BULLETIN 965 OCTOBER "I960 4 ",1... ~.~,. . . ' pl.‘ 0|’ 7h: THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL CDLLEGE DF TEXAS TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIDN R. U. Lewis, Director, College Station, Texas in cooperation with the U. S. DEPARTMENT DE AGRICULTURE ‘ups uu cont DIGEST Sorghum includes varieties that are classified by type and usage as grain sorghum, forage sorghum, sirup sorghum, grass sorghum and broomcorn. This bulletin is concerned with the production and feed- ing of forage sorghum. Sorghum forage is produced in all cultivated areas of Texas. The acreage recently has been slightly below 2 million with an annual production of about 2 million tons. Silage is harvested from about one-tenth of the forage sorghum acreage. Land preparation usually is done as soon as possible after the preceding crop has been harvested. Planting usually is in rows in the top of beds or in lister furrows. Three or four cultivations usually are necessary, with one needed after each rain until the plants are large enough to suppress weed growth. Planting should be delayed in the spring until soil and air temperatures are high enough to allow normal growth. The favorable planting season begins about February l5 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and ends about June 25 in the Panhandle. Fall forage sorghum crops can be planted in South Texas from July 1 until about August 20. A planting rate of 5 pounds per acre is sufficient to produce forage of excellent quality. For close-drill plantings, the recommended rates of sowing are 40 to 100 pounds per acre. Sorghum readily follows other crops in a rotation, but may have a depressing effect on the yield of wheat, oats or barley if these crops are sown soon after sorghum is harvested. Detrimental influence of sorghum on succeeding crops may be reduced by uprooting sorghum stubble soon after harvest and by applications of nitrogen fertilizers. Crops planted the following year are affected little for by that time available nitrates will have accumulated naturally and the soil mois- ture depletion caused by the sorghum crop will have been overcome with normal rainfall. The depressing effect is not cumulative. Sorghum grows well on all types of soil, but grows best on those in good tilth with relatively high fertility. Many Texas soils will produce profitable crops of forage sorghum without the addition of fertilizers because the fertility level is sufficiently high. Soil moisture is the limiting factor in production. Any existing deficiency in fertility should be corrected or production will be low. Sorghum is a drouth-tolerant crop but responds well to supple- mental irrigation. The total water requirement of sorghum may be as low as l6 to l8 inches in a favorable season or as high as 24 inches in a hot season. In most of Texas, rainfall will provide half or more of the water required by forage sorghum for maximum production. Irrigation practices should be planned to make good use of rainfall. Sorghum forage should be harvested for bundle feed when the seed begins to mature. Silage should be harvested earlier when the seed are in the milk to soft-dough stage. Sorghum silage keeps well in all types of silos. Because of the usual damage that occurs in the stack, sorghum bundles usually are fed in the winter and spring following production. Silage harvesting has become completely mechanized.’ Sorghum is attacked by fungi and bacteria and by insects but the damage usually is not severe. Kernel smut is controlled by fungicidal seed treatments. Forage yield is correlated with the duration of growth. Late- maturing varieties or hybrids will produce the most forage unless the crop runs out of moisture. Late-maturing varieties should be planted only under favorable conditions or under irrigation. Varieties of intermediate maturity are most widely grown in Texas, but early- maturing varieties can be grown in the northern Panhandle. The most widely grown varieties in Texas are Atlas, Sumac, Sourless (African Millet), Tracy and Honey. Dual-purpose forage sorghums, such as Hegari, Early Hegari and Texas Blackhull Kafir, produce less forage than the taller sorgos. Combine varieties are rarely har- vested for forage unless drouth reduces the grain yield. Forage hybrids are just now f quality of the forage produced by ~ definitely. Some hybrids will prod - the varieties. ' Forage sorghums produce roug ity which may be stored as silage, n Cattle, sheep and horses make good i‘ ages when fed in combination with duce meat, milk, wool and en ;* which produce high gains in the f veloped. r One of the most important _-‘ is to provide a reserve supply of f tenance and during drouths. When average, the excess may be stored. some advantages over sorghum bun duce more nutrients than dual-p it types produce good gains in the ff sometime develop in the bladders J rations in the feedlot. Feeding ll Q forages may be profitable in some ~ CONT Digest Introduction Forage Sorghum Culture ................... _ ' Land Preparation, Planting and; Date of Planting ................. .. i Rate of Planting ................. .. Seeding in Rows ........... .. Seeding Broadcast ........ .. Rotations _______________________________ __ Fertility Requirements ....... .. Irrigation Practices ......... .. .. Harvesting and Storing Sorghum v: Fodder __________________________________ __ Silage .......................................... .. Hay ' Sorghum Diseases and Insects .... .. . i Diseases ................................ __ Insects .................................. __ Seed Treatment .................... .. .; Varieties and Hybrids __________________ __ _ " Sorgo Varieties ______________________ __ _ . Performance in Texas .. Dual-purpose Varieties ........ .. . Performance in Texas ..... Varieties for Close-drill Plan of} Forage Hybrids ...................... .. Performance in Texas .... .." Experimental Hybrids ....... Sorgos and Corn for Silage .... Feeding Forage Sorghum ................. .. Feedlot Rations for Beef Cattle; Sorghum Silage and Sorghum I Sorgos and Dual-purpose Vari A Dryland and Irrigated Sorghum’; Bundled and Chopped Sorgh lf Minerals Fed with Sorghum R Pelleted Roughages ................... ..j Forage Sorghums for Other Acknowledgments ............................... M SPECIES, Sorghum vulgare, Pers., .varieties that in the United States ified by type and usage as grain . ghum, sirup sorghum, grass sor- 50m. This bulletin is concerned and feeding of forage sorghum. cultivated in Africa and Asia ,3“ and was introduced into the i}? and most of the islands of the 'es in recent times. Inmuch of ing area of the world, the varieties the grain is eaten by humans and livestock. is primarily a livestock and poul- _'ted States, and grain varieties are are harvested with a combine. ally are tall and some produce ‘unts of grain, while others, usually nd shorter stature, produce almost if e grain sorghums. Most of the sweet, juicy stalks and some are cture of sorghum sirup. ose varieties that were hand- bundled for forage before the ‘ne are still grown as forage varie- 'es, usually hegaris or kafirs, are ht and have stems that are inter- »: and sweetness and are palatable ge sorghum is sown in narrow a 1 as hay, but it usually is grown land harvested with a binder or 1;: has been grown in Texas since f: of calling sweet sorghum “cane” itroduction of sorghum into Texas én between true sugarcane, Sac- , L. and sweet sorghum, Sorghum not welllj understood. Chinese fl lack Amber variety of sorghum, f»: Texas in 1857 as Chinese sugar- 'an Service sent seed to be grown '1 and Brazos Reserves in Throck- 't in charge of sorghum investigations lbstation N0. l2, Chillicothe, Texas; and ition N0. 7, Spur, Texas. tiun and Feeding of Forage Sorghum in Texas J. R. lluinbg and P. T. Marion* morton and Young counties. Other sorgolvarieties were introduced into Georgia and South Carolina from South Africa in 1857 and several reached Texas a few years later. Two late-maturing sorgo varieties, Honey and Gooseneck, became widely grown in Texas and were called “seeded ribbon cane” to distinguished them from true sugarcane that was grown for sirup making in East Texas. Forage sorghums were a staple crop in pioneer days as agriculture spread westward in Texas in the l880’s and l890’s. Dual-purpose grain and forage varieties were grown widely during 1900-40 for feeding horses and mules. About 9 million acres of sorghum have been grown annually in Texas for all purposes in recent years, of which less than 2 million acres were planted r to forage sorghum. A smaller acreage of forage sorghum has been produced in recent years than be- fore World War II. After combining grain sorghum became a general practice, there has been a tendency for the forage sorghum acreage to become stabilized at a level below that grown prior to 1930 when forage sorghum was the main roughage fed horses and mules. The sharp drop in acreage during 1957-59 may have resulted from the acreage reserve part of the Soil Bank program. The acreages planted to forage sorghums during 1950-59 are shown graphically in Figure l. The forage sorghum acreage in a drouth year, such as 1954, may be increased greatly since thousands of acres planted for grain may be harvested for forage. During recent years when the forage sorghum acreage has been almost 2 million, annual production of dry forage in Texas has been about 2 million-tons. 3,000y Silage IFWW m 2,500 — mm mg ' Wm g 2,000 - ‘ g W m § :,500 — 8 _ 4 3? :000 - r 3 ' m s00 - o- :950 :95: :95z :95: :9s4 :955 :95s :95? :95a :959 YEAR Fi ure 1. Total Texas fora e sor hum acrea e, 1950-59. g 3 FORAGE SORGHUM ACREAGE _ 1954 " - STATE "ronu. - 1,1as,a77 m x. “Rm” 1 001 = 5000 ACRES SVAII / mnltou v a Figure 2. Forage sorghum acreage in Texas, by counties. 1954. Sorghum for forage is planted in all cultivated areas of Texas (Figure 2). Only two counties had as much as 35,000 acres harvested as forage in 1954 and much of it was planted with the intention of harvesting for grain. Most of the counties in Texas with extensive acreages of cultivated land grew as many as 5,000 acres of sorghum forage in 1954-. Counties with less than 5,000 acres of forage sorghum were in East Texas and the ranching area of West Texas. FOBAGE SORGHUM CULTURE Land Preparation. Planting and Cultivation Land preparation usually is done as soon as possible after the preceding crop has been harvested. In much of Texas, land is prepared in the fall, but in parts of West Texas harvesting is not completed until ()ctober and land preparation is delayed until the early spring. Land may be prepared in several ways. The implements used are moldboard, disc or one-way plows, listers and chisels. More than one implement is used frequently before the land is ready to plant. ' In the more humid areas of Texas, seed are planted in the top of beds; elsewhere they are planted in the bottom of lister furrows. Sorghum seed should not be covered with more than 3 inches of soil; a 2-inch covering is about optimum. Cultivation is necessary for weed control after each rain until the sorghum plants are large enough to suppress weed growth by competing for sunlight, moisture and plant food. Cultivation consists of loosening the soil in the middles to a depth of 2 or 3 inches, uprooting weeds that appear in the middles and covering small weeds that appear in the drills. Cultivation should 4 cease before the plants are in the"? the destruction of roots at that ‘late i ‘ is particularly detrimental. Date of Planting The average frost-free period from 185 days at thendrthern extr; to 230 days at the northern boundf Prairie and the Rio Grande Plain. boundary, the frost-free period particularly in the coastal counties, growing season along the Gulf Co longer than in the northern tier of; Panhandle. Planting in the spring should soil and air temperatures are high j normal growth. The favorable plan g about February l5 in the Lower 1f" February 25 to March 15 is the fa season in the Coastal Bend and Mary in the upper part of the Rio Gran 20 to April 5 is the best planting seas area and March 20 to April 15 in A of the Blacklands. On the Rolli 1," equal forage yields can be expectei made in April, May or June, alth‘ year there may be large differences plantings. Elevations are greater on. and temperatures are lower. For favorable planting season on the H about May 1 and extends to Jun Gulf coast, fall forage sorghum crop anytime from July l until August ‘g Hegari and Early Hegari are“ days and their growth differs greatl‘ late plantings. These two varieti grown for forage in any part of Te is delayed until about May l when}; long enough to prevent early headi yield. 1 TABLE 1. YIELD or FORAGE or s DIFFERENT SPACINGS WITHIN -~ CHILLICOTHE, 1913-17, AND WIT AT LUBBOCK, 1917-, Row space per Yield 9f airdrl’ f Plant» inches Chillicothe Unthinned 2 4.04 s 4 3.95 a s 4.11 9 12 2.9a 1s 1s ' Rate of Planting forage from different rates of planting different if stands are thicker than a -_'8 inches (Table 1) . Stands of plants ican be obtained by planting 5 pounds ' ry varieties (Table 2). The stems om a 5-pound rate of planting are i to produce forage of excellent quality; j! unnecessary unless the variety used Dual-purpose forage varieties, such l ull kafir, Hegari and Early Hegari, fed at rates of 3 to 5 pounds per acre ‘t crop is desired as part of the forage. ~ ast orage from broadcast plantings made ing rates have been taken at Beeville, u Chillicothe. Summaries of the data able 3. The results showed no rate produced more forage than others, X of the hay is more important than Vning the rate of seeding. Recom- Y planting are 40 to 100 pounds per nds usually are sufficient, but 100 j needed on fertile soil with ample is planted level or on top of a bed ltivated the first time with a harrow § Where planting is done in a lister cultivation frequently is done with i with knives that slice through the fsweeps that throw soil to the young i, three later cultivations usually are ‘s. Sorghum stands better when soil plants. age of sorghum is sown with a grain ;-< for hay. Sometimes alternate ‘V. drill are stopped up while sowing. ltivation is iven, but sometimes 5 _ g p, owed to kill weeds or rotary-hoed i." plants are small. Rotations ily follows other crops in a rotation, pressing effect on the yield of wheat, a: A these crops are sown soon after ‘ted. The depression of crop yields g u is caused the efficiency with oves moisture and plant food from r- and stubble from a crop of forage '1 e relatively large quantities of high- ‘ the soil. Until this residue de- e numbers of microorganisms that "decomposition of the residue require ‘is not available to plants until the '_die. Unless the high-carbon residue TABLE 2. STANDS OBTAINED FROM PLANTING DIF- FERENT AMOUNTS OF SUMAC AND ORANGE SORGO SEED IN 40-INCH ROWS AT CHILLICOTHE, 1925-32 Seeding rate pounds per acre Average space between Variety plants, inches Sumac‘ 9.6 Orange’ UlrisbflNl-‘Ulrkbfllél-n an M Q ‘29,880 seed per pound. ’l9,060 seed per pound. is balanced by decay or with nitrogen, the following crop may show symptoms of nitrogen deficiency. The depressing effects of sorghum on irrigated land may be overcome partly by applications of nitrogen fertilizers. The detrimental influence of sorghum on succeeding crops on dryland is reduced by uprooting sorghum stubble soon after harvest and by delaying the planting of the succeeding crop. Crops planted in May or June after sorghum are not affected greatly since, by that time, available nitrates will have accumulated naturally and the soil moisture depletion will have been overcome with normal rain- fall. The depressing effect is not cumulative. Fertility Requirements Sorghum grows well on all types of soil, but does best on soils in good tilth with relatively high fertility. A 7-ton crop of air-dry sorghum forage (21 tons of silage) contains about 78 pounds of nitrogen, which is about twice as much nitrogen as would be removed in the cottonseed of a one-bale per acre cotton crop. With high yields under irriga- tion, even larger amounts would be removed and it TABLE 3. YIELD OF FORAGE FROM CLOSE-DRILLED PLANTINGS OF SUMAC SORGO AT DIFFERENT RATES AT BEEVILLE, PRAIRIE VIEW AND CHILLICOTHE seeding rate’ Yield of air-dry forage, tons per acre Pmmds Beeville Prairie View Chillicothg Per acre 1925-31 1953 1914-25 15 3.54 20 4.66 30 4.71 3,37 40 4.96 2 90 50 4.57 60 4.91 _ 3.30 3.75 70 4.73 75 3.87 80 3.40 100 3.50 would be necessary to supply nutrients 0r yields would decline. Many Texas soils will produce profitable crops of forage sorghum without the addition of fertilizer, but other soils over large areas are deficient in one or more of the three major elements. Fertilizers can be used profitably in many areas. On the more fertile dryland soils, water and not plant food usually is the limiting factor in production. The value of a forage sorghum crop on dryland usually is not great and no large outlay for fertilizer is justi- fied. However, any existing deficiency should be corrected, otherwise production will be low. Leaflets giving fertilizer recommendations for the various Texas soil areas are published each year by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. They may be obtained from the county agricultural agents or from the Agricultural Information Office, College Station, Texas. Fertilizer recommendations based on t analyses of soil samples taken from fields of any farm also may be obtained through a county agricultural agent. Irrigation Practices Although sorghum is a drouth-tolerant crop, it responds well to supplemental irrigation. The amount of water required to produce maximum yields varies since differences in temperature, relative hu- midity, wind and soil moisture influence the amount of evaporation from the soil and transpiration from the plants. In favorable seasons, the total water requirement may be as low as 16 to 18 inches. In hot, dry years, 24 inches may be required to produce maximum yields. In most years, 21 to 23 inches will be needed for high production. Sorghum under irrigation will use rainfall equally as well as irrigation water. In most of Texas, rainfall will provide half or more of the water required by forage sorghum, and irrigation prac planned to make good use of rainfall. once in severe stress for moisture well as those not allowed to go int; quently, enough water to keep the _. tinuously is desirable. ;. Irrigated crops generally are plat or very shallow furrows. Soil throi early cultivations leaves the middles l‘ When irrigation becomes desirable, f; in the middles so that watering ca‘ and efficiently. Detailed information on irriga grain production is. presented in B V, quirements of Grain Sorghum Irriga Plains.” The principles of irrigating sorghums are the same. The bulletin I from the Agricultural Information Station, Texas. “ HARVESTING AND st SORGHUM FonA Fodder Sorghum forage should be feed when the seed begin to matur, weight of dry matter is greatest at is more palatable and the fodder gdi the shock so easily. Sorghum forage for fodder is _ binder (Figure 3) and shocked in After several weeks of drying in sh," can be put in large stacks even thou tain considerable amounts of moist i" is required to shock and stack sorgh; the work usually can be done when the farm is not great. Building st" bundles is an art and properly s bundles sometime remain undam s Figure Harvesting forage sorghum bundles. A crop such as this will produce about 4 tons of air-dry‘_ 6 o" fr, sorghum bundles usually are fed in i spring following production. Silage l, sorghum for silage has become com- ized in recent years. The reduction in required to harvest crops for silage ne of the most popular methods of Nsorghums. Other advantages of silage ' another section of this bulletin. “ilage for dairy cattle should be har- t 4 seed are in the milk to soft-dough " cattle, sorghum silage can be har- later when most of the seed are fh stage. Two men can put a silage f ch silo, but a four-man crew is more f man with a tractor operates the field wo men driving tractors with trailers Tithe vehicles with the green-chopped i-cutter (Figure 4) and haul the feed u’ e fourth man at the silo assists in lailers or trucks (Figure 5) and packs §a tractor between loads. our men can put up 60 to 80 tons of day. Blades of the cutter must if e stalks and not shred them. Finely pack firmer than shredded or ifs feed. The better the feed is packed keep. Contract operators with equip- for harvesting silage crops have be- in recent years to harvest sorghum lisilos for stockmen who buy a crop a pay for it the ton. i; _ Hay iorghum is sown in narrow drills for "somewhat difficult to cure and should {the swath before being windrowed. ,ne several days later when the forage y. ,Hay should be baled when the Figure 4. Harvesting Atlas sorgo for silage. moisture content is 20 percent or less. Sorghum hay is ready to bale if moisture does not appear when a handful of stems is twisted and if a few of the stems will break. SORGHUM DISEASES AND INSECTS Diseases Four general types of diseases attack sorghum. They are: (1) seed rot and seedling blights, (2) leaf spots that lower the value of the forage, (3) smuts or molds caused by fungi that attack the head and prevent normal formation of grain and (4) root or stalk rots caused by fungi that prevent the normal development of the plant or cause it to fall down before or after maturity. Seed rot is most severe when the soil is cold after planting because low temperatures favor the develop- ment of the fungi that attack germinating seed and seedlings. Figure 5. Unloading a 5-ton load of silage in a trench silo by pulling the feed out oi the back of the truck. A tractor or heavy multiwheel-drive truck is used to pack the silage after it is dumped in the silo. High temperatures and high relative humidity generally favor leaf diseases. Organisms that cause such diseases are present on all plants that reach maturity, but they seldom cause severe damage. Dam- age from leaf diseases sometimes is serious when climatic conditions favor their development. Leaf diseases may be caused by bacteria or fungi. Some leaf spotting is caused by physiological breakdown of leaf tissue. Smut diseases of sorghum in the United States are covered kernel smut, loose kernel smut and head smut. The first two smuts are seed-borne and can be controlled by seed treatment. Head smut is present in the soil and has not been a serious problem until recently. The use of resistant varieties is probably the most feasible means of control. Eight serious stalk rots of sorghum occur in Texas. Resistant varieties offer the chief hope of reducing losses caused by them. The diseases of sorghum and the organisms that cause them are described in Farmers’ Bulletin 1959 of the U. S. Department of Agriculture and Bulletin 912 of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The plant pathologist of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service at College Station can give timely information upon request. DISEASES OF SORGHUM IN TEXAS Seed Rot and Seedling Diseases Fusarium sp. Aspergillus sp. Rhizopus sp. Rhizoctonia sp. Penicillum sp. Helminthosporium sp. Pythium sp. Sorghum Leaf Diseases Pseudomonas andropogoni, Bacterial stripe Xanthomonas holcicola, Bacterial streak Xanthomonas syringae, Bacterial spot Ascochyta sorghina, Rough spot Colletotrichum graminicolum, Anthracnose Helminthosporium turcicum, Leaf blight Gleocerospora sorghi, Zonate leaf spot Cercospora sorghi, Gray leaf spot Helminthosporium sorghicola, Target spot Rarrnulispora sorghi, Sooty stripe Puccinia purpurea, Rust Sorghum Smuts Sphacelotheca sorghi, Covered kernel smut. Sphacelotheca cruenta, Loose kernel smut Sphacelotheca holci, Loose kernel smut Sphacelotheca reiliana, Head smut Root and Stalk Diseases Periconia circinata, Periconia root rot (milo disease) Macrophomia phaseoli, Charcoal rot Fusarium moniliforme, Fusarium stalk rot Rhizoctonia solani, Rhizoctonia stalk rot Colletotrichum graminicolum, Colletotrichum stalk rot Fusarium roseum f. cerealis Helminthosporium satiuum Nigrospora oryzea Insects Sorghum is attacked by several > can cause considerable damage. The a land crop of forage sorghum is not ;, justify repeated application of insecti insects; but, fortunately,‘ date of pl,‘ conditions, parasites and predators us“ insects in check. Occasionally, how populations must be reduced to pre t, tion of or great damage to the crop. i“ are reduced by soil-infesting insects? attack the stems, leaves and heads; ", the developing seed; and the common] grain infest sorghum seed in the s i; seed in storage. The larvae of several soil-infesti germinating seed and seedlings of i insects may be present in the soil wit‘ stands of sorghum unless germination’ are slow. A cold rain that delays gm,“ for soil-infesting insects to destroy se Seed planted in soil that dries out be also are frequently destroyed and emerge even after a rain. Some of seed treatments are of some prot A, germinating seed. Damage to roots 1 insects sometimes is serious, but oft,’ These insects usually are not num . has been planted to row crops. F0 g some cover crops, however, these y numerous enough to cause noticeabl Several insects attack sorghum t the stems or foliage, sucking juices l, sheaths, heads or developing seed developing seed. Information on the chemical i’ attacking sorghum is given in Extensi “Guide for Controlling Insects on i Small Grains and Grasses.” Inform , trol of insects attacking stored grain sion Service L-2l7, “Stored Grain I .4 the insects that infest sorghum - Texas Station Bulletin 912, “Grain [ tion in Texas.” The Extension Set may be obtained from the county 9' or, along with B-9l2, from the Agri ’ tion Office. ' i INSECTS THAT ATTACK ,_ IN TEXAS t, Soil-infesting Insects Agriotes sp., Wireworm Eleodes opaca (Say) , False Wireworm X Hylemya cilicrura (Rondani) , Seed-corn i, Diabrotica undecimpuctata howardi Mi corn rootworm t, Phyllophaga sp., White grubs Insects Attacking Plants ; Heliothis zea (Boddie) , Corn earworm Elasmopalpus lignosellus (Zell.) , Lesser € la (Riley) , Sorghum webworm iosella (Dyar) , Southwestern corn borer planatus (Csy.) , Sugarcane rootstock weevil ff many species p, (Say) , Chinch bug _ it maidis (Fitch) , Corn leaf aphid larius (L.) , Red spider fichill.) , False chinch bug (Fabricius) , Rice stink bug hicola (Coq.) , Sorghum midge f1 is (Hubner) , European corn borer Stored Grains lella (Oliv.) , Angoumois grain moth ~ (L.) , Rice weevil rius (Linne) , Granary weevil Seed Treatment “metimes are applied to seed to pre- _" after planting, to control seed-borne ,ol storage insects and to kill insects i» after planting and before the seed- ie established. ‘jent of sorghum seed has been increas- (jthe increased cost of seed, safer and chemicals becoming available and a the planting seed being purchased. _portant forage sorghum varieties are f- e to kernel smut. Seed of unknown ‘be treated with a fungicide before a treatment of sorghum is necessary .1 eather follows planting. A fungicide Qreduces seed rot and seedling blight ection by the kernel smuts. An in- the seed from ants and several kinds o protects the seed in storage. f d are susceptible to damage from f;.with some seed protectants. Seed lly are effective and not injurious A the rates recommended by the manu- TI treatments are applied as a dust, some others as a spray. The effectiveness yes and insecticides is reduced when Jogether, but others are effective in veral organic fungicides will improve j-ol smut. Some compounds control y‘ seed inclosed within glumes while I fective. Recommendations of the ways should be followed when apply- alone or in combination. of seed treatment is covered thor- ,3 Yearbook of Agriculture article en- '; Seeds to Prevent Diseases,” by R. XV. 34-145. Detailed information on seed lis given in MP-219, U. S. Department I ms AND HYBRIDS h; urns include the sorgos, dual-purpose i varieties, and forage hybrids. Com- bine grain sorghums sometimes are harvested for forage if drouth reduces the grain yield, but they are rarely planted for forage. The sorgos are the tall, sweet-stemmed varieties, many of which are used to make sorghum sirup. The dual-purpose forage varie- ties were grown widely before 1940 as feed for horses and mules and are still grown to some extent. Forage hybrids are produced by growing a male-sterile female parent (usually a kafir) in a crossing field with a sorgo, a dual-purpose forage variety or a Sudangrass as a pollinator. The tallest sorghum varieties are dominant for the four genes that influence height in sorghum. The few sorgo varieties that have been identified are re- cessive for one height gene. Dual-purpose varieties that were grown a few years ago for hand-heading and ' are still grown to some extent for forage, grow 4 or 5 feet tall and are recessive for two genes. This height class is now called 2-dwarf. Combine grain varieties are recessive for three genes and their height class is now called 3-dwarf. Sorgo Varieties Technical Bulletin 506 of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Identification, History and Distribu- tion of Common Sorghum Varieties,” by H. N. Vinall, J. C. Stephens and H. Martin, gives an account and a botanical description of sorghum varieties growing in the United States in 1936. Most of the sorgos now grown are described since only a few have originated since that time. A list of sorgo varieties being grown in the United States is included in Table 4 along with data on days from planting until blooming and height. The most widely grown sorgo varieties in Texas are Atlas, Sumac, Sourless (African Millet), Tracy and Honey. All are described in Tech. Bul. 506 with the exception of Tracy. Tracy was selected at Chillicothe from the progeny of a cross between White African and Sumac and was named and distributed by the U. S. Sugar Plant Field Station, Meridian, Mississippi. Tracy is a tall, pink-seeded, sweet and juicy stemmed variety that stands well and makes good quality forage and sirup. Tracy is almost 2 weeks later in maturity than Atlas and Sumac. Performance in Texas Sorgo varieties have been tested for yield in Texas for many years. They were discussed in Texas Station Bulletin 496, “Forage Sorghums in Texas,” by J. R. Quinby, J. C. Stephens, R. E. Karper and D. L. Jones. issued in 1934. Many forage sorghum varieties were tested at 13 locations in Texas in recent years. The yield data are shown in Table 5. Sorgo varieties appear to respond uniformly to changes in environ- ment and there is no indication that any variety has a peculiar adaptation to any geographical area. The same correlation between late maturity and high forage yield is apparent at all locations when soil moisture is adequate. Air-dry forage usually contains about 90 percent dry-matter and 10 percent moisture. Silage usually contains about 30 percent dry-matter and 70 percent moisture. For this reason, silage yield in the table is shown to be three times that of air-dry forage. Even though the average forage yields of Sart, Wiley and Hodo are above those of earlier-maturing TABLE 4. SORGO YARIETIES AND THEIR DAYS TO BLOOM AND HEIGHT AT CHILLICOTHE, 1956-58 21:2: ‘$5.152: Atlas group Atlas 73 83 Axtell 65 74 Amber group Black Amber 62 87 Chinese Amber 62 87 Rancher 46 59 Red Amber 61 72 Collier group Collier 66 94 Kansas Collier 65 81 Brawley 711 92‘ Colman 74 81 Crystal Drip 66 87 Denton 75 84 Dutch Boy 74 66 Dwarf Ashburn 79 84 Ellis 64 70 Folger 66 73 Fremont 55 61 Gooseneck 100 l 13 Gooseneck (a different variety) 68 86 Honey (Texas Seeded Ribbon) 97 95 Hodo 100 106 Jo-hee 70 75 Leoti 63 78 McLean 69 86 Orange group Iceberg, Iceberg Orange, Georgia Blue Ribbon 88 88 Kansas Orange 77 88 Orange 77 88 Rox Orange (Waconia Orange) 66 69 Sapling group Rex 73 76 Sapling 80 98 Saccaline 77 92 Straightneck 75 89 Sart 100 116 Sourless group Kansas Sourless 65 77 Planter 76 90 Sourless (African Millet) 74 83 Sourless Orange 68 78 White Sourless 65 81 Sugar Drip 78 85 Sumac group Early Sumac 64 69 Medium Dwarf Sumac 66 65 Sumac (Red Top) 71 77 Sumac PI 1712 74 72 Sumac 108 65 67 Tracy 85 96 White African 78 91 Wiley 100 108 Williams 80 97 ‘I959 data. l0 varieties, they probably should notli under irrigation. Wiley seems to n; some stalk rots. The seed supply . usually is inadequate to allow wides Honey, Tracy, Sugar Drip and", earlier in maturity thamSart, Wily are late-maturing varieties. These ture in most Texas areas in a seaso fall, but exhaust the soil moisture a season of drouth. These varieti safely under favorable conditions, bu i, what less than Sart, Wiley and Hod conditions. ‘ Brawley, Sourless Orange, Ka €_ less, Atlas and Sumac have the dura varieties commonly grown on drylang mature in about 100 days and usu , the soil moisture is exhausted. Q Atlas are the most popular varieties. class. White Sourless, Rox Orange f; have durations of growth too sho production in most of Texas. At f 4,000 feet in the Panhandle area of this maturity can be grown wi in yield. i Several varieties listed in Table tested for yield in Texas in recent i’ been grown in nurseries on experi" none is higher yielding than those i the untested varieties are too early i useful in Texas, and normally are gr A, The ability to stand up while vi high winds during rainstorms is a v ‘ istic in a tall-growing sorghum v i! Atlas stand well and Sourless and 8 well. Hi-hegari has been known to“; Dual-purpose Vari The dual-purpose forage varieti in Texas are Hegari, Early Hegari hull kafir. These varieties are recessi four dwarfing genes in sorghum. ._ than Hegari or Early Hegari and is l,’ The hegaris are sensitive to length of’; not be planted for forage anywherei: May l or later. Combine (3-dwarf)i varieties and hybrids are harvest forage if drouth reduces grain yield. V stricken grain sorghum is reduced A1 the reduction in grain since soil m ample for plant growth until the n», Performance in Texas Hegari and Texas Blackhull grown in comparison with sorgo v . cothe and Lubbock for many yearsf 1+" 5. FORAGE YIELD OF SORGO VARIETIES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN TEXAS Comparable air-dry forage yield, tons per acre i. 86M M L Chillicothe Lubbock Average ,' ' Pr?!“ Plan- Nac°g' Tyler Pleas- Temple Denton Dry- Irri- Dry- Irri- Days i “cw ' doches 1956 1956 land ated land ated Air- to 1956 tanon 1956 1958 ant g g . 1 a 69 1956 69 -59 1958 -58 -59 1949 1955 1956 1956 dry Silage bloom '59 '59 -59 -59 -5s -5s h"? 5.13 10.76 5.98 3.85 10.95 8.12 8.03 2.43 9.54 3.04 9.49 6.95 20.85 100 7.95 8.51 7.48 2.72 7.76 3.24 7.35 6.01 18.03 100 4.89 10.10 6.64 7.93 6.77 1.62 5.92 2.02 5.23 5.72 17.16 100 4.79 6.93 6.09 2.75 8.90 5.20 7.74 2.27 7.18 2,62 6.77 5.48 16.44 97 4.65 7.08 6.05 2.50 5.85 5.74 8.25 2.97 6.77 3.29 7.52 5.44 16.32 85 6.44 2.62 8.09 5.25 15.75 71 7.55 2.48 7.03 5.02 15.06 78 6.43 2.43 7.24 4.60 13.80 68 4.08 5.76 3.84 3.83 4.50 2.42 7. 11 2.90 7.43 3.12 5.83 4.53 13.59 4.37 5.91 2.35 3.34 6.01 2.54 7.82 3.34 6.52 4.48 13.44 74 6.77 2.51 - 6.60 4.48 13.44 74 4.38 5.70 4.41 2.80 4.45 3.62 6.04 2.60 6.29 2.89 6.60 4.45 13.35 73 5.86 2.40 6.96 4.39 13.17 77 5.30 1.97 7.17 4.35 13.05 65 3.78 4.86 5.18 3.40 6.77 2.63 6.39 3.18 5.04 4.27 12.81 71 4.56 2.06 5.48 3.70 11.10 66 4.04 2.66 7.98 64 " ~ ting in early June. I produced 10 percent more forage percent more than Texas Black- “ e Kafir-60 produced only 50 per- A Atlas and 68 percent as much kafir. Close-drill Planting f“ is sown for hay production at unds per acre, any variety exhausts yoisture except in favorable seasons. l ‘on of drilled sorghum is so high _- elop very few seed and there is -to store sugar in the stalks. For 't the same amount and quality of ‘rdless of the variety planted. It to plant low-cost seed and the rtant. Usually Hegari or some is sown. Forage Hybrids The existence of male-sterility in sorghum makes it possible to produce sorghum types that are inter- grades among grain sorghums, sorgos and Sudan- grasses. A 3-dwarf sorgo has not yet been produced and male-sterilized. The female parents now used to produce forage hybrids are 3-dwarf grain types, but short-statured, sweet and juicy stemmed seed parents soon will be in existence. Pollinators of forage hybrids now in use are either sorgos, Hegari or Hegari deriva- tives or Sudangrasses. Performance in Texas Forage hybrids were tested at 10 locations in Texas during 1958-59. The data are shown in Table 7. Most of the hybrids will produce more forage than Sumac and Atlas and several more forage than Honey and Sart. The highest yielding hybrids appear g YIELD OF SORGO AND DUAL-PURPOSE FORAGE SORGHUM VARIETIES AT CHILLICOTHE AND ‘l! LUBBOCK l Comparable air-dry forage yield, tons per acre Chillicothe Lubbock Average Dryland Irrigated Dryland Irrigated Air-dry 8,1 1949-59 1955-59 1956-58 1956-58 forage 1 ag° 2.27 7.18 2.62 6.77 4.71 14.13 2.60 6.29 2.89 6.60 4.60 13.80 2.63 6.39 3.18 5.04 4.31 12.93 ' 2.58 6.85 2.74 4.67 4.21 12.63 kafir 2.16 5.51 1.74 4.23 3.41 10.23 1.20 2.60 1.87 3.58 2.31 6.93 11 TABLE 7. FORAGE YIELD OF SORGO VARIETIES AND FORAGE SORGHUM HYBRIDS AT VARIO 7 TEXAS Comparable average yield of air-dry forage, tons per acre Chillicothe Lubbock _ _ _ Brazos Variety or hybrid 1959 1958 Nacog‘ pleas. Frame Valley Benton Kirb?“ Cleve‘ _ _ doches am ' Lab 1959 ville land DIV" 1m‘ DIV‘ 1m‘ 1959 1959 ' 1959. 1959 land gated land gated 1959 1959 Lindsey 115F 5.94 16.44 NK 320 5.76 9.97 13.70 Beef Builder . 5.00 10.00 7.00 16.60 6.70 7.60 12.20 7.50 7.10 NK 300 5.34 11.86 11.60 Lindsey, l0lF 5.69 12.38 3.80 9.40 Sart 2.43 9.54 2.90 10.80 3.20 14.40 5.90 7.20 10.90 3.43 6.87 FS-22, DeKalb 5.26 9.96 5.50 9.10 5.40 5.00 12.80 5.33 4.33 Honey 2.27 7.18 2.80 8.00 11.30 7.00 5.40 14.70 3.47 3.93 Sx-11 Sudan hybrid, DeK alb 3. l l 9.3 l 7.50 5.27 4.27 Lindsey 92F 4.30 7.14 Silo King 3.60 5.20 4.90 6.90 5.60 4.20 10.40 4.57 3.40 FS-la, DeKalb 4.51 10.30 3.30 6.30 3.60 4.50 6.00 5.00 6.10 4.43 4.27 Atlas 2.60 6.29 2.70 8.20 5.00 5.30 5.60 4.70 7.70 3.67 2.83 Steckley FS 300 3.00 7.13 NK 145 2.21 7.50 S-210, Frontier 2.70 5.60 Sumac 2.63 6.39 2.40 4.30 to have Hegari or Early Hegari in their parentage. Several of the hybrids appear to have Atlas in their parentage since the hybrids are male-sterile. Experimental Hybrids Forage hybrids have not come into use as rapidly as grain hybrids because existing varieties produce large amounts of forage and because the quality of the forage from intermediate types is not definitely known. Nevertheless, forage hybrids are coming into use and several of the best forage hybrids are not yet in production. Experimental hybrids of known parentage have been screened at Chillicothe for several years. A summary of data from both dry- land and irrigated tests at Chillicothe during 1957-59 is shown in Table 8. Each hybrid was not grown in all six plantings and the yields shown are comparable averages. As the data show, hybrids produce more forage and grain than varieties of the same duration of growth. There is every reason for forage hybrids to replace forage varieties if yield is the only basis of selection; The higher yielding sorgo hybrids that bloomed in 70 days or less produced more forage than Sart even though Sart was not mature until a month later. Among sorgo hybrids of similar duration of growth, some produced as much as 50 percent more forage than others. Hybrids such as RS 301, 302 and 303 do not produce forage yields high enough to be used much in Texas; but they are of interest farther north since they will produce as much forage as Atlas and in less time. Hybrids whose male parents have kafir in their parentage (such as Atlas) generally are partially or 12 almost completely male-sterile. q. Kafir x Atlas in Table 8 is not low, t test, ample pollen is available from L to cause normal seed sets. In a hybrids will produce little seed u centage (perhaps 15 percent) of consists of a fertile variety or hybri; Hybrids with Hegari in their the same maturity as Honey, but l. as 50 percent more forage than Sp i than 2 weeks later in maturity. _ relatively tall even though their p “t dwarfs. Kafir x Hegari hybrids prod of grain. Because of their long d '1 they should not be planted except‘! conditions or under irrigation. M will lodge under some conditions. l‘ Sudangrass hybrids produce less A hybrids of similar durations of growy same amounts as sorgo varieties. P’ taller than sweet hybrids. Sudangrass and the stems are much smaller th A varieties. " Sorgos and Corn for l‘ Sorgo varieties were compared . hybrid and one corn variety at six l during 1956-57. The data are sho; Corn in Texas is less productive of f g sorghums. Atlas produced 26 perc; than Texas 34 and Honey, 73 per A plant populations of corn probably. ciently high to allow maximum fora i D, PERCENT GRAIN, DAYS TO BLOOM AND HEIGHT OF FORAGE HYBRIDS FROM DRYLAND AND IRRIGATED PLANTINGS EACH YEAR AT CHILLICOTHE, 1952-59 Comparable forage yleld, _% gram Days Height’ tons per acre 1n air-dry to inches Aipdry Silagc forage bloom 9.63 28.89 18 72 86 8.54 25.62 20 68 79 7.84 23.52 14 62 80 .. Orange 7.81 23.43 21 65 76 7.70 23.10 22 63 86 7.38 22.14 22 60 74 Eubhead 7.1s 21.54 1s 62 76 ‘f ange PI 2363 6.50 19.50 20 63 74 8 tlas 6.10 18.50 15 69 79 . k 6.00 18.00 19 6s 7s 5.88 17.64 14 65 74 5.82 17.46 16 62 85 5.44 16.32 28 63 78 5.41 16.23 19 67 67 4.63 13.89 18 64 74 HYBRIDS 12.08 36.24 17 84 90 12.00 36.00 21 84 60 11.15 33.45 18 82 73 10.26 30.78 18 86 70 10.06 30.18 20 88 83 6.04 18.12 10 71 105 5.52 16.56 17 64 77 5.38 16.14 15 70 106 5.14 15.42 16 64 70 4.58 15.74 ’ 1s 66 95 6.94 20.82 3 97 104 6.46 19.38 l0 86 91 5.69 17.07 1s 72 74 jgronAoa SORGHUM Alimate suitable for feeding live- oice quality feeder cattle and pro- o m grain and roughage to support jtry (Figures 6 and 7) . Roughage ant feed for the production of ock. Native pastures supply most id in the production of the calf i ortages of native forage develop V. ring drouths, and more roughage should be produced and stored. Forage sorghum is the most suitable crop for such purpose. An increasing number of feedlots have been established in recent years and several feedlot opera- tors use sorghum silage, hay or chopped bundles in rations with sorghum grain and cottonseed meal to finish cattle for market. The amount of sorghum harvested for silage has increased with mechanization while the amount of sorghum harvested as bundles has declined. i; ‘O OF FORAGE YIELDS OF SORGO AND CORN VARIETIES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN TEXAS Yield of air-dry forage, tons per acre , Kirby- Prairie Nacog- A8cM Average Yield , , . . Denton Temple _ V; _ vllle a V1ew doches Plantation 7 1957 Air-dry _ 1 1956 a 1956-57 1956-57 1956-57 19565 forage 511959 7.80 4.36 8.31 11.17 7.26 6.78 7.61 22.83 5.97 3.88 7.32 6.26 6.02 5.92 5.90 17.70 6.03 3.60 6.71 7.36 7.75 3.04 5.75 17.25 4.37 3.56 4.68 5.54 5.12 2.47 4.29 12.87 4.77 1.92 3.36 5.40 1.64 3.28 3.40 10.20 2.02 3.30 4.17 1.94 1.34 2.83 8.49 13 TABLE 10. HIGH SORGHUM ROUGHAGE AT THE SPUR STATION Initial weight of s i Kati” s15 s00 780 Averages in pounds M; Cottonseed meal 2.5 4.0 2.0 a Sorghum grain 3.6 i‘ 3.6 6.6 A Alfalfa hay 6.0 2.0 é Cottonseed (whole) Sorghum silage 49.5 59.0 54.0 Sorghum fodder Dry roughage, % dry weight 77 70 68 extent than the supply of grain. R0 expensive t0 transport per unit of fee Figure 6. Yearling steers grazing a sumac sorghum field in October. Steers grazed this field from Sep- tember 15 to November 1 and gained more than a pound grain. per head daily. Similar steers on dry native grass _ _ _ gained less than one-half pound daily during this pe- Rations high 1n roughage seldom t; riod. ‘ trouble such as bloat, but fattening _ these rations are not used where a s‘ Feedlot Ratlons if” Beef Cattle finish is desired. Such rations are u l The type of ration to be used depends largely ing 600d '10 LOW Chm“? grdd‘? bwfin on the supply and price of feeds, of 120 to 140 days. Rations high f_ produce finish in less time and highs-r Rations containing 55 to 65 percent concentrates rgalizgd by Continugd f€eding_ are indicated when grain supplies total digestible ‘i’ : nutrients at a lower unit cost than the roughages. Heavy or light yearlings may bef Conversely, rations containing 55 to 65 percent of high in roughage. If the feeding p, roughage have a place in the marketing of farm-grown to 3 or 4 months, 700-pound yearlings feeds through cattle. The amount, kind and price fatness at the close of the period H of roughage affects the choice of rations to a greater yearlings. Figure 7. Little feed is wasted when forage sorghum is prepared and fed as silage. i’ 14 'ent Station pastures steers from lings, then fattens in drylot on y ‘ghage. This is a method of '1 um amounts of roughage in l ketable slaughter steers. Typical fcomparatively high in roughage, l0. 1 and Sorghum Bundles l. which are harvested and stored table feeds for cattle. Silage is a some advantages over chopped ‘_ tions in areas where high winds l meal and ground grain stick to p_ I or ground bundles are light _ blow from the trough during with the meal and grain. Ground l ntage in mixing for self-feeders. “imethod of self-feeding silage has V» for large scale feeding operations. "g operations, the cattle have to Cattle have been self-fed silage ‘a silos with head gates to prevent "all number can eat at one time nnot be mixed with the silage. ‘vantage of silage over dry rough- f ation of nutrients and protection l Silage crops have been stored types of silos for 15 to 20 years nutritive value. Forage sorghums as silage than as bundle feed. In ts, cattle fed silage rations with concentrates made higher gains ‘an those fed chopped bundles, “Dual-purpose Varieties i for Silage ‘yucted during 1938-46 to compare “silage made from forage sorghum “hum. Kafir, Hegari and Martin Sumac or Red Top as the forage ‘fers fed Sumac silage gained 2.32 ,=Ihead daily, compared with gains artin and 2.46 pounds on Hegari A ‘red in the feedlot on Kafir silage ‘f; hile those on Sumac silage gained ad“ daily. The Kafir silage with if64i2 percent was a better rough- ‘Sumac silage with 74.5 percent yjsteers fed these same silages with nseed meal per head daily gained Eon the Kafir and 1.98 pounds on iifThese larger steers consumed 29 ge. (10.4 pounds dry matter) and c silage (9.4 pounds dry matter) TABLE ll. A COMPARISON BETWEEN SORGHUM SILAGE AND SORGHUM BUNDLES FOR FATTENING STEERS‘ 1944-45 test, 140 days 1945-46 test, ll2 days Item “£352? sum- “zsszzd sum-- bundles silage bundles silage Average in pounds per steer Initial weight 802 802 800 795 Daily gain, feedlot 2.14 2.32 2.28 2.52 Dressing %, warm’ 62.00 63.05 60.42 60.47 Carcass grades: . Choice 5 6 l 2 Good 5 4 l0 8 Daily ration: Cottonseed meal 4.0 4.0 3.96 4.0 Sorghum grain 3.6 3.6 1.88 1.93 Bundles or silage 29.3 59.3 26.9 53.4 Net return per head $16.71 $22.39 $23.70 $26.05 ‘Data from TAES Progress Reports 962 and 1033. “Dressing percent based on market weight at Fort Worth and warm carcass weight. The main difference between forage and grain sorghums in these tests was in yield of green feed per acre. Under dryland conditions, Sumac produced an average of 8 tons per acre, whereas Kafir and Hegari produced 5 tons per acre. An acre of Sumac fed approximately l.7 steers and an acre of grain sorghum, 1.2 steers. Chemical analyses of the silages used in these tests showed that forage varieties have 5 to l0 percent more water and a slightly lower protein and carbo- hydrate content on a wet basis than grain varieties, but forage varieties have a higher carotene content. Table l2 gives the percentage composition of nutrients in forage sorghum varieties and in some of the re- cently developed forage sorghum hybrids. Dryland and Irrigated Sorghum Forages Analyses of forage sorghum grown on dryland and under irrigation are shown in Table 12. Irriga- tion increases the production per acre and more pounds of each nutrient are produced under irriga- tion than on dryland. However, pound for pound, dryland crops are higher in total digestible nutrients, lower in fiber and produce a more palatable rough- age than irrigated crops. A higher percentage of con- centrates should be fed with irrigated roughages to obtain comparable results. Bundled and Chopped Sorghum Fodder Whole bundles are seldom used in drylot fatten- ing ope-rations. Grinding or chopping reduces waste and allows the mixing of complete rations for delivery to the feed‘ troughs. Bundled feeds are used less than in earlier years since much of the sorghum acreage is now planted 15 TABLE 12. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION YIELDS PER ACRE, WITH AND WITHOUT IRRIGATION1 OF SEVERAL VARIETIES OF SORGHUM SILA .2 Dry basis j Variet Water » y Protein Fat (flirgie iii-tit; Ash Gigi?’ ‘I: DRYLAND Sumac 74.5 10.27 3.25 27.60 50.10 8.78 , 29.4 Kafir 64.2 8.52 2.71 24.86 55.00 8.91 < 11.2 Hegari 67.2 7.62 2.74 19.21 57.32 12.10 ' 15.0 Atlas 71.5 9.55 2.70 23.38 55.30 9.07 27.6 Sourless 72.5 7.60 1.85 26.98 56.15 7.42 Lindsey, 1l5F 80.2 4.86 1.97 24.23 62.19 6.75 6.5 DeKalb, FS 1-A 79.5 7.13 1.66 23.98 58.11 9.12 13.9 Corn’ 70.6 6.39 2.99 24.05 59.08 7.49 IRRIGATED Atlas 75.3 6.97 2.78 23.97 57.66 8.62 Lindsey, 10lF 85.2 4.50 1.55 28.65 57.78 7.52 17.9 Lindsey, 1l5F 84.8 3.41 1.81 30.81 56.91 7.06 5.1 DeKalb, FS l-A 80.6 3.61 2.01 25.53 60.26 8.59 3.9 Honey 80.6 4.54 2.79 25.09 59.99 7.59 Honeys 83.9 4.66 2.05 42.23 40.18 10.86 ‘Analyses made by State Chemist, College Station, Texas. 2Com included for comparative purposes. “Crop had very large stalks; silage was coarse and fibrous. to the combine varieties, and more of the forage sorghums are going into silos. However, bundles are convenient for winter maintenance feeding on native grass and small grain pastures. Many ranchmen still use this method of winter feeding with little waste, except grain. Minerals Fed with Sorghum Rations Sorghum grain and forage are low in calcium. Rations consisting largely of sorghum grain and sorghum forage fed in the growing and fattening of young cattle should be supplemented with calcium. Recommended allowances are 0.10 pound of pulver- ized limestone or oyster shell flour daily per head and mixed with the ration. Alfalfa hay, 2.0 pounds daily per head, also will supply necessary calcium. These practices have been established by numerous feeding trials. Phosphorus deficiencies are not recognized as a problem with the sorghum rations used for growing and fattening. Such rations commonly are supple- mented with cottonseed meal which is a good source of phosphorus. Trace mineral deficiency has not been established as a problem in the use of the sorghum rations. Calculi develop occasionally in the kidneys and bladders of cattle fattened on sorghum rations. The problem has been under study for several years, but a positive control for the condition has not been determined. Pelleted Roughages Pelleting may result in an increased use of sor- ghum forage. Pelleted roughages can be hauled, stored and fed more; easily than bundles or silage. Livestock fed pelleted roughages consume more feed and make higher gains than those fed loose roughages, according to many trials. The present costs of pelleting limit 16 its usage, but improvements in machit may be expected. ‘ Forage Sorghum for Other‘ Cattle, sheep and horses make ;-' ghum forages for growth, maintenan Beef and dairy cattle account for u sumption. Sorghum silage is a usef ing dairy cows and the use of green 1s increasing. ‘ Lambs may be fattened on ra a forage, sorghum grain and cotto _ rations are low in calcium and sh mented with pulverized limestone or The sorghum rations also may be " addition of alfalfa hay. One-fourth y ized limestone or oyster shell flour an’! of alfalfa hay are recommended ad Good quality sorghum forage I» practically any feeding purpose. ACKNOWLEDG Data in this bulletin were sup‘ who conducted the yield trials and The following personnel of the T Experiment Station, Texas Agri _ Service or the Agricultural Resear Department of Agriculture, were l supply data or criticize the manuscri N. W. Kramer, G. King, K. B. P0 ' E. M. Neal, P. R. Johnson, D. I. D liams, R. Wood, A. Lancaster, Holt, D. T. Rosenow, j. H. Jones, Schertz, W. C. Hall, E. D. Cook, i? H. C. Hutson. Several pictures were supplied r Company, Dallas, Texas. ‘