© 2010 Plant Management Network.

Accepted for publication 7 October 2009. Published 25 January 2010.

Forage Sorghum Nutritive Value: A Review

Francisco E. Contreras-Govea, Assistant Professor, Agricultural
Science Center, New Mexico State University, Artesia, NM 88210;
Mark A. Marsalis, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Science Center,
New Mexico State University, Clovis, NM 88101;
Leonard M. Lauriault, College Professor, Agricultural Science
Center, New Mexico State University, Tucumcari, NM 88401; and
Brent W. Bean, Professor and Extension Agronomist, Texas AgriLife
Research and Extension Center, Amarillo, TX 79106

Corresponding author: Francisco E. Contreras-Govea. fecontre@nmsu.edu

Contreras-Govea, F. E., Marsalis, M. A., Lauriault, L. M., and Bean, B. W. 2010. Forage
sorghum nutritive value: A review. Online. Forage and Grazinglands doi:10.1094/FG-
2010-0125-01-RV.

Introduction
Under the scope of higher water use efficiency, forage crops like forage
sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.] have been promoted as a substitute of
corn (Zea mays L.) silage in dairy or beef cattle (Bos taurus L.) rations. Even
though in regions like the Southern High Plains where the Ogallala Aquifer is
declining (3) and research studies support that forage sorghum uses less water
than corn in many situations (15,16,20), forage producers continue to grow corn
instead of forage sorghum for silage. In addition, plant breeding programs have
narrowed the gap in nutritive value between corn and forage sorghum, but
preferences still remain for corn. The objective of this review is to discuss the
substantial improvement of forage sorghum nutritive value in the last twenty
years and analyze why forage producers are still unwilling to use forage
sorghum instead of corn for silage.

Forage Sorghum Nutritive Value

Differences in nutritive value and digestibility among forage crops are
determined by differences in plant tissue types. Plants with a C3 photosynthetic
pathway are generally more digestible and have greater nutritive value than
plants with a C4 photosynthetic pathway (29). Generally the main tissue types of
C3 and C4 plants are the epidermis, mesophyll, and parenchyma, which in terms
of digestibility are mesophyll > epidermis > parenchyma (29). The proportion of
these three tissue types varies between C3 and C4 plants. The C4 plants contain
greater proportion of parenchyma tissue than C3, in which mesophyll tissue is
more abundant (29). Even though corn and forage sorghum have same
photosynthetic pathway (C4), the difference in tissue structure and distribution
of leaves, stem, and ears/head is reflected in differences in nutritive value.
Schmid et al. (28) conducted a study to compare the nutritive value of corn and
forage sorghum for silage. Samples of eleven corn hybrids and 14 forage
sorghum cultivars were separated into leaves, stem, and ears. On average the
proportion of leaves and ears was greater and stem was lower in corn than
forage sorghum (Table 1). A greater ADF concentration in non-bmr forage
sorghum than corn may be associated with lower digestibility. Stems have a
rigid structure and large proportions of the tissue are lignified and not available
for digestion (1). In a different study Cummins (11) compared four forage
sorghums at four maturity stages and separated leaf, stem, and head proportion
and nutritive value of each component (Table 2). Similar to Schmid’s study,
stem was in greater proportion at all maturity stages. Although Cummins did
not compare nutritive value among plant components, greater digestibility of
stem than leaf, and similar to head digestibility was observed in three of the four

Forage and Grazinglands 25 January 2010

 maturity stages, even though ADF concentration was higher in stem than leaf
(Table 2). Pedersen et al. (25) also reported greater digestibility of stem than
leaves when harvesting five forage sorghums at two maturity stages. The main
factor affecting digestibility of forages as they mature is the higher fiber and
lignin concentration (9). Leaves of grasses, like forage sorghum, have a lignified
midrib to provide support, but also contribute to their higher fiber
concentration (9). The lower digestibility of forage sorghum leaves compared to
stem isassociated with differences in the proportion of tissue types in each of
these two organs (29). In addition, while ADF concentration in forage sorghum
leaves increases with maturity, it remains relatively constant in stems or tends
to decrease (11). It was suggested that increasing fiber digestibility of leaves and
stem of forage sorghum through plant breeding would make this crop more
competitive in nutritive value to corn (13).

Table 1. Stem, leaf, and head proportion in corn and forage sorghum (28).
Whole plant
Proportion (%) composition (%)

leaves stem ears/heads ADFx DDM

11 corn hybrids Average 35 30 35 29 63.8

SE of mean 8.0 9.0 16.0 3.2 3.2

14 forage Average 29 46 25 34.9 55.6
sorghum cultivars
SE of mean 6.0 14.0 16.0 5.3 4.6
x
ADF = acid detergent fiber; DDM = digestible dry matter.

Table 2. Forage sorghum composition and nutritive value at four maturity stages
(11).
Component (%) IVDMD (%)x ADF (%)

Maturity head leaf stem head leaf stem leaf stem

xy
Late milk 19d 24a 57a 44b 38b 55ab 34.6c 39.3a

Early dough 27c 20b 53b 52a 44a 55a 35.4bc 38.6a

Dough 35b 18c 47c 54a 46a 53b 38.0ab 39.4a

Hard dough 39a 16d 45c 53a 44a 54ab 40.3a 37.8a
x
IVDMD = in vitro dry matter digestibility; ADF = acid detergent fiber.
y
Means with different letter within a column are different.

Agronomic management also can increase nutritive value of forage sorghum.

Increasing plant space within-row can reduce NDF concentration and increased
in vitro digestibility by 8.7%; however, DM yield can be reduced up to 25.7%
(10).

Increasing Forage Sorghum Nutritive Value with BMR Genes

The bmr mutant, single-gene mutation (brown-midrib phenotypes) that
affect fiber concentration, and increases digestibility, has been used to enhance
corn and forage sorghum nutritive value. The first brown midrib (bmr)
mutation was reported in corn by Kuc and Nelson in 1964, indicating lower
lignin concentration than conventional plants and with greater in vitro
digestibility (18). In sorghum, Porter et al. (27) induced for the first time a
mutation in two lines of grain sorghum to characterize phenotype changes and
fiber composition and in vitro digestibility. Phenotypic changes on the bmr
sorghum plants were observed with a brown pigmentation in the midrib of the
leaf, stem, pith, and immature panicle branches. In all cases the brown color
was associated with the vascular tissue, which is linked to indigestible tissue
(29). Of the 13 sorghum mutants assessed, six (designated as bmr-2, bmr-6,
bmr-12, bmr-14, bmr-18, and bmr-19) were selected for the low stem lignin

Forage and Grazinglands 25 January 2010

 concentration. Reduction in stem lignin concentration ranged from 18 to 51%.
Similar trends were observed in leaves where lignin reduction ranged from 5 to
25%. In vitro dry matter digestibility of stem increased from 2 to 19 percentage
units over conventional stem sorghum with the reduction in lignin
concentration (27). Digestibility also increased in leaves with the reduction in
lignin concentration, but only by 2.8 percentage units higher than conventional
sorghum leaves (27). Hanna et al. (17) also reported an increase in digestibility
of bmr stem and leaf in a magnitude of 8.2 and 6.1 percentage units,
respectively, greater than conventional forage sorghum. The greater digestibility
of bmr leaves was associated with an increase in digestibility of parenchyma
bundle sheaths, which are one of the most indigestible tissues and which were
more rapidly degraded in bmr than conventional leaves (2).
Even though the reduction in lignin concentration with bmr mutants
brought a new opportunity to improve forage sorghum nutritive value, this also
carried other negative effects that have limited the acceptance of forage
sorghum. Pedersen et al. (26) established that in crops like forage sorghum,
lignin is a component essential to plant health, survival, and functionality
impacting plant environmental fitness. The various bmr mutant genes impact
the plant differently; for example, bmr-6 reduces DM yield, height, tillering, and
regrowth after harvest, bmr-12 decreases days to flower, and bmr-18 has no
effect on days to flower and sheath blight susceptibility (26). Overall, bmr
mutation genes in forage sorghum increased nutritive value but also increased
lodging and reduced yield (26). There is however, a great deal of variability in
lodging within bmr and conventional forage sorghum types. Bean (5) reported
that lodging on average has not been worse with the bmr varieties. However, a
higher percentage of the bmr varieties tend to have at least some observable
lodging compared to the non-bmrs. Lodging can be minimized by variety
choice, not over fertilizing with nitrogen, and planting a lower seeding rate. The
effect of low DM yield compared to conventional forage sorghum types is
further supported by results from Bean et al. (6) and Marsalis et al. (20).
Oliver et al. (24) compared DM yield and nutritive value of conventional
forage sorghum cultivars with four forage sorghum cultivars that have the bmr-
6 and bmr-12 genes. Averaging over the four varieties, bmr forage sorghum
yield was 10 to 15% lower than conventional forage sorghum (Table 3). Lodging
was similar across conventional and bmr forage sorghums. The NDF and ADF
concentrations were different between the two bmr and conventional forage
sorghums. The bmr-6 had NDF and ADF concentrations that were lower than
conventional cultivars, while the bmr-12 had NDF concentrations greater than,
and ADF concentrations equal to conventional forage sorghum cultivars.
However, both bmr forage sorghums had lower ADL concentration, ranging on
average from 4.3 to 12.8%, and greater NDF digestibility than conventional
cultivars (Table 3). In Texas, McCollum et al. (21) summarized five years of
testing different varieties of conventional forage sorghum (154 entries) and bmr
forage sorghum (99 entries). On average, NDF and ADF concentration were
similar between conventional forage sorghum (46.6% and 28.0%) and bmr
forage sorghums (45.5% and 27.0%), but ADL concentration was 23% lower and
digestibility was 5.3% greater in the bmr than conventional forage sorghum.
However, they identified conventional forage sorghum cultivars with similar or
greater nutritive value than some bmr forage sorghum. They established that it
is not possible to generalize that all bmr forage sorghums are better than
conventional forage sorghums; selection should be based on performance by
individual cultivars. Similar statements were expressed by Bolsen (7) after
summarizing 25 year of sorghum silage research at Kansas State University. He
said "the phenotypic traits of forage sorghum cultivars vary greatly, and the
wide range in plant height, DM content, and grain yield contribute to large
differences in nutritional value among cultivars."

Forage and Grazinglands 25 January 2010

 Table 3. Conventional and bmr forage sorghum nutritive valuex (24).
Conventional BMR-6 BMR-12 SEM

Lodging (%) 23 23 22 8.0

DMy yield (t/ha) 15.0az 12.8c 13.5b 1.0

NDF (g /kg) 454 449 463 12

ADF (g/kg) 269a 262b 268a 11

ADL (g/kg) 70a 67a 61b 10

IVNDFD (g/ kg NDF) 646b 666a 655a 9.0

x
Average of four forage sorghums or two each for the bmr’s.
y
DM = dry matter; NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber;
ADL = acid detergent lignin; IVNDFD = in vitro neutral detergent fiber
digestibility.
z
Means with different letter within a row are different.

Forage Sorghum Silage Nutritive Value

Differences in nutritive value before fermentation between corn and forage
sorghum are maintained after fermentation. Forage sorghum silage ferments
similar to corn with pH below 4.0 (12, 22) and digestibility equal or better than
corn, depending on the cultivar (12). Because forage sorghum is sometimes
ensiled with higher moisture content than corn, greater acetic acid
concentration than corn could be expected (7).

Forage Sorghum Silage for Lactating Dairy Cows

The final goal of improving sorghum nutritive value and making it more
competitive to corn has been to substitute corn silage with forage sorghum
silage in dairy cow rations without negatively affecting milk production. One of
the first studies comparing grain sorghum and corn silage was conducted by
Browning and Lusk (8). In this study milk yield was equal between both crop
silages (Table 4). After induction of the bmr mutation in forage sorghum,
studies were conducted to compare conventional forage sorghum, bmr forage
sorghum, and corn silage in different feeding trials (Table 4). The references
presented in Table 4, except for that of Browning and Lusk (7), agree that cows
consuming conventional forage sorghum silage yielded lower milk than corn
silage. Cows fed bmr forage sorghum silage independently of bmr gene
mutation, yielded equal or slightly more 4% fat corrected milk, however, than
corn silage (Table 4). Exceptions were reported by Aydin et al. (4), where in one
experiment milk yield was lower in bmr forage sorghum than corn, and in the
second study milk yield was similar between conventional forage sorghum and
corn silage (Table 4).

Table 4. Fat corrected milk (4% FCM, kg/day) of normal, bmr forage
sorghum, and corn silage.
Reference Normal bmr-6 bmr-12 bmr-18 Corn

Browning and Lusk (8) 16.2a 16.1a

Lusk et al. (19)

Experiment 1 22.3a 21.7b
Experiment 2 24.7a 23.7a

Grant et al. (14) 17.9b 26.2a 26.6a

Oliver et al. (23) 29.1b 33.7a 31.2ab 33.3a

Aydin et al. (4)

Experiment 1 20.7c 23.7b 29.0a
Experiment 2 31.4b 33.8a 32.4ab

Forage and Grazinglands 25 January 2010

 Future of Forage Sorghum Compared with Corn for Silage
Even though forage sorghum breeding has significantly reduced the gap in
nutritive value with corn, the greater energy value and digestibility per pound of
corn silage than forage sorghum, remains as one of the main reasons about why
farmers prefer corn than forage sorghum for silage. Currently farmers who plant
corn can be much more confident in its nutritive value at harvest compared to
forage sorghum. This is primarily due to the variation in forage sorghum
cultivars in nutritive value. In addition, continuous corn breeding selection for
greater stover and starch digestibility and higher drought tolerance could move
the balance even farther toward corn. The references presented in Table 4
document that forage sorghum bmr cultivars can substitute corn silage for
lactating dairy cow rations without affecting milk yield. However, the 20% or
more reduction in DM yield of forage sorghum bmr compared with corn, make
it difficult for farmers to prefer bmr forage sorghum instead of corn. For those
producers who are being faced with a dwindling water supply in the Southern
High Plains, forage sorghum will remain a good option to corn for silage
production.
Bean et al. (6) and Marsalis et al. (20) have demonstrated that forage
sorghum can produce equal or higher amount of DM yield than corn for silage
with similar amounts of water. However, there are some issues that plant
breeders need to address to make forage sorghum more competitive to corn.
Conventional forage sorghum cultivars can yield more than corn, but there is
much variability among cultivars in the amount of grain and leaf and stem
digestibility. Even though forage sorghum DM yield is important, nutritive
value issues need to be better characterized among cultivars to offer a more
consistent and acceptable crop.
The development of bmr forage sorghum greatly improved the nutritive
value of this crop. The bmr forage sorghums can be equal or higher in nutritive
value to corn silage. The feeding trials conducted with lactating dairy cows show
that bmr forage sorghum can substitute for corn silage without a negative
impact on milk yield. However, bmr forage sorghums typically yield less than
corn, and the lodging issue of the forage sorghum in general makes this crop
less attractive to farmers. Plant breeders should focus the effort to develop bmr
forage sorghum cultivars with higher DM yield and reduced lodging without
giving up gains in nutritive value.

Literature Cited
1. Akin, D. E. 1989. Histological and physical factors affecting digestibility of forages.
Agron. J. 81:17-25.
2. Akin, D. E., Hanna, W. W., and Rigsby, L. L. 1986. Normal-12 and brown midrib-12
sorghum. I. Variations in tissue digestibility. Agron. J. 78:827-832.
3. Allen, V. G., Brown, C. P., Kellison, R., Segarra, E., Wheeler, T., Dotray, P. A.,
Conkwright, J. C., Green, C. J., and Acosta-Martinez, V. 2005. Integrating cotton
and beef production to reduce water withdrawal from the Ogallala aquifer in the
Southern High Plains. Agron. J. 97:556-567.
4. Aydin, G., Grant, R. J., and O’Rear, J. 1999. Brown midrib sorghum in diets for
lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2127-2135.
5. Bean, B. W. 2007. Producing quality forage sorghum silage. 2007 Southern Corn
and Rice Minimum Tillage Conference. AREC 06-45, Texas AgriLife Research,
Texas A&M Univ., Amarillo, TX.
6. Bean, B., McCollum, T., McCuistion, K., Robinson, J., Villareal, R., VanMeter, R.
and Pietsch, D. 2006. 2006 Texas panhandle forage sorghum silage trial. Res.
Report AREC 06-01, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M Univ., Amarillo, TX.
7. Bolsen, K. K. 2004. Sorghum silage: A summary of 25 years of research at Kansas
State University. Southeast Dairy Herd Management Conference Proceedings.
November 16 and 17, 2004, Macon, Georgia. J. W. Smith, ed. Rhodes Center for
Animal and Dairy Sci., Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA.
8. Browning, C. B. and Lusk, J. W. 1966. Comparison of feeding value of corn and
grain sorghum silages on the basis of milk production and digestibility. J. Dairy
Sci. 49:1511-1514.
9. Buxton, D. R. and Redfearn, D. D. 1997. Plant limitations to fiber digestion and
utilization. J. Nutr. 127:814S-818S.

Forage and Grazinglands 25 January 2010

 10. Caravetta, G. J., Cherney, J. H., and Johnson, K. D. 1990. Within-row spacing
influences on diverse sorghum genotypes: II. Dry matter yield and forage quality.
Agron. J. 82:210-215.
11. Cummins, D. G. 1981. Yield and quality changes with maturity of silage-type
sorghum fodder. Agron. J. 73:988-990.
12. Filya, I. 2003. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum
on the fermentation, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and
sorghum silages. J. Dairy Sci. 86:3575-3581.
13. Gourley, L. M. and Lusk, J. W. 1978. Genetic parameters related to sorghum silage
quality. J. Dairy Sci. 61:1821-1827.
14. Grant, R. J., Haddad, S. G., Moore, K. J., and Pedersen, J. F. 1995. Brown midrib
sorghum silage for midlactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 78:1970-1980.
15. Howell, T. A., Evett, S. R., Tolk, J. A., Copeland, K. S., Colaizzi, P. D., and Gowda, P.
H. 2008. Evapotranspiration of corn and forage sorghum for silage. Wetting Front
Newsletter. Vol. 10 No. 1., USDA-ARS, Bushland, TX
16. Howell, T. A., Steiner, J. L., Schneider, A. D., Evett, S. R., Tolk, J. A., 1997. Seasonal
and maximum daily evapotranspiration of irrigated wheat, sorghum, and corn—
Southern High Plains. Trans. Amer. Soc. of Agric. Eng. 40:623-634.
17. Hanna, W. W., Monson, W. G., and Gaines, T. P. 1981. IVDMD, total sugars, and
lignin measurements on normal and brown midrib (bmr) sorghums at various
stages of development. Agron. J. 73:1050-1052.
18. Lechtenberg, V. L., Muller, L. D., Bauman, L. F., Rhykerd, C. L., and Barnes, R. F.
1972. Laboratory and in vitro evaluation of inbred and F2 populations of brown
midrib mutants of Zea mays L. Agron. J. 64:657-660.
19. Lusk, J. W., Karau, P. K., Balogu, D. O., and Gourley, L. M. 1984. Brown midrib
sorghum or corn silage for milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 67:1739-1744.
20. Marsalis, M. A., Angadi, S., Contreras-Govea, F. E., Kirksey, R. E., 2009. Harvest
timing and byproduct addition effects on corn and forage sorghum silage grown
under water stress. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 799. New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces,
NM.
21. McCollum III, T., McCuistion, K., and Bean, B. 2005. Brown mid-rib and
photoperiod-sensitive forage sorghums. AREC 05-20. Texas A&M Univ., College
Station, TX.
22. Miller, F. R. and Stroup, J. A. 2004. Growth and management of sorghums for
forage production. Proceedings of the National Alfalfa Symposium, 13-15
December, 2004, San Diego, CA, UC Coop. Ext., Univ. of California, Davis, CA.
23. Oliver, A. L., Grant, R. J., Pedersen, J. F., and Rear, J. O. 2004. Comparison of
brown midrib-6 and -18 forage sorghum with conventional sorghum and corn
silage in diets of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:637-644.
24. Oliver, A. L., Pedersen, J. F., Grant, R. J., and Klopfenstein, T. J. 2005.
Comparative effects of the sorghum bmr-6 and bmr-12 genes: 1. Forage sorghum
yield and quality. Crop Sci. 45:2234-2239.
25. Pedersen, J. F., Haskins, F. A., Gorz, H. J., and Britton, R. 1983. Variability for
traits used to estimate silage quality in forage sorghum hybrids. Crop Sci. 23:376-
379.
26. Pedersen, J. F., Vogel, K. P., and Funnell, D. L. 2005. Impact of reduced lignin on
plant fitness. Crop Sci. 45:812-819.
27. Porter, K. S., Axtell, J. D., Lechtenberg, V. L., and Colenbrander, V. F. 1978.
Phenotype, fiber composition, and in vitro dry matter disappearance of chemically
induced brown midrib (bmr) mutants of sorghum. Crop Sci. 18:205-208.
28. Schmid, A. R., Goodrich, R. D., Jordan, R. M., Marten, G. C., and Meiske, J. C.
1976. Relationships among agronomic characteristics of corn and sorghum
cultivars and silage quality. Agron. J. 68:403-406.
29. Wilson, J. R. 1993. Organization of forage plant tissues. Pages 1-32 in: Forage Cell
Wall Structure and Digestibility. H. G. Jung, D. R. Buxton, R. D. Hatfield, and J.
Ralph, eds. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI. USA.

Forage and Grazinglands 25 January 2010