Comparison of Agronomic Characteristics, Forage Production and Quality of Kenaf (Hongma 300), Maize (Kwangpyeongok) and Sorghum × Sudangrass Hybrids (Jumbo) in Middle Region of Korea

중부지역에서 케나프(홍마 300), 옥수수(광평옥) 및 수수×수단그라스 교잡종(점보)의 생육특성, 수량성 및 품질비교

  • 황태영 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원) ;
  • 지희정 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원) ;
  • 김기용 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원) ;
  • 이상훈 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원) ;
  • 이기원 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원) ;
  • 최기준 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원)
  • Received : 2015.05.22
  • Accepted : 2015.06.06
  • Published : 2015.06.30


This study was conducted from 2013 to 2014 in the middle region of Korea to compare the agronomic characteristics, forage production, and quality of kenaf, maize, and a sorghum ${\times}$ sudangrass hybrid. The three crops used in this study were kenaf "Hongma 300," maize "Kwangpyeongok," and the sorghum ${\times}$ sudangrass hybrid "Jumbo" (headless type). The sugar contents of the kenaf, maize, and sorghum ${\times}$ sudangrass hybrid were 5.4%, 4.4%, and 2.5%, respectively. The emergence rates and lodgings of the three crops were sound, as they were more than 80% and 1.5, respectively. The fresh yields of kenaf, maize, and the sorghum ${\times}$ sudangrass hybrid were 117,521 kg/ha, 73,336 kg/ha, and 133,334 kg/ha, respectively, and the dry matter (DM) yields were 28,598 kg/ha, 19,951 kg/ha and 20,083 kg/ha, respectively. The DM yield of kenaf was significantly the highest among the three crops (p<0.05). However, the total digestible nutrients (TDN) contents of the kenaf, corn, and sorghum ${\times}$ sudangrass hybrid were 43.3 %, 72.0 %, and 54.8 %, respectively, and the in vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) yields were 44.4%, 73.7%, and 59.6 %, respectively; therefore, the TDN yield of the corn was 13 % significantly higher than that of the kenaf (p<0.05). The TDN yields of the kenaf, corn, and sorghum ${\times}$ sudangrass hybrid were 12,472 kg/ha, 14,350 kg/ha, and 11,001 kg/ha, respectively. Among the three crops, the content of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were highest in the kenaf. This study shows that the kenaf had a good forage productivity but a low forage quality.


Grant : 국내외사료 자원 수집, 보존, 특성평가 및 신작목 개발

Supported by : 농촌진흥청


  1. AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC.
  2. Gangstad, E.O. 1964. Physical and chemical composition of grass sorghum as related to palatability. Crop Science 4:269-270.
  3. Goering, H.K. and Van Soest, P.J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. Ag. Handbook. No. 379. ARS, USDA: Washington DC.
  4. Holland, C., Kezar, W., Kautz, W.P., Lazowski, E.J., Mahanna, W. C. and Reinjart, R. 1990. The pioneer forage manual. A nutritional guide. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Incorporation, Des Moines, LA.
  5. Hollowell, J.E., Baldwin, B.S. and Lang, D.L. 1996. Evaluation of kenafs a potential forage for the southern United States. 8th Annual International Kenaf Conference. 34-38.
  6. Jin, C.W., Park, H.J., Eom, S.H., Kim, B.W., Sung, K.I. and Cho, D.H. 2007. Physiological characteristics of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.). Journal of the Korean Grassland and Forage Science. 27:79-84.
  7. Kang, C.H., Yu, Y.J., Choi, K.H., Kim, H.J., Shin, Y.K., Lee, G.J., Ko, D.Y., Song, Y.J. and Kim, C.K. 2014. Development of stable culture techniques for kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.). Korean Journal Crop Science. 59:375-384.
  8. Kang, S.Y., Kim, P.G., Kang, Y.K., Kang, B.K., U.Z.K., Riu, K.Z. and Song, H.S. 2004. Growth, yield and photosynthesis of introduced kenaf cultivars in Korea. Korea Journal of Plant Resources. 17:139-146.
  9. Kim, B.H., Moon, Y.H. and Shin, J.N. 1992. Comparison of productivity of various silage corn varieties I. Growth characteristics and dry matter yield of different part of silage corns. Journal of the Korean Grassland and Forage Science. 12:178-184.
  10. Kwon, C.H., Kim, E.J. and Cho, S. 2014. Effects of BMR variety and corn grain (grounded) supplement on silage quality of sorghum $\times$ sudan hybrids. Journal of the Korean Grassland and Forage Science. 34:240-246.
  11. Lam, T.B.T., Hori, K. and Iiyama, K. 2003. Structural characteristics of cell walls of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) and fixation of carbon dioxide. Journal of Wood Science. 49:255-261.
  12. MAFRA. 2014. Forage production and utilization for animal production. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
  13. Moore, R.E. 1970. Procedure for the two-stage in vitro digestion of forage. University of Florida, Department of Animal Science
  14. Phillips, W.A., McCollum, F.T. and Fitch, G.Q. 1999. Kenaf dry matter production, chemical composition, and in situ disappearance when harvested at different intervals. Professional Animal Scientist. 15:34-39.
  15. Suriyajantratong, W., Tucker, R.E., Sigafus, R.E. and Mitchell, G.E. 1973. Kenaf and rice straw for sheep. Jorunal of Animal Science. 37:1251-1254.
  16. Swingle, R.S., Urias, A.R., Doyle, J.C. and Voigt, R.L. 1978. Chemical composition of kenaf forage and its digestibility by lambs and in vitro. Jorunal of Animal Science. 46:1346-1350.
  17. Tilley, J.M.A. and Terry, R.A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of British Grassland Society. 18:104-111.
  18. Webber, C.L. III. 1993a. Yield components of five kenaf cultivar. Agronomy Journal. 85:533-535.
  19. Webber, C.L. III. 1993b. Crude protein and yield components of six kenaf cultivars as affected by cropmaturity. Industrial Crop and Products. 2:27-31.

Cited by

  1. Effects of Seeding and Organic Fertilizer Rates and Harvest time on Kenaf Yield and Feed Value vol.38, pp.2, 2018,