APPENDIX University of Pretoria etd

APPENDIX University of Pretoria etd
University of Pretoria etd
APPENDIX
TABLE A 2.1 : Sweet sorghum syrup production and composition as affected by the stage of maturity at
harvesting (Stokes et al. 1957).
Stage of maturity
Percent Extraction
Percent Sucrose
Percent Purity
Litres of syrup / ton
of stalk
Early flowering
57.3
4.70
41.9
50.8
Flowering
57.8
5.64
46.7
62.1
Late Flowering
58.0
6.92
52.7
67.5
Grain early milk
58.5
8.86
60.1
76.5
Late milk
57.5
9.57
63.0
77.9
Dough
57.9
10.28
65.2
80.1
Hard dough
56.8
10.94
67.0
82.4
Ripe
56.2
11.29
68.3
82.8
Post ripe 1 week
55.7
10.64
67.4
78.3
Post ripe 2 weeks
56.1
10.11
66.6
75.6
Post ripe 3 weeks
54.4
9.32
63.6
71.1
TABLE A 2.2 : The effect of stage of maturity of sweet sorghum cane and of delay of milling on the sugar
composition of sweet sorghum juice (Jonson et al., 1961 )
% of sugar on a dry matter basis
Variety
Stage of maturity
cane when cut
Time of extraction
Reducing
sugars
Sucrose
Total
sugars
Brawley
Soft dough
Immediately after
cutting
25.5
57.4
82.9
Tracy
A
A
57.9
19.3
77.2
Sart
A
A
25.7
57.9
83.6
Williams
A
A
47.3
41.1
88.4
Honey
A
A
48.2
37.9
86.1
Sugar
A
A
26.9
57.9
84.8
Brawley
soft + 10 days
A
13.2
68.8
81.9
Tracy
A
A
51.0
30.7
81.7
Sart
A
A
45.7
30.5
76.2
Williams
A
A
37.5
35.7
73.2
Honey
A
A
36.9
35.8
72.7
Sugar
A
A
26.3
51.7
78.0
Brawley
soft dough
10 days after cut.
33.9
44.2
78.1
131
University of Pretoria etd
TABLE A2.3 Performance of three Texan varieties and a local variety in a trail at Dalton (InmanBamber,1980).
Variety name
Roma
Ramada
Rio
PNR989
Yield Components
Age (months)
5.0
4.6
4.6
4.6
Fibre % stalk
14.2
14.9
15.9
18.6
Dry matter % stalk
27.3
25.5
27.8
21.1
Sucrose % stalk
9.3
6.0
9.0
0.4
ERS % stalk
6.7
2.8
6.7
-
Juice Purity %
71.2
55.6
75.3
16.3
Stalk population ('000/h)
88.0
92.0
80.0
-
Stalk length (m)
2.38
1.74
1.42
2.05
stalk yield (t/ha)
37.0
20.0
14.0
25.0
DM yield (t/ha)
10.0
5.1
3.9
5.3
3.4
1.2
1.3
-
Sucrose yield (t/ha)
132
University of Pretoria etd
Table A3.1 Details of the seedlots of the sixty six different sweet sorghum landraces collected from
Botswana.
Code
Production area
Harvesting date
Harvesting
Stage
Seed
treatment
Seed Storage
A
Mushana
Feb., 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bags
B
Tlokweng
April, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bags
C
Kgagodi
April, 1996
Dough
ash
plastic bags
D
Gobojango
April, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bags
E
Maunatlal
March, 1997
Milk
ash
tin
F
Kgagodi
April, 1996
Dough
ash
sack
G
Sefare
April, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bags
H
Mokgomane
April, 1997
Milk
none
plastic bags
I
Semolale
May, 1997
Milk
ash
sack
J
Shakawe
April, 1996
Milk
none
plastic bag
K
Madinare
March, 1997
Milk
none
plastic bag
L
Machaneng
April, 1997
Milk
none
tree shade
M
Sefare
May, 1997
Dough
none
tree shade
N
Machaneng
May, 1997
Milk
none
floor drying
O
Maunatlala
May,1997
Dough
none
plastic bag
P
Tautsure
April, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bag
Q
Machaneng
May, 1997
Milk
none
tree shade
R
Gobojango
April, 1997
Milk
ash
seed bag
S
Gobojango
May, 1997
Milk
none
tree shade
T
Madinare
April, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bag
U
Sefophe
April, 1996
Milk
none
tree shade
V
Sefophe
April, 1996
Milk
ash
seed bag
W
Sefophe
April, 1997
Milk
none
plastic bag
X
Matebeleng
April, 1997
Milk
none
tree shade
Y
Otse
April, 1996
Milk
ash
plastic cont.
Z
Thamaga
May, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bag
A1
Thamaga
April, 1997
Milk
none
tree shade
B1
Malolwane
April, 1996
Milk
ash
tin
C1
Malolwane
April, 1996
Milk
ash
tin
D1
Iyaiyane
May, 1997
Milk
none
tree shade
E1
Malolwane
April,1996
Milk
ash
plastic bag
F1
Matebeleng
April, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
131
University of Pretoria etd
Code
Production area
Harvesting date
May, 1997
Harvesting
Stage
Milk
Seed
treatment
none
G1
Logaganeng
H1
roof drying
Tutume
May, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
I1
Zwenshambe
May, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
J1
Gabane
April, 1996
Milk
ash
plastic bag
K1
Mapoka
May, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
L1
Siviya
April, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
M1
Logaganeng
April, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
N1
Mathubulukwane
May, 1997
Milk
ash
tin
O1
Mmogobane
March, 1997
Milk
none
plastic bag
P1
Mokgomane
April, 1997
Milk
none
plastic bag
Q1
Siviya
April, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
R1
Tutume
April, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
S1
Mapoka
May, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
T1
Sebina
April, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic cont.
U1
Tutume
April, 1997
Milk
none
floor drying
V1
Siviya
April, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bagg
W1
Siviya
April, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
X1
Gamagangwa
April, 1997
Milk
ash
plastic bag
Y1
Malolwane
March, 1996
Milk
ash
tin
Z1
Mathubulukwane
April, 1997
Milk
none
tree drying
A11
Moroka
May, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
B11
Sebina
May, 1997
Milk
none
tree drying
C11
Mokgomane
April, 1997
Milk
none
tree drying
D11
Sebina
May, 1997
Milk
none
tree drying
E11
Tutume
May, 1997
Milk
none
roof drying
F11
Mogomane
April, 1997
Milk
none
tree drying
G11
Mogomane
April, 1997
Milk
ash
sack
H11
Mogomane
April, 1997
Milk
ash
sack
I11
Thutayaseko
April, 1997
Milk
ash
sack
J11
Mmsebele
April, 1997
Milk
none
floor drying
K11
Matebeleng
May, 1997
Milk
none
floor drying
L11
Oodi
April, 1997
Milk
none
floor drying
M11
Moshana
May, 1997
Milk
none
drum drying
N11
Zwenshambe
May, 1997
Milk
none
tree drying
O11
Moroka
April, 1997
Milk
none
floor drying
132
Seed Storage
University of Pretoria etd
Code
Production area
Harvesting date
Harvesting
Stage
Seed
treatment
Seed Storage
P11
Sebina
April, 1996
Milk
none
tree drying.
Table A4.1: Standard germination test for dried untreated seeds and dried prechilled seeds
Grain sorghum
DAA
Sweet sorghum
Untreated seeds
germination (%)
Untreated seeds
germination %)
Treated seeds
germination (%)
Treated seeds
germination (%)
20
12.5
55.5
12.5
12.0
25
13.0
69.5
26.5
48.5
30
17.0
51.5
15.0
26.5
35
29.5
36.5
5.0
55.0
40
21.5
63.5
12.0
71.0
45
21.5
82.0
35.5
99.0
50
25.0
97.5
31.0
98.0
55
26.5
99.0
57.5
98.0
60
69.5
90.0
21.0
98.5
65
37.5
98.5
54.0
93.5
70
61.5
98.0
54.0
98.5
75
80.0
96.0
65.5
80.0
80
76.5
98.0
49.0
84.0
Table A 5.1 Soil Characteristics of the experimental site
South African classification
Suurbekom family ; Hutton form
USDA Soil Taxonomy System
Loamy, mixed, thermic Rhodic Kandiudalf
Clay content
Ap=23%: B21=39%; B22=44%
Silt
14 %
Water holding capacity in the 1.2 m of soil
134 mm
pH in the top 0.2 m soil
6.0
Chemical analysis : P
21 mg kg-o
:K
480 mg kg-o
: Ca
126 mg kg-o
: Mg
255 mg kg-o
Source: Nel et al, 1996. Trends in maize grain yields in a long-term fertilizer trial.
Field Crops Research. 47 : 53-64.
133
University of Pretoria etd
Table A5.2 Meteorological data for 1996/97 to 1998/99 growing seasons in the Experimental Farm.
TEMPERATURE ( °C)
RAINFALL (mm)
Months
1996
1997
1998
1999
Long
Term
1996
1997
Min
Max
1998
1999
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Jan
115.4
135.2
269.6
121.6
17.0
27.1
16.7
27.4
16.5
27.6
Feb
34.8
120.5
213.8
92.6
16.6
28.9
16.7
28.5
16.3
29.3
Mar
327.0
69.4
154.2
86.1
15.2
23.5
16.1
28.3
15.8
28.1
Apr
49.7
1.5
72.2
51.2
10.1
21.9
12.5
26.8
12.1
25.5
May
103.6
0.0
16.2
21.7
6.6
19.2
5.8
21.6
8.5
21.3
June
0.0
0.0
9.7
8.9
3.5
19.8
3.5
21.4
4.6
19.9
July
2.3
0.0
0.0
8.4
3.4
17.2
4.8
18.7
5.1
20.1
Aug
3.8
0.0
0.0
5.9
6.7
20.3
7.4
22.7
6.6
21.9
Sep
0.1
41.1
40.7
20.9
10.4
25.6
11.8
24.0
11.3
25.3
Oct
72.8
23.4
50.0
63.4
14.3
27.5
12.7
25.4
13.1
24.6
Nov
60.5
126.6
45.2
109.3
14.7
25.8
14.5
26.9
14.8
26.3
Dec
139.6
98.7
148.4
116.9
15.8
26.7
16.0
27.8
15.4
25.5
Table A6.1 Summary of ANOVA table for effect of deheading and floret removal of sweet sorghum inflorescence
on the juice quality (SASA)
Source
Stalk Fibre %
Brix %
Purity %
Pol %
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
Treatment
4
0.330
4
0.0030
4
0.0023
4
0.0029
4
0.0159
Rep
3
0.150
3
0.1262
3
0.0451
3
0.0451
3
0.3399
Error
12
12
12
12
12
Total
19
19
19
19
19
C.V.(%)
6.393
6.670
5.801
132
Suc %
11.568
16.472
University of Pretoria etd
Table A7. 1 Summary of ANOVA table for the main effect of planting date and spacing on the juice quality of sweet
sorghum (SASA)
Source
Stalk Fibre %
Brix %
Purity %
Pol %
Suc %
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
Spacing
2
0.3489
2
0.7057
2
0.4005
2
0.4560
2
0.2654
Planting date
2
0.0075
2
0.1584
2
0.0001
2
0.0001
2
0.0001
Spa. X Date
4
0.3580
4
0.9760
4
0.7784
4
0.9586
4
0.5846
Rep
2
0.8396
2
0.8332
2
0.0431
2
0.2826
2
0.3105
Error
16
16
16
16
16
Total
26
26
26
26
26
C.V.(%)
7.68
8.21
9.49
15.08
20.47
Treatment
Table A7.2 Summary of ANOVA table for effect of planting date and spacing on the stem and leaf components
of sweet sorghum
Source
Stem fresh mass
stem dry mass
moisture
content
Stem thickness
No of Tillers
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
df
F-prob.
Spacing
2
0.0056
2
0.0001
2
0.0001
2
0.1488
2
0.0015
Planting date
2
0.0174
2
0.0063
2
0.6073
2
0.0240
2
0.0680
Spa. X Date
4
0.6456
4
0.5209
4
0.5255
4
0.6958
4
0.1351
Rep
2
0.6839
2
0.0615
2
0.1906
2
0.8288
2
0.9635
Error
16
16
16
16
16
Total
26
26
26
26
26
C.V.(%)
40.762
26.531
2.539
11.042
45.31
Treatment
131
University of Pretoria etd
Table A7.3 The main effect of planting date on the stem fresh & dry mass, stem moisture content, number of
tillers, plant height and mainstem thickness at boot stage
Treatment
Stem fresh
mass per
plant (g)
Stem dry
mass per
plant (g)
Leaf fresh
mass per
plant (g)
Leaf dry
mass per
plant (g)
Leaf area
per plant
(cm)
Mainstem
height
(cm)
Stem
thickness
(cm)
Number
of tillers
per plant
T1
1151.8a
236.0a
290.4a
106.1a
7338.7a
2.9a
3.1a
8.6a
T2
1058.6a
171.0b
186.3b
66.3b
5765.8a
2.3b
2.2b
7.8b
T3
865.1a
139.7b
180.0b
63.7b
5558.1a
2.1b
1.8b
7.8b
S1
1277.7a
233.7a
287.3a
98.6a
7054.3a
2.4a
3.1a
8.4a
S2
980.9a
166.8b
206.1b
76.1ab
5985.6a
2.4a
2.5a
8.2a
S3
816.9a
146.1b
163.3b
61.4b
5122.6a
2.5a
1.5b
7.6b
Mean
1025.2
182.2
218.9
78.7
6054.2
2.4
2.4
8.1
C.V.%
39.2
25.0
23.5
27.3
33.0
7.3
24.6
5.1
488.3
55.4
62.5
26.1
2433.0
0.2
0.71
0.5
Planting date
Spacing
LSD
TABLE A7.4 The effect of planting date on the stem fresh and dry mass, leaf fresh and dry mass and leaf
area, plant height, stem thickness and number of tillers at panicle initiation stage
Treatment
Stem fresh
mass per
plant (g)
Stem dry
mass per
plant (g)
Leaffresh
mass per
plant (g)
Leaf dry
mass per
plant (g)
Leaf area
per plant
(cm)
Mainstem
height
(cm)
Stem
thickness
(cm)
Number
of tillers
per plant
Planting date
T1
93.9b
6.6b
51.2b
7.8b
1844.7b
1.0b
3.3a
5.6b
T2
98.5b
9.5b
56.4b
10.1b
1507.3b
1.1ab
1.9b
6.6a
T3
212.8a
27.2a
107.3a
21.9a
3586.1a
1.2a
4.4a
6.8a
S1
144.8a
15.8a
65.2a
12.0 a
2032.6 a
1.2a
6.4a
2.0b
S2
130.6a
13.1a
66.4a
11.8 a
2344.8 a
1.1ab
6.2a
3.5a
S3
130.6a
14.3a
83.3a
16.0 a
2560.7 a
1.0ab
6.4a
4.0a
Mean
135.1
14.4
71.6
13.3
2312.7
1.1
6.3
3.2
C.V. %
23.7
24.3
30.7
30.5
29.3
12.3
10.5
35.1
LSD
38.9
4.3
26.8
4.9
824.6
0.2
0.8
1.4
Spacing
131
University of Pretoria etd
TABLE A8.1 The effects of nitrogen, spacing and landrace treatments on number of leaves, leaf area, leaf
mass, and mainstem height
Treatment
dry
Number of leaves
per plant
Leaf area per plant
(cm 5)
Leaf dry mass per
plant (g)
Mainstem height
(cm)
N0
25.8c
5576b
56.0c
317a
N1
30.1ab
7605a
74.0a
307a
N2
26.6bc
6376ab
58.3bc
301a
N3
31.6a
7482a
66.6bc
318a
L.S.D.
4. 3
1515.4
8.95
25.3
S1
23.0b
4791b
45.4b
316a
S2
34.1a
8728a
82.0a
315a
L.S.D
2.3
809.0
4.78
0.11
L1
24.9b
5615b
53.2b
304b
L2
32.2a
7905a
Nitrogen
Spacing
Landraces
L.S.D
C.V.%
2. 3
15.97
809
23.8
74.2a
4.8
14.9
327a
0.11
6.8
+ Means followed by different letters are significantly different at the 5% level by Tukey=s Multiple Range Test.
Treatments: N0 = Control (zero nitrogen), N1 = 60kgN/ha (early application), N2 =120kgN/ha (early application), N3 = 60
kg N/ha (late application), S1 = 15 cm, S2 = 30 cm, L1= early maturing landrace, L2 = late maturing landrace
131
University of Pretoria etd
TABLE A8. 2 Interaction between nitrogen H spacing on stem fresh mass, stem dry mass and pol%
Attributes
Stem fresh mass
Stemdry mass
per plant (g)
per plant (g)
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
N0
1018.2
1853.2
256.5
433.8
N1
1178.8
2326.8
295.2
N2
1276.9
1790.7
N3
1199.2
**
Spacing
Pol %
Leaf area per
Leaf dry mass per
plant cm5)
plant (g)
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
4.3
6.2
4256
6896
40.5
71.6
563.1
6.8
6.9
4739
10470
46.7
101.1
312.0
430.9
5.6
6.6
5303
7449
48.4
68.2
2023.4
294.5
497.2
6.6
7.0
4867
10097
46.0
87.2
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Nitrogen
** significant at 0.01%
TABLE A8. 3 Interaction between nitrogen H landrace on pol % and juice purity %
Attributes
Landraces
Pol %
Purity %
L1
L2
L1
L2
N0
5.1
5.4
39.3
36.4
N1
6.4
7.6
55.1
42.7
N2
4.7
7.3
51.7
33.0
N3
5.9
7.5
51.1
40.0
**
**
**
**
Nitrogen
** significant at 0.01%
132
University of Pretoria etd
TABLE A 8. 4 Interaction between landrace H Spacing on leaf area, leaf dry mass and number of leaves
Treatment
leaf area per plant
leaf dry mass per plant
(cm 5)
Spacing
number of leaves per
(g)
plant
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
L1
4129.58
7099.87
37.71
68.66
20.88
29.00
L2
5452.79
10356.34
53.05
95.39
25.19
39.13
**
**
**
**
**
**
Landraces
** significant at 001%
TABLE A8. 5 Interaction between nitrogen H landrace H spacing on sucrose, brix dry mass, leaf dry
and number of leaves on final harvest
Treatments
Nitrogen Landraces Spacing
Leaf dry mass per plant (g)
No of leaves per plant
N0
L1
S1
36.5
19.8
N0
L1
S2
50.1
23.5
N0
L2
S1
44.5
22.0
N0
L2
S2
93.1
38.0
N1
L1
S1
41.7
23.3
N1
L1
S2
79.3
28.8
N1
L2
S1
51.8
23.5
N1
L2
S2
122.9
45.0
N2
L1
S1
37.4
20.8
N2
L1
S2
64.3
28.5
N2
L2
S1
59.4
26.8
N2
L2
S2
72.0
30.5
N3
L1
S1
35.3
19.8
N3
L1
S2
80.9
35.3
133
mass,
University of Pretoria etd
Treatments
N3
L2
S1
56.6
28.5
N3
L2
S2
93.5
43.5
**
**
** significant at 0.01%
Table A8.6 Summary of ANOVA table for effect of planting date and spacing on the stem and juice components of
sweet sorghum
Source
Stem fresh
mass
Stem
dry
mass
Number
of tillers
Stem
fibre
Pol %
Brix %
Purity %
df
Prob.
F-prob.
F-prob.
F-prob.
F-prob.
F-prop.
F-prob.
Nitrogen
3
0.0551
0.0160
0.1206
0.0011
0.0001
0.1002
0.0001
Landrace
1
0.0001
0.0001
1.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Spacing
1
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0748
0.0001
0.0021
0.0001
Rep
3
0.5564
0.2429
0.0560
0.7034
0.1794
0.4902
0.1097
N x LR
3
0.2528
0.4459
0.1462
0.2276
0.0001
0.0260
0.0016
N x SP
3
00675
0.0479
0.0933
0.2245
0.0056
0.7928
0.2008
LR x SP
1
0.2809
0.1760
1.0000
0.9888
0.3230
0.8032
0.6091
N x LR x SP
3
0.0010
0.0395
0.1131
0.5507
0.0023
0.9170
0.2342
Error
45
Total
63
C. V. (%)
20.481
18.989
26.893
8.896
11.274
5.322
12.676
Treatment
132
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement