Study on Adaptation, Dry Matter Yield and Nutrient Value of Kenaf(Hibiscus cannabinus L.) on Jeju Province

양마의 제주지역 지역 적응성, 생산성 및 사료가치에 관한 연구

  • 황경준 (제주대학교 농업생명과학대학) ;
  • 김문철 (제주대학교 농업생명과학대학) ;
  • 강시용 (제주대학교 농업생명과학대학) ;
  • 유장걸 (제주대학교 농업생명과학대학) ;
  • 송상택 (제주도 보건환경연구원) ;
  • 박남건 (제주농업시험장) ;
  • 김종하 (남제주 농업기술센터)
  • Published : 2002.12.01


A field trial was conducted from May to November 2000 at four regions of Jeju province(Jeju, Seogwipo, Susan Seongsan and Keumak Hallim) to estimate adaptation, dry matter yield and nutrient value of kenafs(Everglades 41 and China Choung-pi 3) and a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid(Pioneer 947). Total dry matter(DM) yields of sorghum-sudangrass hybrid Pioneer 947, kenaf Everglades 41 and kenaf China Chong-pi 3 were 7,313, 4,653 and 5,238 kg/ha(P<0.05), respectively, kenaf China Chong-pi 3 being the highest. The region specific dry matter(DM) yields of Jeju, Seogwipo, Seongsan and Hallim area were 5,040, 5,663, 7,283 and 4,950kg/ha, respectively, showing that Seogwipo was the highest. Average DM yields of two kenaf varieties were 4,946, and 3,246 kg/ha for 1st time-cutting and 2nd time-cutting, respectively. The average dry matter(DM) yield of kenaf was significantly higher in the 1st time-cutting than the 2nd time. No significant difference in neutral detergent fiber(NDF) and acid detergent fiber(ADF) contents was found among three varieties. The average crude protein(CP) content of kenaf was higher than that of sorghum-sudangrass hybrid(P<0.05) and was higher in 2nd time-cutting than in 1st time-cutting(P<0.05). There were no significant difference in the heavy metal content of soil either between the sorghum hybrid and kenafs or between two kenaf varieties. In conclusion, the average dry matter(DM) yield of kenaf was lower than that of sorghum hybrid, Contrarily the crude protein(CP) content of kenafs was higher than that of the sorghum hybrid. The average dry matter(DM) yield of kenaf showed higher in 1st time-cutting than 2nd time-cutting, while the crude protein(CP) content of kenafs decreased with time.


  1. Amaducci, S., M.T. Amaducci, R. Benati, and G. Venturi. 2000. Crop yield and quality parameters of four annual fibre crops(hemp, kenaf, maize and sorghum) in the North of Italy. Industrial Crops and Products 11: 179-186
  2. Hollowell, J. E., Baldwin, B. S. and Lang, D. L., 1996. Evaluation of kenafs a potential forage for the southern United States. Proc. 8th Ann. Intern. Kenaf Confer.: 34-38
  3. Killinger, G.B. 1969. Kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.), a multi-use crop. Agron. J. 61. 734-736
  4. Miyazaki A., Agata., Kubota, F., Masuda, Y., and Song, X. 1995. Bio-production and water cleaning by plant growth with floating culture system. 2. Water cleaning effects by the growth of several plant species. 6th International Conference of the Conservation and Management of Lakes Kasumigaura. 95(1) : 560-563
  5. Phillips, S,W.A., PAS, F.T. Mccollum, III3, and Fitch, G. Q. 1995. Kenaf dry matter production, chemical composition, and In situ disappearance when harvested at different intervals. USDA-ARS Grazinglands Research Laboratory, El Reno, OK 73036 and Animal Science Department, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
  6. Shobert, A.D., G. Q. Fitch, and W.A. Phillips. 1997. Comparison of kenaf and alfalfa as a protein supplement for lambs consuming either fescue or bermudagrass hay. J. Anim. Sci. (suppl. 1) 75:26.(Abs.)
  7. Song, X., Agata. W., Zou. G., Wu, W., Yin, H., Yu, Q., Huang, Y., Kubota, F., and Muramoto, S. 1995. Bio-production and water cleaning by plant growth with floating culture system. 1. Effect of floating culture area of rice plants on water quality criteria and biproduction. 6th International Conference on the Conservation and Management of Lakes Kasumigura. 95(1): 426-429
  8. Statistix, 1996. Statistix for windows. Analytical Software. P. O. Box 12185
  9. Suriyajantratong, W., R.E. Tucker, R.E. Sigafus and G. E. Mitchell, Jr. 1973. Kenaf and rice straw for sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 37: 1251-1254
  10. Swingle, R.S., A.R. Urias, J. C. Doyle, and R. L. Voigt. 1978. Chemical composition of kenaf forage and its digestibility by lambs and in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 46: 1346-1350
  11. Webber, C.L. III. 1993 a. Crude protein and yield components of six kenaf cultivars as affected by crop maturity. Industrial Crops and Products. 2: 27-31
  12. Webber, C.L. III. 1993 b. Yield components of five kenaf cultivars. Agron. J. 85: (3) 533-535
  13. Webber, C.L. III. 1997. Kenaf(Hibiscus cannabinus L.). Proceedings Ninth Annual International Kenaf Association Conference. 1-6
  14. Wilson, R.D., T.E. Summers, J.G. Joyner, D.W. Fishler, and C.C. Sealer. 1965. 'Everglades 41' and 'Everglades 71' two new varieties of kenaf(Hibiscus cannabinus L.) for fiber and seed. Fla. Agr. Expt. Sta. Circ. S-168
  15. Wing, J.M. 1967. Ensilability, acceptability and digestibility of kenaf. Feedstuffs 39(29):26
  16. 박종문 1964. Genus Hibiscus의 품종에 관한 연구. 1. 한국재래종 및 남방형 양마의 개화와 수정. 한국작물학회지 제2호: 50-56
  17. 조남기, 송창길, 강봉균, 조영일, 고지병a 2001, 제주지역에서 재식밀도에 따른 양마의 생육특성, 수량 및 조성분 변화. 동물자원지: 43(5): 755-762
  18. 조남기, 송창길, 조영일, 고지병b 2001. 제주지역에서 질소 시비량 차이에 따라 양마의 생육특성, 수량 및 조성분 변화. 한초지 21(2) : 59-66