Sugar Tech

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 347–356 | Cite as

Quality Attributes of Sweet Sorghum for the Large-Scale Production of Bioproducts: A 1-Year Comparison of Commercial Hybrids and a Cultivar

  • Gillian Eggleston
  • Lynda Wartelle
  • John ZatlokoviczIII
  • Eric Petrie
  • Marsha Cole
  • Eldwin St. Cyr
Research article


Quality attributes of sweet sorghum affect the industrial processing of this biomass into biofuels and bioproducts. In a 1-year study, two commercial sweet sorghum hybrids 105 and 106, late and early maturing, respectively, were compared to inbred, later-maturing Top 76-6 cultivar, for quality attributes at the soft dough (SD) and hard dough (HD) maturity stages. Crops were grown in South Louisiana, and juice was extracted from topped whole stalks by roller milling. Crop biomass yields varied (P < 0.05) with 105 > Top 76-6 > 106, with hybrid 106 containing markedly more auxiliary seed head/stalk (side-branch tillers) compared to none in hybrid 105 and only 0.5% in Top 76-6 at HD. For the three genotypes, the stalk contributed between 63.8 and 86.5% of the fresh weight biomass which decreased from SD to HD. The growth parameters of crop yield, and stalk biomass, height, wet weight, first internode diameter, and to a lesser degree hardness of the last internode were strongly, negatively correlated with both soluble and insoluble starch in the raw juice. This suggested that increased growth/maturity of the genotypes tended to reduce starch. Overall, except for significantly (P < 0.05) lower mode values in the hybrids compared to Top 76-6, there were little statistical differences in starch granule size parameters. Further studies are now warranted to ascertain environmental effects on quality.


Sweet sorghum Hybrids Cultivars Maturity Quality attributes Starch Color 



Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Andrzejewski, B., G. Eggleston, S. Lingle, and R. Powell. 2013a. Development of a sweet sorghum juice clarification method in the manufacture of industrial feedstocks for value-added products. Industrial Crops and Products 44: 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrzejewski, B., G. Eggleston, and R. Powell. 2013b. Pilot plant clarification of sweet sorghum juice and evaporation of raw and clarified juices. Industrial Crops and Products 49: 648–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audilakshmi, S., A. Mall, M. Swarnalathm, and N. Seetharama. 2010. Inheritence of sugar concentration in stalk (Brix), sucrose content, stalk and juice yield in sorghum. Biomass and Bioenergy 34: 813–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bala Ravi, S., P. Biswas, and C. Ratnavathi. 1996. Advances in value addition of Kharif sorghum. Crop Improvement 23: 169–177.Google Scholar
  5. Broadhead, D. 1972. Effect of planting date and maturity on juice quality of Rio sweet sorghum. Crop Science 13: 389–390.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, M., G. Eggleston, A. Gilbert, and Y. Chung. 2014. Development of a research method to measure insoluble and soluble starch in sugarcane factory and refinery products. In Proceedings of the 2014 sugar industry technologists meeting, Canada, LXXIII, 212–229.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, M., G. Eggleston, E. Petrie, M. Uchimiya, and C. Dalley. 2017. Genotype and maturity effects on the quality attributes and ethanol potential of sweet sorghum. Biomass and Bioenergy 96: 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deitz, V., F. Carpenter, C. Rieger, and H. Rootare. 1959. The influence on pH on some properties of char liquors. Bone Char Research Project Technical Report, No. 53.Google Scholar
  9. Downes, R. 1996. The effect of temperature on tillering of grain sorghum seedlings. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 19: 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Earp, C., C. McDonough, J. Awika, and L. Rooney. 2004. Microscopic changes during development of sorghums with and without pigmented testa. Journal of Cereal Science 39: 153–161.Google Scholar
  11. Eggleston, G., M. Heckemeyer, E.S. Cyr, and L. Wartelle. 2016. Case Study: Commercialization of sweet sorghum juice clarification for large-scale syrup manufacture. Sugar Tech 18: 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eggleston, G., L. Wartelle, J. Zatlokovicz, E. Petrie, M. Cole, and E. St. Cyr. 2017. Processing attributes and performance of sweet sorghum biomass for large-scale biorefineries: A 1-year comparison of commercial hybrids and a cultivar. Sugar Tech. doi: 10.1007/s12355-017-0533-7.Google Scholar
  13. Erickson, J., Z. Helsel, K. Woodard, J. Venramini, Y. Wang, L. Sollenberger, and R.A. Gilbert. 2011. Planting date affects biomass and Brix of sweet sorghum grown for biofuel in Florida. Agronomy Journal 103: 1827–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerik, T., and C. Neely. 1987. Crop ecology, production, and management. Plant density effects on main culm and tiller development of grain sorghum. Crop Science 27: 1225–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godshall, M. 1997. Color analysis. In Proceedings of the sugar industry technologists meeting, Canada, LVI, 211–231.Google Scholar
  16. Hahn, D., L. Rooney, and C. Earp. 1984. Tannins and phenols of sorghum. Cereal Foods World 29: 776–779.Google Scholar
  17. Kumar, C., A. Fatima, R. Srinivasa, B. Reddy, A. Rathore, R. Nageswar, S. Khalid, A. Kumar, and A. Kamal. 2010. Characterization of improved sweet sorghum genotypes for biochemical parameters, sugar yield and its attributes at different phenological stages. Sugar Tech 12: 322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nathan, R. 1978. Fuels from sugar crops: Systems study for sugarcane, sweet sorghum and sugar beets, 37. Oak Ridge: United States Department of Energy, Technical Information Center, 71D-22781.Google Scholar
  19. Nyachoti, C., J. Atkinson, and S. Leeson. 1997. Sorghum tannins: A review. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 53: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfeiffer, T., M. Bitzer, J. Toy, and J. Pederson. 2010. Heterosis in sweet sorghum and selection of a new sweet sorghum hybrid for use in syrup production in Appalachia. Crop Science 50: 1788–1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quinby, J. 1963. Manifestations of hybrid vigor in sorghum. Crop Science 3: 288–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rooney, L., and F. Miller. 1982. Variation in the structure and kernel characteristics of sorghum. In Proceedings of the international symposium of sorghum grain quality, 143–162.Google Scholar
  23. Schaffert, R., and L. Gourley. 1982. Sorghum as an energy source in sorghum in the eighties. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Sorghum, Patancheur, AP, 502324. ICRASAT, 605–623.Google Scholar
  24. Weitzel, T., J. Cundiff, and D. Vaughan. 1989. Optimization of sweet sorghum processing parameters. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Biology and Engineering 32: 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhao, Y., A. Dolat, Y. Steinberger, X. Wang, A. Osman, and G. Xie. 2009. Biomass yield and changes in chemical composition of sweet sorghum cultivars grown for biofuel. Field Crops Research 111: 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research &#38; Promotion 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA-ARS-Southern Regional Research CenterNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.USDA-ARS-Sugarcane UnitHoumaUSA

Personalised recommendations