21.12.2013 Views

ICRISAT Archival Report 2006 - The seedlings of success in the ...

ICRISAT Archival Report 2006 - The seedlings of success in the ...

ICRISAT Archival Report 2006 - The seedlings of success in the ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Milestone 5A.6.1.1: Six new dual-purpose foliar disease resistant forage/sweet sorghum hybrid parents developed<br />

(BVSR, 2009)<br />

High-yield<strong>in</strong>g designated hybrid parents with sweet stalk, and varieties and hybrids developed by cross<strong>in</strong>g<br />

promis<strong>in</strong>g sweet sorghum A- and R-l<strong>in</strong>es were evaluated <strong>in</strong> replicated trials dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> 2005 postra<strong>in</strong>y season.<br />

Results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se trials are given below.<br />

Sweet sorghum B-l<strong>in</strong>e trial: Based on <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> sweet sorghum B-l<strong>in</strong>es evaluated dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> 2005 ra<strong>in</strong>y<br />

season, a total <strong>of</strong> 30 B-l<strong>in</strong>es were selected and evaluated along with <strong>the</strong> checks NSSH 104 and SSV 84 <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2005<br />

postra<strong>in</strong>y season. ICSB 73 with 0.9 t ha -1 sugar yield performed significantly better than <strong>the</strong> best check NSSH 104<br />

(0.74 t ha -1 ) for sugar yield based on Brix read<strong>in</strong>g and juice yield, while ICSB 324 (0.7 t ha -1 ), ICSB 652 & 401 (0.6<br />

t ha -1 ) and ICSB 24001 (0.5 t ha -1 ) were significantly better than SSV 84 (0.3 t ha -1 ). <strong>The</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>es<br />

for o<strong>the</strong>r traits is presented <strong>in</strong> Table 1.<br />

Sweet sorghum advanced B-l<strong>in</strong>e trial (SSABLT, <strong>2006</strong>K): Based on <strong>the</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> B-l<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> sweet sorghum<br />

B-l<strong>in</strong>e trial <strong>in</strong> 2004 postra<strong>in</strong>y season, 2005 ra<strong>in</strong>y and postra<strong>in</strong>y seasons, PPV (Protection <strong>of</strong> Plant Varieties) trials <strong>in</strong><br />

2004 ra<strong>in</strong>y and postra<strong>in</strong>y seasons, PPV trials <strong>in</strong> 2005 ra<strong>in</strong>y and postra<strong>in</strong>y seasons, 75 B-l<strong>in</strong>es were selected and<br />

evaluated dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>2006</strong> ra<strong>in</strong>y season along with <strong>the</strong> checks 296B and SSV 84. Three B-l<strong>in</strong>es, ICSB 729 (3.3 t ha -<br />

1 ), ICSB 722 (3.1 t ha -1 ), ICSB 321 (3.0 t ha -1 ) were on par with <strong>the</strong> check SSV 84 (2.7 t ha -1 ) for sugar yield.<br />

Among <strong>the</strong>se, ICSB 722 (14 t ha -1 ) was significantly better than <strong>the</strong> check 296 B (10.9 t ha -1 ) for gra<strong>in</strong> yield, while<br />

<strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m were on par with 296 B, except ICSB 321. <strong>The</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se l<strong>in</strong>es for o<strong>the</strong>r traits is given <strong>in</strong><br />

Table 2.<br />

Table 1. Performance <strong>of</strong> selected sweet sorghum B-l<strong>in</strong>es (at maturity stage) - 2005 postra<strong>in</strong>y season<br />

at <strong>ICRISAT</strong>, Patancheru<br />

B-l<strong>in</strong>e<br />

Days to<br />

50%<br />

flower<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Plant<br />

height<br />

(m)<br />

Cane<br />

yield<br />

(t ha -1 )<br />

Juice<br />

yield<br />

(t ha -1 )<br />

Brix<br />

read<strong>in</strong>g at<br />

maturity<br />

Sugar yield based on<br />

Brix read<strong>in</strong>g and juice<br />

yield (t ha -1 )<br />

ICSB 73 75 1.5 13.8 5.7 16.7 0.9<br />

ICSB 324 75 1.5 12.0 3.7 19.0 0.7<br />

ICSB 652 75 1.3 11.1 3.3 16.7 0.6<br />

ICSB 401 75 1.4 12.9 4.2 13.0 0.6<br />

ICSB 24001 75 1.5 13.2 4.4 11.7 0.5<br />

NSSH 104 (Check) 73 1.5 13.3 5.3 13.3 0.7<br />

SSV 84 (Check) 70 1.4 9.0 2.7 16.3 0.4<br />

Mean 75 1.2 6.9 2.1 12.0 0.3<br />

CV (%) 3.9 15.0 21.9 22.3 22.4 29.4<br />

CD (5%) 3.96 0.30 2.5 0.74 4.36 0.13<br />

Table 2. Performance <strong>of</strong> selected sweet sorghum B-l<strong>in</strong>es (at maturity stage) - <strong>2006</strong> ra<strong>in</strong>y season at<br />

<strong>ICRISAT</strong>, Patancheru<br />

Sugar yield based<br />

Days to<br />

50% Plant<br />

Cane<br />

yield<br />

Juice<br />

(t yield<br />

on Brix read<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Brix read<strong>in</strong>g and juice yield<br />

Gra<strong>in</strong><br />

yield<br />

B-l<strong>in</strong>e<br />

flower<strong>in</strong>g height (m) ha -1 ) (t ha -1 ) at maturity (t ha -1 ) (t ha -1 )<br />

ICSB 729 77 2.2 49.5 23.4 14.7 3.3 10.9<br />

ICSB 722 75 2.2 41.5 20.5 15.2 3.1 14.0<br />

ICSB 321 78 2.3 40.6 18.0 17.5 3.0 7.9<br />

SSV 84 (Check) 82 2.9 45.7 18.6 18.2 3.3 3.0<br />

296 B (Check) 69 1.5 12.1 2.7 8.3 0.5 10.9<br />

Mean 67 1.6 21.5 9.2 12.9 1.2 11.4<br />

CV (%) 1.69 8.20 12.5 21.11 9.33 30.3 11.84<br />

CD (5%) 1.82 0.22 4.36 3.13 1.94 0.41 2.17<br />

137

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!