BioEnergy Research

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 86–94 | Cite as

Optimizing Sweet Sorghum Production for Biofuel in the Southeastern USA Through Nitrogen Fertilization and Top Removal

  • John E. Erickson
  • Kenneth R. Woodard
  • Lynn E. Sollenberger


Sustainable bioenergy cropping systems require not only high yields but also efficient use of inputs. Management practices optimizing production of sweet sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] for bioenergy use are needed. The effects of N rate (45, 90, 135, and 180 kg N ha−1) and top removal (at boot stage, anthesis, and none) on biomass, brix, estimated sugar yield, and N and P recovery of sweet sorghum cv. M-81E were investigated in Florida at two sites differing in soil type. Across all data, dry biomass yields averaged 17.7 Mg ha−1 and were not affected by N fertilization rate at either site (P > 0.10). Mean brix values ranged from 131 to 151 mg g−1 and were negatively related to N rate. Top removal, either at boot stage or anthesis, resulted in greater brix values and 13% greater sugar yields at both locations. Whole plant N recovery was positively and linearly related to N rate and ranged from 78 to 166 kg N ha−1, approximately two thirds of which was in leaf and grain tissues. Based on yield and nutrient recovery responses, optimal nutrient requirements were 90 to 110 kg N ha−1 and 15 to 20 kg P ha−1. Higher N fertilization led to greater N recovery, but little to modest gain in sugar yield. Thus, proper nutrient and harvest management will be needed to optimize sugar yields of sweet sorghum for production of biofuels and bio-based products. Further research is needed to refine management practices of sweet sorghum for bioenergy production, especially with regard to the use of leaf and grain tissues.


Sweet sorghum N recovery Sweet sorghum P recovery Sweet sorghum biomass partitioning Sweet sorghum nutrient partitioning Bioenergy Sweet sorghum ethanol 



Financial support for this study was provided by a USDA Special Grant, the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, a Florida Farm to Fuel Grant, and the Florida Energy Systems Consortium. We are grateful to Andrew Schreffler, Jim Boyer, Jeffrey Fedenko, Johnathan Holland, Randi Randell, Maninderpal Singh, and Arkorn Soikaew for laboratory and field support.


  1. 1.
    Amaducci S, Monti A, Venturi G (2004) Non-structural carbohydrates and fibre components in sweet and fibre sorghum as affected by low and normal input techniques. Ind Crops Prod 20:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandyopadhyay R, Frederickson DE, McLaren NW, Odvody GN, Ryley MJ (1998) Ergot: a new disease threat to sorghum in the Americas and Australia. Plant Dis 82:356–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broadhead DM, Freeman KC, Zummo N (1981) ‘M 81E’—a new variety of sweet sorghum. Information Sheet 1309 of the Mississippi State Agr. Exp. Station, Meridian, MS. 4 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broadhead DM, Freeman KC (1980) Stalk and sugar yield of sweet sorghum as affected by spacing. Agron J 72:523–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broadhead DM (1973) Effects of deheading on stalk yield and juice quality of Rio sweet sorghum. Crop Sci 13:395–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gallaher RN, Weldon CO, Futral JG (1975) An aluminum block digester for plant and soil analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 39:803–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geng S, Hills FJ, Johanson SS, Sah RN (1989) Potential yields and on-farm ethanol cost of corn, sweet sorghum, fodder beet and sugarbeet. J Agron Crop Sci 162:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goff BM, Moore KJ, Fales SL, Heaton EA (2010) Double-cropping sorghum for biomass. Agron J 102:1586–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hambleton LG (1977) Semiautomated method for simultaneous determination of phosphorus, calcium, and crude protein in animal feeds. JAOAC 60:845–852Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han LP, Steinberger Y, Zhao YL, Xie GH (2011) Accumulation and partitioning of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in different varieties of sweet sorghum. Field Crops Res 120:230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. PNAS US 103:11206–11210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keeney DR, Deluca TH (1992) Biomass as an energy source for the Midwestern U.S. Am J Altern Agric 7:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuesters J, Lammel J (1999) Investigations of the energy efficiency of the production of winter wheat and sugar beet in Europe. Eur J Agron 11:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin JY, Lin JL (1994) Post-heading partitioning dynamics of total nonstructural carbohydrates in rice plants as influenced by sink manipulation. J Agric Assoc China 165:53–59Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lueschen WE, Putnam DH, Kanne BK, Hoverstad TR (1991) Agronomic practices for production of ethanol from sweet sorghum. J Prod Agric 4:619–625Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller AN, Ottman MJ (2010) Irrigation frequency effects on growth and ethanol yield in sweet sorghum. Agron J 102:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mylavarapu R, Wright D, Kidder G, Chambliss CG (2009) UF/IFAS standardized fertilization recommendations for agronomic crops. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, fact sheet SL129, 9 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 50:1788–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reed W, Geng S, Hills FJ (1986) Energy input and output analysis of four field crops in California. J Agron Crop Sci 157:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ricaud R, Arceneaux A (1990) Sweet sorghum research on biomass and sugar production in 1990. Exp. Stn., Louisiana State Univ., Report of Projects, 136–139Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rooney WL, Blumenthal J, Bean B, Mullet JE (2007) Designing sorghum as a dedicated bioenergy feedstock. Biofpr 1:147–157Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    SAS Institute, Inc. (2009) The SAS system for Windows. Ver. 9.2. SAS Institute, Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schlegel AJ, Havlin JL (1995) Corn response to long-term nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization. J Prod Agric 8:181–185Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sheehan J, Aden A, Paustian K, Killian K, Brenner J, Walsh M et al (2003) Energy and environmental aspects of using corn stover for fuel ethanol. J Ind Ecol 7:117–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soileau JM, Bradford BN (1985) Biomass and sugar yield response of sweet sorghum to lime and fertilizer. Agron J 77:471–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tamang PL, Bronson KF, Malapati A, Schwartz R, Johnson J, Moore-Kucera J (2011) Nitrogen requirements for ethanol production from sweet and photoperiod sensitive sorghums in the southern high plains. Agron J 103:431–440Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tarpley L, Lingle SE, Vietor DM, Andrews DL, Miller FR (1994) Enzymatic control of nonstructural carbohydrate concentrations in stems and panicles of sorghum. Crop Sci 34:446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vermerris W (2011) Survey of genomics approaches to improve bioenergy traits in maize, sorghum and sugarcane. JIPB 53:105–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wiendenfeld R (1984) Nutrient requirement and use efficiency by sweet sorghum. Energy Agric 3:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wortmann CS, Liska AJ, Ferguson RB, Lyon DJ, Klein RN, Dweikat I (2010) Dryland performance of sweet sorghum and grain crops for biofuel in Nebraska. Agron J 102:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhao YL, Dolat A, Steinberger Y, Wang X, Osman A, Xie GH (2009) Biomass yield and changes in chemical composition of sweet sorghum cultivars grown for biofuel. Field Crops Res 111:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zotarelli L, Avila L, Scholberg JMS, Alves BJR (2009) Benefits of vetch and rye cover crops to sweet corn under no-tillage. Agron J 101:252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • John E. Erickson
    • 1
  • Kenneth R. Woodard
    • 1
  • Lynn E. Sollenberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Agronomy DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations