Support Feedipedia

Automatic translation

Who is visiting Feedipedia?


Editor area

Sorghum forage

Description and recommendations

Common names

Sorghum, broomcorn, forage sorghum, grain sorghum, milo, great millet, durra, dourah [English]; sorgho, sorgho grain, sorgho fourrager, gros mil [French]; Mohrenhirse, Durrakorn, Besenkorn, Guineakorn [German]; sorgo, milho-zaburro [Portuguese]; sorgo, zahína [Spanish]; kafferkoren [Dutch]; sorgo, saggina [Italian]; ذرة بيضاء ; ورغم [Arabic]; জোয়ার [Bengali]; 高粱 [Chinese]; ज्वार (jwaarie, jowar, jowari) [Hindi]; モロコシ [Japanese] 수수속 [Korean]; сорго [Russian]; ข้าวฟ่าง [Thai]

  • Forage sorghum, sorghum silage, sorghum hay, sorghum straw, sorghum stover, sorghum stubble


Sorghum vulgare Pers. There are numerous synonyms for Sorghum bicolor (see GRIN for an exhaustive list).


Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) is used both for grain and forage. While some varieties are grown solely for grain, others have been developed for forage production, and some varieties are dual purpose (Harada et al., 2000). The sorghum plant is a tall, erect annual grass, up to 5 m high, and follows the C4 pathway. Sorghum roots are adventitious and the root-system can extend from the top 90 cm soil layer to twice that depth. Culms are erect, solid, 0.6 to 5 m high and 5 to 30 mm diameter. Leaves are broad, glabrous, very similar to maize leaves but shorter and broader. Inflorescence is a panicle, around 60 cm long, bearing up to 6000 spikelets (Balole et al., 2006). Sorghum bicolor is highly variable. Stem is the part of the plant that shows the greatest differences between genotypes. Stem range from thin to thick, with low or multiple tillering (Rattunde et al., 2001).

Sorghums used for forage fall in four categories (Suttie, 2000):

  • Grain sorghums. Dual purpose varieties can be used directly as fodder, and livestock can eat the straws or stubble after grain harvest for all grain varieties. Many sorghums used for forage in the tropics belong to the tall (2 to 4 m), thick-stemmed landrace types and are used as dual purpose (grain and forage) crops (Magness et al., 1971).
  • Sweet sorghums. Their stems contain a sweet juice used on a small scale for sugar making. They are grown as fodders, especially in the USA, and are used in the development of fodder hybrids. In more intensive production, fodder cultivars are usually crosses between grain and sugar sorghums. These have a higher sugar content than ordinary sorghums and are less liable to cause HCN poisoning. They can also be used for silage or hay (Suttie, 2000).
  • Sudan grass (Sorghum × drummondii) and Columbus grass (Sorghum × almum). These species are described in their respective datasheets.
  • Commercial hybrid fodder sorghums, usually based on Sudan grass and grain sorghum. They retain the multi-cut qualities of Sudan grass but have a much higher yield potential. They are becoming popular for green fodder in some developing countries and seed is widely available internationally.

The germplasm of sorghum is extensive. For instance, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Patancheru, India keeps a collection of 36,000 accessions from all the major sorghum-growing regions of the world (Balole et al., 2006). This datasheet is about Sorghum bicolor forage but will occasionally concern sorghum hybrids.

Particularly notable are the brown midrib sorghums (bmr), which have been specifically developed for forage. The stems and leaves of bmr phenotypes are less lignified, resulting a higher cell wall digestibility (Barrière et al., 2003; Ouda et al., 2005; Contreras-Govea et al., 2010; Pedersen et al., 2000). Unfortunately, the bmr trait is associated to negative ones for plant health, survival, environmental fitness and biomass yield, which tends to limit the adoption of bmr varieties by farmers (Contreras-Govea et al., 2010). In dual purpose sorghums, the nutritive value of the forage has seldom been taken into account in the past. However, cultivars that have both an enhanced grain yields and a higher forage value are now being developed, notably in India (CGIAR, 2010).

Forage sorghum is a valuable fodder: it is relished by ruminants, it is outstandingly drought resistant and it grows where maize is not able to grow because of high temperatures or dry conditions. Forage sorghum can be grazed (young or as deferred fodder), cut fresh, made into hay or ensiled (Pedersen et al., 2000).


Sorghum is native to East Africa, likely from Ethiopia (Ecoport, 2011), but was also grown in India before recorded history and in Assyria as early as 700 BC. It was introduced to the USA from Africa in the early part of the 17th century (Undersander et al., 2003; Balole et al., 2006). It is now widespread between 50°N (USA and Russia) and 40°S, and from sea level to 1000 m altitude (Ecoport, 2011). Optimal growth conditions for sorghum are 25-30°C at seedling and 30°C day-temperature during growth under 400-750 mm annual rainfall. It grows best on deep, well-drained loamy clay with pH between 5.5 and 7.5.

Sorghum is tolerant to drought thanks to its root system. It performs better than maize on drought conditions and thus occupies the territories left by maize in stress-prone semi-arid regions (FAO, 2011). The level of salt-tolerance depends on the variety and the accumulation of salt may inhibit germination. Sweet sorghum is highly salt-tolerant once well-established (Cook et al., 2005) and in some areas sorghum has been described as one of the most salt-tolerant grass species (Fahmy et al., 2010). Sorghum is somewhat tolerant to to waterlogging (during a short period). It is sensitive to frost and to sustained flooding. It is susceptible to weeds during first stages of development. In Africa, Striga hermonthica, a parasitic weed, attaches itself to the roots and is particularly noxious to sorghum (FAO, 2011).

Forage management

Note: the forage management practices reported below are mostly derived from North American and Western European guidelines concerning sweet sorghums and commercial Sudan x sorghums hybrids. They may not be suitable for forage sorghums grown in tropical and/or developing countries. Given the variability of the sorghum germplasm, the intensive breeding efforts and the large number of ecological and farming systems where forage sorghums are grown, precise recommendations and values for yields, optimal heights etc. will eventually depend on local conditions and varieties.


Forage sorghums yield about 20 t green matter/ha (Balole et al., 2006) but may reach 75 t/ha under optimal growth conditions (FAO, 2010).


Forage sorghum can stand heavy grazing. Rotational grazing is the safest way of using pasture and provide maximum nutrition. There is a relatively short time window for the optimal grazing of sorghum. It should not be grazed below 15 cm if good regrowth is expected. Because new shoots can be dangerous due to hydrogen cyanide, they should not be grazed until they reach at least 45 cm (Undersander et al., 2003) or even 0.8-1 m (Vignau-Loustau et al., 2008). The optimal height for grazing is 1-1.5 m. At heading, both nutritive value and palatability start decreasing rapidly. Livestock then graze the plant selectively and trampling occurs if the plants are too tall (Undersander et al., 2003; Vignau-Loustau et al., 2008).

There is increased danger of HCN poisoning when frost kills the top-growth, leaving the base of the plant from which new and palatable shoots may emerge. Cattle will frequently avoid the tall frosted growth and graze the young shoots, which may contain toxic levels of HCN. Harvesting the crop for silage may be the best way to handle frost-injured sorghums (Undersander et al., 2003).

Green chop

Sorghum green chop can help to bolster summer feed supplies. Freshly cut sorghum should be consumed rapidly to prevent the formation of HCN (Undersander et al., 2003).


Sorghum hay should be chaffed before giving to livestock to avoid wastage (Suttie, 2000). To obtain the highest yield, hybrid sorghum should be harvested for hay when the seeds are in soft to dough stage, but curing is difficult at this stage. Harvesting when the forage is about 80 cm high results in a better quality hay that is easier to cure, and one or two additional crops may be produced (Undersander et al., 2003).


With hybrid sorghums, the best stage for ensiling sorghum is the medium dough stage (plant moisture: 65-70 %). For beef cattle, the crop can be harvested a few days later (Undersander et al., 2003). Grain sorghum should be ensiled when the top seeds are in the dough stage and the bottom ones in the milky stage (Vignau-Loustau et al., 2008). Sweet sorghum used for silage should be cut before the seeds mature; otherwise a large portion of the small hard seeds will be wasted as they are not easily digested (Göhl, 1982).

Forage sorghum silage ferments similar to maize with pH below 4.0 (Filya, 2003; Contreras-Govea et al., 2010). In Brazil, sorghum silage reached the threshold pH of 3.9 (required to prevent the development of lactic acid bacteria) after 7 days and was found to be stable between 2 and 4 weeks (Rodriguez et al., 1999). Because forage sorghum is sometimes ensiled with higher moisture content than maize, greater acetic acid concentration could be expected (Contreras-Govea et al., 2010).

Environmental impact

Water efficiency and salt-tolerance

Sorghums have a high water efficiency and require less total water to reach their production potential. In environments where water is limited due to drought or declining aquifers and where it is necessary to conserve or reallocate available water, forage sorghums are promoted as a substitute for more water-consuming crops, particularly forage maize. Sorghums will be an extremely valuable forage wherever water becomes a scarce and precious resource due to global climate change (Brouk et al., 2011; Emile et al., 2006; Contreras-Govea et al., 2010). The combination of drought-tolerance and salt-tolerance makes sorghum a very interesting feed resource under arid and semi-arid conditions in saline lands (Al-Khalasi et al., 2010; Fahmy et al., 2010; Khanum et al., 2010).

Toxic soil reclamation

Sorghum is tolerant of many pollutants and it thrives in toxic soils that kill most plants. Sorghum can take up excess soil N due to its penetrating root system and this ability has been useful to reclame fallow lands where soil N was up to 400 kg/ha). Sorghum also thrives on salty irrigated soils: it restores the porosity of the soil and makes new wheat crop possible in only one season while it yields very high (NRC, 1996)

Cover crop and soil improver

Sorghum can be used as a cover crop during fall and winter: sown during fall, it covers more than 60 % of the soil surface before winter and protects it from wind erosion. It also helps sparing more water than other cover crops because it dies quickly after first frost and does not withdraw water from the soil. After harvest, ploughing down the stubbles can improve the organic status of the soil and limit erosion (UC SAREP, 2006; NRC, 1996).

Weed and pest control

Sorghum has detrimental effects on broad-leaf weeds and this effect is still effective after its death. This could be due to the release of phenolics and cyanogenics by the roots (NRC, 1996).

Crop support

Dead stalks of sorghum grain can provide support to climbing legumes several months after the grain is harvested (NRC, 1996).

Regeneration of native pastures

Sweet sorghum has been used successfully in attempts to revegetate severely degraded Queensland bluegrass (Dichanthium sericeum) pastures in Australia. Sorghum was only one of the species involved: it was added to the mixture to give extra competition to volunteer weeds and as a safety measure to ensure cattle had fodder in the paddock. It indeed provided fodder four to five months after sowing and cattle preferred it to the other sown species (Lambert et al., 1999).

Potential constraints

Sorghum contains some substances that may be toxic for the animals if they are ingested at a high level: hydrogen cyanide and nitrates/nitrites. There are varietal differences between sorghum strains (Luthra et al., 1976).

Hydrogen cyanide

Dhurrin, a cyanoglycoside, is present in the aerial parts of most sorghum varieties. It is particularly concentrated in the young leaves and tillers and in plants that are suffering from drought. Dhurrin hydrolysed into HCN in disrupted plant tissues or in the rumen of animals that consume the forage. HCN is highly toxic and can kill grazing animals. HCN potential is ranging from 100 to 800 mg/kg plant DM in forage sorghum. It is lethal at 2 mg/kg body weight in ruminants (Pedersen et al., 2000). Symptoms of acute HCN poisoning in ruminants are excitement, difficult breathing, muscle tremors, staggering, convulsions, collapse and death which can occur in less than 15 minutes but generally within 1 or 2 hours. A chronic form of HCN poisoning also exists that results in sulphur deficiencies in ruminants (Pedersen et al., 2000)

HCN potential usually declines with age, reaching non-toxic levels 45-50 days after planting (Hanna et al., 2001). HCN is partly destroyed when the fodder is made into hay or silage and degrades in 2 to 3 weeks after ensiling (Undersander et al., 2003). Low HCN potential varieties have been developed (Hanna et al., 2001).

Nitrates and nitrites

Sorghum is a nitrate accumulator and, while nitrates are generally non toxic to ruminants, their transformation into ammonia, within the rumen, produces toxic nitrites. Nitrites bind with haemoglobin to form methemoglobin, preventing blood from binding with oxygen, resulting in oxygen starvation of the tissues, accompanied by increased pulse and respiration rates, and animal death in the most severe cases (Marais, 2001; Fahmy et al., 2010).

Nitrate levels ranging from 0.5 to 1 % DM in the plants are considered potentially toxic to ruminants. Nitrate levels higher than 1 % DM are considered dangerous (Yaremcio, 1991). Nitrates are the highest in the stems (Aii, 1975; Harada et al., 2000).

Several environmental conditions result in nitrate accumulation, notably severe drought, high N fertilization and killing frost (Pedersen et al., 2000). A well-managed N fertilizer application can reduce nitrate accumulation (Wilmoth et al., 2000).

To prevent nitrate poisoning, livestock should not be given full access to forage sorghum: in strip grazing at high stocking rates, livestock only chose the leaves that have less nitrates than the stem. The sward should not be grazed immediately after plant stress and should mature as it decreases nitrate content. Ensiling may also be a way of reducing nitrate levels (by 40 to 60 %). If nitrate accumulation is suspected, the herd should be fed with other feeds prior to enter the stand so that nitrates are diluted in the ration (Pedersen et al., 2000).

Nutritional attributes

The composition of sorghum forage depends on its maturity stage, but also on the variety, climate, harvest conditions and many other factors. As in most forages, protein content and, more generally, nutritive value, declines with maturity. In whole-crop forage sorghums grown in Western Europe, protein content started at the high level of 19.0 % DM at bolting, dropped to 12.9 % DM one week before early heading, and ended at& 6.9 % DM at milk stage. Meanwhile, ADF content started at 31.2 % DM, rose up to 37.4 % DM at heading and slightly decreased down to 35.4 % DM at milk stage (INRA, 2007).

In whole-crop silages, protein content is about 10-11 % DM and starch content varies from 22-28 % DM at milk stage to 30-32 % at hard dough stage (Vignau-Loustau et al., 2008). Of course, values obtained in tropical sorghums may be different. In Brazil, for instance, crude protein decreased exponentially from about 14 % at 40-50 day of age and stabilized at 3-5 % DM (Pizarro et al., 1984).

Sorghum is a close relative to maize and share the same photosynthetic pathway (C4), but there are differences in tissue structure and distribution (stems, leaves, ears) between both plants. Comparisons of maize and sorghum plants in the USA have shown that the proportion of leaves and ears was greater and stem was lower in maize than in forage sorghum, at all maturity stages. As a result, fibre content is higher in sorghums than in maize, for instance 35 % DM vs 29 % in a comparison of maize hybrids and sorghum cultivars harvested for silage, resulting in a generally lower nutritional value for sorghum. While ADF concentration in the leaves increases with maturity (from 34.6 % DM at milk stage to 40.3 % at hard dough), it remains relatively constant in stems (38-39 % DM) or tends to decrease (Contreras-Govea et al., 2010). Leaves are also richer in protein than the stems (for instance 13.6 vs 8.3 % DM for Sorghum bicolor and similar value reported for a Sudan grass x Sorghum bicolor hybrid in Egypt; Gabra et al., 1985).

Breeding programmes, and notably the development of low-lignin, higher-digestibility bmr sorghums, are trying to narrow the gap between forage sorghum and forage maize (Contreras-Govea et al., 2010). In a 4-year review of 270 sorghum forage accessions (including 99 bmr sorghums), it was found that NDF and ADF did not differ significantly between bmr and non-bmr varieties. ADL in bmr varieties was 23 % lower (average of 4.3 % DM) than in non-bmr varieties In vitro DM digestibility of bmr varieties was only slightly superior to that of non-bmr varieties. Some conventional forage sorghum cultivars had similar or greater nutritive value than some bmr forage sorghums. In somes cases, however, in vitro digestibility of bmr varieties were within the same range and similar to or higher than the average for maize silage. It was concluded that the bmr label on a variety did not guarantee superior digestibility and nutritional value and that choosing a forage sorghum cultivar should be based on its individual performance rather than on the bmr type alone (McCollum et al., 2005). These conclusions were confirmed by other researchers (Contreras-Govea et al., 2010).


Sorghum forage can be used in different ways, as pasture, green chop, hay, silage and crop residues (straw, stubble and leaves). Due to its relatively low protein content, it usually requires protein supplementation as well as minerals and vitamins (Undersander et al., 2003). bmr varieties, developed since the 1990s, are supposed to have a higher fibre digestibility that makes them competitive with maize (Brouk et al., 2011).

Due to the vastness of the topic, the following recommendations for ruminants do not constitute an exhaustive overview of utilization of sorghum forage throughout the world and are more a sampling of reported scientific work on the subject. Readers are invited to consult their local extension services for proper advice on the best way to use sorghum forage in their specific circumstances.


For forage sorghums grown in Western Europe, intake is good at the beginning at the cycle but decreases rapidly as soon as the inflorescence grows. Intake is higher for regrowth: for instance, intake at bolting stage in the 1st cycle is 21.5 g DM/kg LW while intake at regrowth is 24.0 g DM/kg (Vignau-Loustau et al., 2008).

Digestibility and energy value

As an example of the variation in the nutritive value, OM digestibility and ME values for fresh whole sorghum grown in Western Europe were 71 % and 9.5 MK/kg DM at bolting, decreased to 61 % and 8.4 MJ/kg DM at heading and more or less stabilised after that stage. The differences between a 8-week regrowth grown in normal conditions or during a drought were -12 percentage points for OM digestibilty (70 to 58 %) and -1.4 MJ/kg (9.4 to 8 MK/kg DM) (INRA, 2007).

When compared to maize silage, sorghum silage is more fibrous and less digestible. In temperate regions, whole crop sorghum silage has a nutritive value higher than that of fodder grasses and legumes, and close to that of a medium-quality maize silage (Vignau-Loustau et al., 2008). It has been noted that equations based solely on ADF for predicting digestibility are likely to underestimate the value of bmr varieties (Brouk et al., 2011).

Pasture and stubble

While silage is the main use of forage sorghum (at least in temperate and developed countries), pasture and stubble grazing are common practices in some areas. In Australia, for instance, fodder sorghums are also used for autumn grazing by dairy and beef cattle to fill in a feed shortage between summer and winter grazing crops. The grain sorghums are valuable for grazing after the grain has been harvested and the crop residues (stubble, dropped seed-heads and regrowth, plus weeds) provide good autumn and winter roughage (Cook et al., 2005).

Dairy cows

In Venezuela, cows grazing ad libitum a mixture of Sorghum bicolor and Pennisetum purpureum with a concentrate supplement produced in average 17.0 kg of 4 % fat-corrected milk during the first 6 months of 2nd or 3rd lactation. (Bodisco et al., 1976).

Beef cattle

In Queensland, Australia, yearling steers grazing sweet sorghum at the rate of 1.25 head/ha had average daily gain of 0.86 kg/head/d over 7 months (experiment from 1965 cited by Cook et al., 2005).

Several trials have taken place in Brazil that demonstrated that sorghum pastures can support growth though being slightly inferior to other grasses. 13-month old Charolais, Nelore and crossbred steers (1.75 t/ha) grazing fertilized sorghum pasture gained around 50 kg in 3 months (0.61 kg/head/d) (Neumann et al., 2005). 15-month old crossbred heifers gained less weight grazing sorghum than Pennisetum americanum (0.71 vs 0.78 kg/head/d) (Coser et al., 1983). In a comparison of several grasses including Sorghum bicolor, Pennisetum purpureum, Brachiaria plantaginea and Pennisetum americanum, steers grazing sorghum had the second best daily gain (1.121 kg/d) after Pennisetum americanum, but no significant differences were found in terms of stocking rate and liveweight gain. It was concluded that a properly managed summer sorghum pasture could be used as an alternative source of feed for intensive beef cattle production systems (Restle et al., 2002).

Green chop

Fresh sorghum forage is highly palatable to goats but they preferred it chopped (Abdel-Moneim et al., 1999). In Sudan, a comparison of cut-and-carry alfalfa and sorghum forages fed to sheep and cattle found that alfalfa intake was higher than sorghum intake. DM digestibility of alfalfa and sorghum was similar in cattle but alfalfa was more digestible in sheep. Supplementation of sorghum grain and molasses increased the digestibility of sorghum forage in both animal species (Ahmed et al., 1983).



Because of its salt-tolerance, sorghum forage can be valuable in saline soils, for instance in coastal areas and other salt-affected regions of North Africa of the Middle-East. In Oman, sorghum hay grown under high salinity levels (3, 6 and 9 dS/m) may be used for feeding Omani sheep without adverse effects on health or performance. Sheep ate similar quantities of sorghum and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) hay, but their daily weight gain tended to be lower with sorghum. DM and crude protein digestibilities were lower with sorghum than with Rhodes grass, but fibre digestibilities were similar (Al-Khalasi et al., 2010).

In Egypt, sorghum grass cultivated in strongly saline soils (10 dS/m) and irrigated with water containing 4000 to 7000 ppm total salts contained enough nutrients to cover the nutritional requirements of sheep. Yields were also promising and sorghum forage could be able to solve summer and autumn feed shortages while increasing the economical value of marginal saline resources (Fahmy et al., 2010). In Pakistan, sorghum hay (regular and bmr) cultivated in saline land and harvested 80 days after sowing could profitably replace wheat straw as the base fodder for sheep. Regular sorghum was almost twice productive than bmr sorghum (13.2 vs 7.5 t/ha) (Khanum et al., 2010).


In a trial with dairy goats, sorghum hay could replace alfalfa hay without impairing milk yield (Andrade et al., 1996). No differences in digestibility of medium quality (sorghum hay) and high quality (oat hay) forages between Rambouillet sheep and Angora goats were observed but Angora goats, who have higher protein requirements due to mohair growth, responded with increased intake to higher levels of supplemental protein (Huston et al., 1988).


Most trials with sorghum silage have taken place in developed and temperate countries and have examined the merits of sorghum relatively to maize for dairy cows.

Dairy cows

Sorghum silage is often promoted as a replacement for maize silage for lactating and dry dairy cows and there is an extensive literature about this. The conclusion so far is that utilisation of sorghum forage as a total replacement for maize silage in lactating diets is possible in some cases. Studies have reported similar milk production from sorghum silages, and particularly with bmr sorghums, as compared to maize silage. In France, an example of a successful utilization of sorghum (from a non-bmr cultivar) has been described as follows: in a 15-week trial, dairy cows were fed sorghum or maize silage ad libitum with 2.2 kg/d of concentrate (and 50 g/d of urea for the maize treatment). Sorghum was more palatable than maize (+ 15 % DM intake), milk production was similar (about 20 kg/d) and fat content was higher with the sorghum treatment (4.26 vs 4.01 %). However, the authors noted that, in a previous trial, drought had caused improper fecundation and bad silage quality, and that milk yield had been much lower (-16 %) than for the control diet (Emile et al., 2005). In the USA, cows fed 65 % silage (maize, alfalfa, bmr and regular sorghum), bmr sorghum silage resulted in a milk yield lower than that allowed by maize silage, similar to that obtained with alfalfa and higher to that obtained with regular sorghum. In a second experiment, bmr silage fed at 35 % in the diet resulted again in higher yield than regular silage but did as well as maize (Aydin et al., 1999). However, there are large variations in nutrient profiles between varieties and it is also possible to lose production, so total substitution of maize silage with sorghum silage, even from bmr varieties, should be studied carefully (McCollum et al., 2005; Brouk et al., 2011).

Growing and beef cattle

The use of sorghum silage in beef cattle has been much less investigated than in dairy cattle. It is used by commercial farms in the USA where it is considered to offer better control of weight gain in growing and dry cattle (Brouk et al., 2011). In a 2-year trial in Texas, bmr sorghum silage was tested in finishing diets based on steam-flaked maize grain and was fed either at 10 % (diet DM), substituting totally for maize silage, or at 7.5 % to contribute the same amount of NDF as the maize. There were no differences in feed intake, daily gain, feed efficiency, or carcass traits among the treatments (McCollum et al., 2005).


In sheep fed sorghum silage in Brazil, the optimum level of concentrate (maize grain, soybean meal and wheat bran) in the diet was between 30 and 45 %. This amount increased the availability of forage DM, the nutritional value of the diet, promoting animal productivity (Simon et al., 2008).

Straw and stover

Sorghum straws have a poor nutritive value with an OM digestibility lower than 50 % (Blümmel et al., 2003) and animals must be supplemented with protein-rich concentrates. For instance, in Nigeria, the best levels of supplementation for cottonseed cake supplementation were respectively of 60 g/d for sheep and 48 g/d for goats. Goats digested sorghum straw better than sheep (Alhassan et al., 1986). In the production of sweet sorghum syrup, it is the leaves, not the stems, that are left on the field (Madibela et al., 2002).

Another way to improve the nutritive value of sorghum straw is to treat it. In India, urea, liquid ammonia and even animal urine were found to improve the degradability of straw, because these treatments increase the nitrogen content of the feed and the efficiency of the microbial population in the rumen (Dhuria et al., 2007). NaOH treatment was effective to increase the in vitro DM digestibility (by 20 percentage points) of sorghum straw (Escobar et al., 1985). In Kenya, treatment with 5 % NaOH of maize/sorghum straw reduced fibre by about 15 %, increased in vitro DM digestibility by 8.5 percentage points and intake by about 60 %. However, these enhancements failed to increase performance (average daily gain) in sheep and goats (Tessema et al., 1984). In India, fine grinding followed by treatment with lime (10 g Ca(OH)2/100 g DM) increased the in sacco DM degradability after 48 h of incubation from 54.1 to 89.2 % (Gandi et al., 1997).

In dual purpose sorghum varieties, grain yield and forage quality are not inversely related, but stover yield is often insufficient. Genotypes promoting high digestible OM intake are only suitable for farmers with sufficient amounts of stover to allow the feeding of animals to appetite. When only restricted amounts of stover are available, it is more relevant to choose genotypes that promote high digestibility under restricted feed intake (Blümmel et al., 2003).


Sorghum leaves and stalks

Sorghum forage is rarely mentioned in the literature on rabbit feeding. One study investigated the potential toxicity of first-cut sorghum leaves and stalks when distributed fresh as the sole feed during one month to 6-month old rabbits, in comparison with fresh grass. Feeding sorghum stalks resulted in haematological abnormalities, which was probably due their higher nitrate content: 1480 ppm in sorghum stalks vs 850 ppm in sorghum leaves and 736 ppm in grass. An ancillary finding of this study was that rabbits more or less tolerated this imbalanced feeding system during the experimental period (Bhatti et al., 2011).

Sorghum stover

Non-mouldy sorghum stover could be used as a fibre source in rabbit complete feeds. It was for example used up to 20% in the control diet in a study of khat leaves (Catha edulis) utilisation by the rabbit (Al-Habori et al., 2004).


Heuzé V., Tran G., Giger-Reverdin S., Lebas F., 2015. Sorghum forage. A programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. Last updated on January 13, 2015, 15:08


Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 28.1 6.4 15.9 41.3 72
Crude protein % DM 8.2 3.2 2.5 16.3 203
Crude fibre % DM 33.6 5.2 22.6 43.2 133
NDF % DM 57.9 4.9 46.2 67.0 112
ADF % DM 35.0 4.3 27.9 45.0 54
Lignin % DM 3.3 1.2 1.4 6.7 52
Ether extract % DM 1.9 0.5 1.1 3.1 88
Ash % DM 9.1 2.2 5.4 13.7 197
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.1 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 4.1 1.6 1.9 7.4 128
Phosphorus g/kg DM 2.0 0.8 0.8 3.8 125
Potassium g/kg DM 19.3 6.1 9.6 31.7 79
Sodium g/kg DM 2.5 4.6 0.1 9.4 4
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.2 0.4 1.6 3.6 79
Manganese mg/kg DM 82 68 37 160 3
Zinc mg/kg DM 45 18 26 69 4
Copper mg/kg DM 13 6 5 21 4
Iron mg/kg DM 919 1
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 63.1 7.4 56.4 82.0 52 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 60.3 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 10.9 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.8 *
ME ruminants (gas production) MJ/kg DM 9.9 1
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 60.5 5.8 50.6 67.0 8
a (N) % 22.0 1
b (N) % 66.0 1
c (N) h-1 0.050 1
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 59 *
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 52 *

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Aguiar et al., 2006; Ahmed et al., 1983; CGIAR, 2009; Chafai, 1984; CIRAD, 1991; French, 1943; Fulkerson et al., 2008; FUSAGx/CRAW, 2009; Gowda et al., 2004; Holm, 1971; Kawas et al., 1995; Khanum et al., 2007; Olcese et al., 1951; Xandé et al., 1989

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:06

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 28.4 4.4 21.8 35.6 18
Crude protein % DM 6.7 1.3 4.2 8.4 25
Crude fibre % DM 32.8 5.9 20.7 41.6 20
NDF % DM 66.0 4.6 59.2 73.0 17
ADF % DM 41.8 5.3 30.4 50.3 21
Lignin % DM 7.4 1.7 4.1 10.4 17
Ether extract % DM 2.6 1.1 0.7 4.8 17
Ash % DM 8.8 2.3 5.0 14.1 30
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.1 18.1 18.8 2 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 4.1 1.2 2.6 7.2 18
Phosphorus g/kg DM 3.0 1.0 1.5 4.8 18
Potassium g/kg DM 20.4 5.5 14.6 30.9 10
Sodium g/kg DM 6.3 6.8 0.4 15.6 4
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.2 0.7 1.4 3.5 10
Manganese mg/kg DM 24 7 17 32 3
Zinc mg/kg DM 37 30 45 2
Copper mg/kg DM 7 7 7 2
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 64.3 3.4 63.3 70.1 3 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 60.3 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 10.9 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.9 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 58.9 9.1 47.4 69.0 5

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Adewakun et al., 1989; AFZ, 2011; Alibes et al., 1990; CGIAR, 2009; CIRAD, 1991; Hart, 1990; Henderson et al., 1984; Holm, 1971; IAV, 2009; Maben et al., 1971; Meschy, 2010; Parigi-Bini et al., 1991; Rahman et al., 1968

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:06

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 26.8 26.6 27.0 2
Crude protein % DM 8.1 1.8 5.9 11.5 7
Crude fibre % DM 35.9 5.6 26.4 42.4 7
NDF % DM 65.4 4.6 60.5 71.7 4
ADF % DM 41.8 3.9 37.9 47.0 4
Lignin % DM 3.4 1.1 2.2 4.8 4
Ether extract % DM 2.6 1.0 1.5 4.2 6
Ash % DM 16.8 5.3 6.1 21.6 7
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 16.8 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 5.7 1.2 4.2 7.1 5
Phosphorus g/kg DM 3.5 2.0 1.3 6.1 5
Potassium g/kg DM 33.1 10.4 23.9 43.5 4
Sodium g/kg DM 15.2 1
Magnesium g/kg DM 3.2 0.5 2.6 3.8 4
Manganese mg/kg DM 48 45 52 2
Zinc mg/kg DM 43 37 49 2
Copper mg/kg DM 9 7 11 2
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 59.5 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 55.4 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 9.3 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 7.5 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 54.6 1

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


CIRAD, 1991; Maben et al., 1971

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:13

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 90.0 2.1 86.7 94.9 11
Crude protein % DM 7.5 3.1 4.2 13.7 12
Crude fibre % DM 32.3 2.6 28.4 36.4 8
NDF % DM 68.7 6.2 58.7 73.3 6
ADF % DM 44.0 7.3 33.1 49.8 6
Lignin % DM 6.2 0.5 5.6 6.8 4
Ether extract % DM 1.4 0.3 0.8 1.7 10
Ash % DM 8.8 1.1 7.6 11.3 12
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 17.9 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 1.8 0.6 1.0 2.8 7
Phosphorus g/kg DM 1.7 0.6 0.7 2.3 7
Potassium g/kg DM 15.6 7.0 7.0 25.5 7
Sodium g/kg DM 0.0 1
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.9 0.9 1.8 4.5 7
Manganese mg/kg DM 107 1
Zinc mg/kg DM 54 1
Copper mg/kg DM 7 1
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 61.5 7.2 52.1 70.3 5 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 58.0 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 10.4 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.4 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 50.9 15.4 37.6 70.6 5

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Aguiar et al., 2006; Aguiar et al., 2006; Alibes et al., 1990; CIRAD, 1991; Cleasby et al., 1958

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:05

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Dry matter % as fed 93.0 1.0 90.8 94.7 35
Crude protein % DM 3.7 1.2 1.8 7.7 40
Crude fibre % DM 39.5 3.7 31.6 46.8 36
NDF % DM 76.6 3.3 69.7 81.9 22
ADF % DM 48.2 4.0 39.1 55.6 23
Lignin % DM 7.3 1.5 4.4 9.3 23
Ether extract % DM 1.2 0.3 0.6 1.7 26
Ash % DM 7.5 2.0 3.9 12.0 41
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.1 0.3 18.1 20.1 6 *
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
Calcium g/kg DM 3.1 1.1 1.8 5.7 25
Phosphorus g/kg DM 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.7 27
Potassium g/kg DM 12.9 5.6 4.4 25.2 22
Sodium g/kg DM 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 12
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.5 0.6 1.5 3.8 23
Manganese mg/kg DM 124 73 22 227 12
Zinc mg/kg DM 24 24 7 97 12
Copper mg/kg DM 5 4 2 16 12
Iron mg/kg DM 1088 1
Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant % 53.0 9.1 40.6 69.8 8 *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 49.3 *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.9 *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 7.3 *
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 30.0 23.6 0.0 57.7 4

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.


Alibes et al., 1990; CGIAR, 2009; Chandra et al., 1971; CIRAD, 1991; French, 1943; Gowda et al., 2004; Ncube et al., 1992; Nsahlai et al., 1996; Ohlde et al., 1982; Parigi-Bini et al., 1991; Patel, 1966; Richard et al., 1989; Savadogo et al., 2000

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:45:05



Abdel-Moneim, A. Y. ; Abd-Alla, M. S., 1999. Feed preference by Baladi goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 65 (1): 63-72 web icon
Aganga, A. A. ; Autlwetse, M. N., 2000. Utilization of sorghum forage, millet forage, veldt grass and buffel grass by Tswana sheep and goats when fed Lablab purpureus L. as protein supplement. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 13 (8): 1127 web icon
Ahmed, F. A. ; Ahmed, A. I., 1983. Intake and digestibility of berseem (Medicago sativa) and sorghum Abu 70 (Sorghum vulgare) forages by Sudan zebu cattle and desert sheep. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 15 (1): 7-12 web icon
Aii, T., 1975. The use of forage sorghum. 5. NO3-N content of green-chopped forage sorghum, feeding sorghum to dairy cows and nitrate poisoning. J. Japan. Soc. Grassl. Sci., 21 (2): 109-115
Al-Habori, M.; Al-Mamary, M., 2004. Long-term feeding effects of Catha edulis leaves on blood constituents in animals. Phytomedicine, 11 (7-8): 639-644 web icon
Al-Khalasi, S. S. ; Mahgoub, O. ; Kadim, I. T. ; Al-Marzouqi, W. ; Al-Rawahi, S., 2010. Health and performance of Omani sheep fed salt-tolerant sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) forage or Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana). Small Rumin. Res., 91 (1): 93-102 web icon
Alhassan, W. S. ; Ehoche, O. W. ; Adu, I. F., 1986. Influence of graded levels of cottonseed cake supplementation on the nutritive value of cereal straws fed to sheep and goats. J. Anim. Prod. Res., 6 (1): 39-53
Alhassan, W. S., 1987. Studies on untreated crop residue utilization in Red Sokoto (Maradi) goats. Goat production in the humid tropics. Proc. Workshop, University of Ife, Ile Ife, Nigeria, 20-24/7/1987, Smith, O.B. ed.
Andrade, H. ; Bernal, G. ; Llamas, G., 1996. Influence of different alfalfa:sorghum ratios in the diet of dairy goats on productivity and rumen turnover. Small Rumin. Res., 21 (2): 77-82 web icon
Aydin, G. ; Grant, R. J. ; O'Rear, J., 1999. Brown midrib sorghum in diets for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 82 (10): 2127-2135 web icon
Balole, T. V. ; Legwaila, G. M., 2006. Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Record from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa / Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, Netherlands. web icon
Barrière, Y. ; Guillet, C. ; Goffner, D. ; Pichon, M., 2003. Genetic variation and breeding strategies for improved cell wall digestibility in annual forage crops. A review. Anim. Res., 52 (3): 193-228 web icon
Bhatti, S.; Sadeeq-ur-Rahman; Zaman, M. Q.; Qureshi, Z. A.; Bilal, M.; Chaudhry, Z. I.; Ahmad, A., 2011. Toxicological effects of feeding first cut sorghum vegetation and stalks to rabbits. Pakistan J. Zool., 43 (4): 629-635 web icon
Blaha, J. ; Salah Eldin, H. M. ; Jakl, A, 1985. Use of groundnut and cottonseed oil meals in sorghum based broiler feed mixtures. Agricultura Tropica et Subtropica, 18: 59-67
Blair Ralns, A., 1963. Grassland Research in Northern Nigeria. 1952 - 62. Misc. pap., Samaru (Nigeria), No. 1, 69 p.
Blümmel, M. ; Zerbini, E. ; Reddy, B. V. S. ; Hash, C. T. ; Bidinger, F. ; Khan, A. A., 2003. Improving the production and utilization of sorghum and pearl millet as livestock feed: progress towards dual-purpose genotypes. Field Crops Res., 84: 143-158 web icon
Bodisco, V. ; Valle, A. ; Mendoza, S. ; Garcia, E., 1976. Voluntary dry-matter intake, weight and production of dairy cows. Memoria, Asociacion Latinoamericana de Produccion Animal, 11: 43
Brouk, M. J. ; Bean, B., 2011. Sorghum in dairy production feeding guide. United Sorghum Checkoff Program web icon
CGIAR, 2010. From research to results: CGIAR Annual Report 2009. Consultative group on international agriculture research, web icon
Cleasby, T. G. ; Sideek, O., 1958. A note on the nutritive value of ramie leaves (Boehmeria nivea). E. Afr. Agric. For. J., 23 (3): 203-211
Contreras-Govea, F. E. ; Marsalis, M. A. ; Lauriault, L. M. ; Bean, B. W., 2010. Forage sorghum nutritive value: a review. Forage and Grazinglands, 25 January 2010 web icon
Cook, B. G. ; Pengelly, B. C. ; Brown, S. D. ; Donnelly, J. L. ; Eagles, D. A. ; Franco, M. A. ; Hanson, J. ; Mullen, B. F. ; Partridge, I. J. ; Peters, M. ; Schultze-Kraft, R., 2005. Tropical forages. CSIRO, DPI&F(Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane, Australia web icon
Coser, A. C. ; Maraschin, G. E., 1983. Animal performance on pastures of comum millet and sorghum. Pesq. Agropec. Bras., 18 (4): 421-426 web icon
Dhuria, R. K. ; Sharma, T. ; Singh, A. P. ; Deepika, Dhuria, 2007. Effect of urea, liquid ammonia and animal urine treatment on chemical composition and nylon bag degradability of Jowar (Sorghum vulgare) straw in sheep. Veterinary Practitioner, 8 (1): 1-7
Ecoport, 2011. Ecoport database. Ecoport web icon
Emile, J. C. ; Charrier, X. ; Do Nascimento, W. G. ; Barrière, Y., 2005. Evaluation of grain sorghum silage for dairy cows. 12èmes Rencontres autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants, Paris, France web icon
Emile, J. C. ; Al-Rifai, M. ; Charrier, X. ; Leroy, P. ; Barriere, Y., 2006. Grain sorghum silages as an alternative to irrigated maize silage. In: Lloveras, J., Gonzalez-Rodriguez A., Vazquez-Yanez O., Pineiro J., Santamaria O., Olea L., Poblaciones M. J. (eds) Sustainable grassland productivity: Proceedings of the 21st General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Badajoz, Spain, 3-6 April, 2006: 80-82 web icon
Escobar, A. ; Parra, O. de; Parra, R., 1985. Effect of alkali treatment on the in vitro digestibility and chemical composition of fibrous agricultural residues. Trop. Anim. Prod., 10 (1): 58-67 web icon
Fahmy, A. A. ; Youssef, K. M. ; El Shaer, H. M., 2010. Intake and nutritive value of some salt-tolerant fodder grasses forsheep under saline conditions of South Sinai, Egypt. Small Rumin. Res., 91: 110-115 web icon
FAO, 2011. Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO web icon
Filya, I., 2003. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages. J. Dairy Sci., 86 (11): 3575-3581 web icon
French, M. H., 1943. The compositions and nutritive values of Tanganyika feeding stuffs. E. Afr. Agric. For. J., 8: 126-132
Fulkerson, W. J. ; Horadagoda, A. ; Neal, J. S. ; Barchia, I. ; Nandra, K. S., 2008. Nutritive value of forage species grown in the warm temperate climate of Australia for dairy cows: Herbs and grain crops. Livest. Sci., 114: 75-83 web icon
Gabra, M. A. ; Ibrahim, S. A. A. ; Shalaby, A. S., 1985. Intake, digestibility, feeding value of stem and leaf as well as stem, sheath, leaf ratios of sweet sorghum and Sordan 77 as affected by plant density and cutting height. Ann. Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, 23 (2): 1039-1047
Gandi, J. ; Holtzapple, M. T. ; Ferrer, A. ; Byers, F. M. ; Turner, N. D. ; Murlidhar, N. ; Chang, S., 1997. Lime treatment of agricultural residues to improve rumen digestibility. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 68 (3-4): 195-211 web icon
Gebremedhin, B. ; Hirpa, A. ; Berhe, K., 2009. Feed marketing in Ethiopia: results of rapid market appraisal. Improving Productivity and Market Success of Ethiopian Farmers project, Working paper N°5. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis-Abbaba, Ethiopia web icon
Göhl, B., 1982. Les aliments du bétail sous les tropiques. FAO, Division de Production et Santé Animale, Roma, Italy web icon
Grieve, D., 1976. Nutritive value of rice straw, sugar-cane tops and sorghum tops fed to goats and sheep 1. Dry matter intake and digestibility. Ghana J. Agric. Sci., 9: 103-109 web icon
Grieve, D., 1976. Nutritive value of rice straw, sugar-cane tops and sorghum tops fed to goats and sheep 2. Digestion of chemical components. Ghana J. Agric. Sci., 9: 217-221 web icon
Hanna, W. W. ; Torres-Cardona, S., 2001. Pennisetums and sorghums in an integrated feeding system in the tropics. In: Sotomayor-Rios, A.; Pitman, W. D. (Eds). Tropical forage plants: development and use. CRC Press LLC web icon
Harada, H. ; Yoshimura, Y. ; Sunaga, Y. ; Hatanaka, T., 2000. Variations in nitrogen uptake and nitrate-nitrogen concentration among sorghum groups. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 46 (1): 97-104 web icon
Harvey, H. R. ; Ward, H. K., 1976. Silage in diets for fattening cattle. Annual Report, Division of Livestock and Pastures, 1974-75: 36-43
Hedges, D. A. ; Wheeler, J. L. ; Muldoon, D. K., 1989. Effect of age of millet and sorghum hays on their composition, digestibility and intake by sheep. Trop. Grassl., 23 (4): 203-210 web icon
Huston, J. E. ; Engdahl, B. S. ; Bales, K. W., 1988. Intake and digestibility in sheep and goats fed three forages with different levels of supplemental protein. Small Rumin. Res., 1 (1): 81-92 web icon
INRA, 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux - valeurs des aliments. Tables Inra 2007. Quae éditions web icon
Khanum, S. A. ; Yaqoob, T. ; Sadaf, S. ; Hussain, M. ; Jabbar, M. A. ; Hussain, H. N. ; Kausar, R. ; Rehman, S., 2007. Nutritional evaluation of various feedstuffs for livestock production using in vitro gas method. Pakistan Vet. J., 27 (3): 129-133 web icon
Khanum, S. A. ; Hussain, H. N. ; Hussain, M. ; Ishaq, M., 2010. Digestibility studies in sheep fed sorghum, sesbania and various grasses grown on medium saline lands. Small Rumin. Res., 91 (1): 63-68 web icon
Lambert, G. A. ; Hilder, T. B. ; Bishop, H. G. ; Dodt, R. M., 1999. Regeneration of drought-affected Queensland bluegrass pastures. In: People and rangelands: building the future. Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress, Townsville, Queensland, Australia, 19-23 July, 1999. Volumes 1 and 2, 277-278 web icon
Luthra, Y. P. ; Arora, S. K. ; Paroda, R. S., 1976. Genotypic differences in toxic constituents at different stages of growth in sorghum. Forage Research, 2 (2): 137-143
Maben, B. G. ; Klett, R. H. ; Sherrod, L. B. ; Hollingsworth, L. D., 1971. Nutritive value of hybrid corn types for silage. Proc. West. Sect. Am. Soc. Ann. Sci., 22: 51
Madibela, O. R. ; Boitumelo, W. S. ; Manthe, C. ; Raditedu, I., 2002. Chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of local landraces of sweet sorghum in Botswana. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 14 (4): 1-6 web icon
Maglad, M. A. ; Lufti, A. A., 1985. The comparative nutritive value of sugarcane bagasse, sorghum stalks and groundnut hulls. World Rev. Anim. Prod., 21 (1): 15-17
Magness, J.R. ; Markle, G. M. ; Compton, C. C., 1971. Food and feed crops of the United States. Interregional Research Project IR-4, IR Bul. 1, (Bul. 828 New Jersey Agric. Expt. Sta.) web icon
Marais, J. P., 2001. Factors affecting the nutritive values of kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) - a review. Trop. Grassl., 35: 65-84 web icon
McCollum III, T. ; McCuistion, K. ; Bean, B., 2005. Brown Mid-rib and photoperiod-sensitive forage sorghums. AREC 05-20. Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX web icon
Nada, Y., 1985. Palatability and adaptability of 10 tropical grasses used as grazing pasture in Kyushu. J. Japan. Soc. Grassl. Sci., 30 (4): 434-440 web icon
Neumann, M. ; Restle, J. ; Filho, D. C. A. ; Maccari, M. ; Pellegrini, L. G. de; Souza, A. N. M. de; Peixoto, L. A. de O., 2005. Forage quality and beef cattle production of sorghum pasture (Sorghum bicolor, L.), fertilized with two fertilizer types, under continuous grazing. Rev. Bras. Agroc., 11 (2): 221-226 web icon
NRC, 1996. Lost Crops of Africa. Volume I Grains. National Research Council, USA web icon
Olcese, O. ; Macedo, F. L., 1951. Digestibilidad del sorgo negro en ovinos. Agronomia (Peru), 16 (67): 86
Ouda, J. O. ; Njehia, G. K. ; Moss, A. R. ; Omed, H. M. ; Nsahlai, I. V., 2005. The nutritive value of forage sorghum genotypes developed for the dry tropical highlands of Kenya as feed source for ruminants. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 35 (1): 55-60 web icon
Patel, B. M., 1966. Animal nutrition in Western India. A review of work done from 1961 to 1965. Anand, Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Pedersen, J. F. ; Fritz, J. O., 2000. Forages and Fodder. In: Sorghum: origin, history, technology, and production. Smith, C. W.; Frederiksen, R. A. web icon
Pizarro, E. A. ; Vera, R. R. ; Liseu, L. C., 1984. Growth curve and nutritive value of forage sorghum in the tropics. Trop. Anim. Prod., 9 (3): 175-184 web icon
Powell, J. M., 1985. Yields of sorghum and millet and stover consumption by livestock in the Subhumid Zone of Nigeria. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad), 62 (1): 77-81
Rattunde, H. F. W. ; Zerbini, E. ; Chandra, S. ; Flower, D. J., 2001. Stover quality of dual-purpose sorghums: genetic and environmental sources of variation. Field Crops Res., 71 (1): 1-8 web icon
Restelatto, R. ; Pavinato, P. S. ; Sartor, L. R. ; Paixão, S. J., 2014. Production and nutritional value of sorghum and black oat forages under nitrogen fertilization. Grass and Forage Sci., 69 (4): 693–704 web icon
Restle, J. ; Roso, C. ; Aita, V. ; Nornberg, J. L. ; Brondani, I. L. ; Cerdotes, L. ; Carrilho, C. de O., 2002. Performance of beef steers grazing summer grass pastures. Rev. Bras. Zootec., 31 (3, supplement): 1491-1500 web icon
Ricca, R. ; Combellas, J., 1993. Influence of multinutrient blocks on liveweight gain of young bulls grazing sorghum stubble during the dry season. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 5 (2): 31-38 web icon
Ritter, W., 1983. Fodder production in the subtropics an example of a project from Brazil. Entwicklung + Landlicher Raum., 17 (5): 12-14
Rivero, R. ; Perez, G. ; Sosa, N. ; Combellas, J., 1984. Supplementation of sorghum silage for growing heifers and milking cows. Trop. Anim. Prod., 9 (2): 114-121 web icon
Rodriguez, N. M. ; Gonçalves, L. C. ; Nogueira, F. S. ; Borges, A. L. C.C. ; Zago, C. P., 1999. Forage sorghum silage with different tannin concentration and moisture in the stem. I - Dry matter concentration, pH and fat acids during fermentation. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec., 51 (5): 485-490 web icon
Simon, J. E. ; Lourenco Junior, J. de B. ; Ferreira, G. D. G. ; Santos, N. de F. A. dos; Nahum, B. de S. ; Monteiro, E. M. M., 2008. Intake and apparent digestibility of fibrous fractions of forage sorghum silage (Sorghum bicolor [L.] Moench) in sheep. Acta Scientiarum - Animal Sciences, 30 (3): 333-338 web icon
Skerman, P. J. ; Riveros, F., 1990. Tropical grasses. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No. 23, FAO, Rome web icon
Suttie, J. M., 2000. Hay and straw conservation for small-scale farming and pastoral conditions. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No. 29, FAO, Rome web icon
Tessema, S. ; Emojong, E. E., 1984. Utilization of maize and sorghum stover by sheep and goats after feed quality improvement by various treatments and supplements. E. Afr. Agric. For. J., 44 (Suppl.): 408-415 web icon
UC SAREP, 2006. Cover crop database. University of California, Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, Davis web icon
Undersander, D. J. ; Smith, L. H. ; Kaminski, A. R. ; Kelling, K. A. ; Doll, J. D., 2003. Sorghum forage. In: Alternative Field Crop Manual, University of Wisconsin-Exension, Cooperative Extension web icon
USDA, 2011. GRIN - Germplasm Resources Information Network. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland web icon
Vignau-Loustau, L. ; Huyghe, C., 2008. Stratégies fourragères. France Agricole Editions, 2008 web icon
Wilmoth, G. C. ; Foster, J. G. ; Hess, J. L., 2000. Annual forages for the Central High Plains. Proceedings/Reports of the American Forage and Grassland Council, 37th North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, July 16-19, 2000: 180-184 web icon
Yaremcio, B., 1991. Nitrate poisoning and feeding nitrate feeds to livestock. Agdex 400/60-1, Government of Alberta, Agricultural and Rural Development web icon

Image credits

Image credits

Picture title Credits License
Sorghum plant Gilles Tran, AFZ CC BY 3.0
Sorghum spike, immature Gilles Tran, AFZ CC BY 3.0
Sorghum spike, mature Gilles Tran, AFZ CC BY 3.0
Diversity of sorghum Laurent Bonnal, CIRAD CC BY 3.0