim ve kalite özelliklerinin belirlenmesi. Türkiye 10. Tarla Bitkileri Kongresi, Türkiye, ss. 521-526. [Google Scholar]
  45. Oba, M., & Allen, M. S. (1999). Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. Journal Dairy Science, 82(3), 589-596. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75271-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Oddy, V. H., Robards, G. E., & Low, S. G. (1983). Prediction of in vivo dry matter digestibility from the fiber nitrogen content of a feed. In G. E. Robards & R. G. Packham (Eds.), Feed Information and Animal Production (pp. 395-398). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. [Google Scholar]
  47. Özaslan Parlak, A., & Sevimay, C. S. (2007). Arpa ve buğday hasadından sonra bazı yem bitkilerinin ikinci ürün olarak yetiştirilme imkânları. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(2), 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarimbil_0000000446 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Proulx, R. (2021). On the general relationship between plant height and aboveground biomass of vegetation stands in contrasted ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 16(5), e0252080. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252080 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Ramatoulaye, F., Mady, C., Fallou, S., Amadou, K., Cyril, D., & Massamba, D. (2016). Production and use sorghum: A literature review. Journal Nutrition Health Food Science, 4(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.15226/jnhfs.2016.00157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Ribas, P. M. (2008). Cultivation of Sorghum: Planting (4th Ed.). Embrapa Milho e Sorgo. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rooney, L. W., & Waniska, R. D. (2000). Sorghum food and industrial utilization. In C. W. Smith, & R. A. Frederiksen (Eds.), Sorghum: Origin, History, Technology, and Production (pp. 689-729). John Wiley & Sons Inc. [Google Scholar]
  52. Salman, A., & Budak, B. (2015). Farklı sorgum × sudanotu melezi (Sorghum bicolor × Sorghum sudanense Stapf.) çeşitlerinin verim ve verim özellikleri üzerine bir araştırma. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 93-100. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sonon, R. N., Souzo, R., Pfaff, L., Dickerson, J. T., & Bolsen, K. K. (1991). Effects of maturity at harvest and cultivar on agronomic performance of forage sorghum and the nutritive value of selected sorghum silages. Cattlemen’s Day, pp 1-5, Manhattan, KS. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sowiński, J., Szydełko, E. (2011). Growth rate and yields of a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid variety grown on a light and a medium-heavy soil as affected by cutting management and seeding rate. Polish Journal of Agronomy, 4, 23-28. [Google Scholar]
  55. Spanghero, M., & Zanfi, C. (2009). Impact of NDF content and digestibility of diets based on corn silage and alfalfa on intake and milk yield of dairy cows. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8(Suppl. 2), 337-339. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s2.337 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Uher, D., Štafa, Z., Maćešić, D., Kaučić, D., & Vukašinović, Z. (2005). The effect of cutting regime on yield of sorghum in different climatic (vegetation) seasons. Mljekarstvo, 55(1), 15-30. [Google Scholar]
  57. Undersander, D. J., Smith, L. H., Kaminski, A. R., Kelling, K. A., Doll, J. D. (2003). Sorghum—Forage. In Alternative Field Crop Manual. Retrieved on July 15, 2023, from https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/forage.html [Google Scholar]
  58. Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74(10), 3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Vanamala, J. K. P., Massey, A. R., Pinnamaneni, S. R., Reddivari, L., & Reardon, K. F. (2018). Grain and sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) serves as a novel source of bioactive compounds for human health. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 58(17), 2867-2881. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1344186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. White, J., & Bolsen, K. K. (1988). Influence of plant parts on in vitro dry matter disappearance of forage sorghum silages. Cattlemen’s Day, pp. 83-89, Manhattan, KS. [Google Scholar]
  61. Willms, W. D. (1991). Cutting frequency and cutting height effects on rough fescue and Parry oat grass yields. Journal of Range Management, 44(1), 82-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4002645 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilson, J. R. (1994). Cell wall characteristics in relation to forage digestion by ruminants. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 122(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600087347 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Wilson, J. R., & Taylor, A. O., & Dolby, G. R. (1975). Temperature and atmospheric humidity effects on cell wall content and dry matter digestibility of some tropical and temperate grasses. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 19(1), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1976.10421044 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. Yılmaz, İ., & Hoşsaflıoğlu, İ. (2000). Sorgum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) ve sorgum × sudan otu (Sorghum bicolor – Sorghum sudanense Stapf.) melezi çeşitlerinin silaj amacı ile ikinci ürün olarak yetiştirme olanakları. Çukurova Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 49-56. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yılmaz, Ş., & Sağlamtimur, T. (1997). Amik ovası koşullarında II. ürün olarak yetiştirilen sorgum × sudanotu (Sorghum bicolor × Sorghum sudanense) melez çeşidinde azot gübrelemesinin ve sıra arası mesafenin ot verimine ve kalitesine etkisi üzerine bir araştırma. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.35193/bseufbd.715571 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Meta
Vol. 4 (2)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 4 Issue 2

December 2023

All Manuscript

Acta Natura et Scientia

Copyright © 2025 Acta Natura et Scientia.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.