Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Public Sweet Sorghum A-Lines for Use in Hybrid Production

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A fundamental need for commercialization of sweet sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] as a bioenergy crop is an adequate seed supply, which will require development of hybrid varieties using dwarf seed-parent lines. A set of six public sweet sorghum A-lines (Dwarf Kansas Sourless, KS9, N36, N38, N39, and N4692) were crossed with a set of six public sweet sorghum cultivars (Brawley, Kansas Collier, Dale, Sugar Drip, Waconia, and Wray). Grain, fiber, and sugar yields were determined, and conversion formulas were applied to estimate ethanol yields. Hybrids were grown in fields at Ithaca, NE, USA, in 1983–1984 fertilized with 112 kg ha−1 N. In terms of yield components and overall ethanol yields, one A-line, N38, was inferior. Average total ethanol yields from hybrids made on the other A-lines were not significantly different, suggesting that any of those five A-lines could be useful seed-parents. With the exception of grain yield, cultivars used as pollen parents were among the highest-performing entries for all traits. For all traits directly contributing to total ethanol yield (grain yield, juice yield, % soluble solids, sugar yield, fiber yield), hybrids were also among the highest-performing entries. Results of this study demonstrate that hybrid sweet sorghum with performance criteria equivalent to existing sweet sorghum cultivars can be produced on the sweet sorghum seed-parent lines A-Dwarf Kansas Sourless, A-KS9, A-N36, A-N39, and A-N4692. Identification of specific seed-parent × pollen parent lines with characteristics best suited for particular growing regions and end-user needs will be critical for commercial hybrid development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc. in the USA and other countries. ® indicates USA registration.

References

  1. Reddy BVS, Ramesh W, Reddy PS, Ramaiah B, Salimath PM, Kachapur R (2005) Sweet sorghum—a potential alternative raw material for bio-ethanol and bio-energy. J SAT Agric Res 1:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schaffert RE ( 2008) Development of cultivars for industrial processing/ethanol production in Brazil. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Sorghum for Biofuels, Houston, TX. , August 19–22

  3. Bellmer D, Huhnke R, Godsey C, Whiteley R, Holcomb R, Kenkel P, Gilliland S (2007) Use of sweet sorghum as a bioenergy crop for Oklahoma. USDA, Research, Education, and Economics Information System. http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/210697.html. Accessed 4/21/2011

  4. Davila-Gomez FJ, Chuck-Hernandez C, Perez-Carrillo E, Rooney WL, Serna-Saldivar SO (2011) Evaluation of bioethanol production from five different varieties of sweet and forage sorghums (Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench). Ind Crop Prod 33(3):611–616

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tew TL, Cobill RM, Richard EP (2008) Evaluation of sweet sorghum and sorghum × Sudangrass hybrids as feedstocks for ethanol production. BioEnergy Res 1(2):147–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rooney WL (2000) Genetics and cytogenetics. In: Smith CW, Frederiksen RA (eds) Sorghum: origin, history, technology, and production. Wiley, New York, pp 261–308

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ross WM, Gorz HJ, Haskins FA, Hookstra GH, Rutto JK, Ritter R (1983) Combining ability effects for forage residue traits in grain-sorghum hybrids. Crop Sci 23(1):97–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Murray SC, Rooney WL, Hamblin MT, Mitchell SE, Kresovich S (2009) Sweet sorghum genetic diversity and association mapping for brix and height. Plant Gen 2(1):48–62. doi:10.3835/plantgenome2008.10.0011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang ML, Zhu C, Barkley NA, Chen Z, Erpelding JE, Murray SC et al (2009) Genetic diversity and population structure analysis of accessions in the US historic sweet sorghum collection. Theor Appl Genet 120(1):13–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ritter KB, Jordan DR, Chapman SC, Godwin ID, Mace ES, Lynne McIntyre C (2008) Identification of QTL for sugar-related traits in a sweet × grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) recombinant inbred population. Mol Breed 22(3):367–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Murray SC, Sharma A, Rooney WL, Klein PE, Mullet JE, Mitchell SE et al (2008) Genetic improvement of sorghum as a biofuel feedstock: I. QTL for stem sugar and grain nonstructural carbohydrates. Crop Sci 48(6):2165–2179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pfeiffer TW, Bitzer MJ, Toy JJ, Pedersen JF (2010) Heterosis in sweet sorghum and selection of a new sweet sorghum hybrid for use in syrup production in Appalachia. Crop Sci 50(5):1788–1794. doi:10.2135/cropsci2009.09.0475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Audilakshmi S, Mall AK, Swarnalatha M, Seetharama N (2010) Inheritance of sugar concentration in stalk (brix), sucrose content, stalk and juice yield in sorghum. Biomass Bioenergy 34(6):813–820

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rooney WL, Smith CW (2000) Techniques for developing new cultivars. In: Smith CW, Frederiksen RA (eds) Sorghum: origin, history, technology, and production. Wiley, New York, pp 329–348

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fehrenbacher K (2008) 11 Companies racing to build U.S. cellulosic ethanol plants. Gigaom. http://gigaom.com/cleantech/12-companies-racing-to-build-cellulosic-ethanol-plants-in-the-us/. Accessed 8/12/2011

  16. White House Office of Communications (2007) Twenty in ten: strengthening America’s energy security. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/media/20in10FactSheet.pdf. Accessed 8/13/2011

  17. Miller FR (1976) Release of A/BTx623. Report of Technical Committee on Seed Release and Increase. Texas Agri. Expt. Stn., College Station

  18. Ross WM, Gorz HJ, Haskins FA, Webster OJ (1980) Registration of 10 sorghum parental lines. Crop Sci 20(6):834–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ross WM, Casady AJ, Lawless JR, Barnett FL (1972) 29 sorghum parental lines1 (Reg. Nos. PL1 and PL29). Crop Sci 12(5):722. doi:10.2135/cropsci1972.0011183X001200050086x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Webster OJ, Nordquist PT, Peters LV (1977) Registration of eight sorghum parental lines1 (Reg. No. PL 41 to PL 48). Crop Sci 17(1):191. doi:10.2135/cropsci1977.0011183X001700010060x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ross WM, Gorz HJ, Haskins FA, Kofoid KD (1979) Combining ability in forage sorghum hybrids. Maydica 24:83–93

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kramer NW (1960) Registration of sorghum varieties, IX. Agron J 52(11):666. doi:10.2134/agronj1960.00021962005200110020x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Committee (1936) Registration of 73 sorghum varieties. J Am Agron Soc 28(12):1027–1028

    Google Scholar 

  24. Broadhead DM, Coleman OH (1973) Registration of Dale sweet sorghum. Crop Sci 13(6):776–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Broadhead DM, Freeman KC, Zummo N (1981) Registration of Wray sweet sorghum. Crop Sci 21(6):987–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cooper J. How much ethanol can come from corn? National Corn Growers Association. http://www.cie.us/documents/HowMuchEthanol.pdf. Accessed 4/27/2011

  27. Energy UDo. Theoretical ethanol yield calculator. http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_yield_calculator.html. Accessed 4/27/2011

  28. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS® for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

    Google Scholar 

  29. Annicchiarico P (2002) Estimation of individual effects and comparison of means. FAO Plant Production and Protection, Rome

  30. Murray SC, Rooney WL, Mitchell SE, Sharma A, Klein PE, Mullet JE et al (2008) Genetic improvement of sorghum as a biofuel feedstock: II. QTL for stem and leaf structural carbohydrates. Crop Sci 48(6):2180–2193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Skinner JC (1976) Samples for measuring sugar content of sugar cane varieties in mechanically harvested trials. Int Sugar J 78(932):227–230

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shiringani AL ( 2009) Identification of genomic regions of Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench linked to biofuel-related traits in grain × sweet sorghum recombinant inbred lines. Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Limpopo

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge that this study was conceived and conducted by Dr. Herman Gorz (USDA-ARS, retired), Dr. Francis Haskins (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, retired), and Dr. Max Clegg (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, retired). These individuals were offered co-authorship including the opportunity to read and evaluate the manuscript in a manner consistent with expectations outlined in the author guidelines of this journal, but declined. We thank John Toy (USDA-ARS), Carol Caha (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), and David Scoby (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) for their technical assistance with experimental data presented in this manuscript. The data presented in this publication are owned by the USDA-ARS and the integrity of the data is certified. The authors have the authority to disseminate these data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA-ARS Grain, Forage, and Bioenergy Research Unit, Lincoln, NE, 68583-90937, USA

    Jeffrey F. Pedersen & Scott E. Sattler

  2. USDA-ARS Crop Genetics and Breeding Research Unit, 115 Coastal Way, Tifton, GA, 31793, USA

    William F. Anderson

  3. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, 137 Keim Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68583-90937, USA

    Jeffrey F. Pedersen & Scott E. Sattler

Authors
  1. Jeffrey F. Pedersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott E. Sattler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William F. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott E. Sattler.

Additional information

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 114 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pedersen, J.F., Sattler, S.E. & Anderson, W.F. Evaluation of Public Sweet Sorghum A-Lines for Use in Hybrid Production. Bioenerg. Res. 6, 91–102 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9231-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9231-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation