Quality Attributes of Sweet Sorghum for the Large-Scale Production of Bioproducts: A 1-Year Comparison of Commercial Hybrids and a Cultivar
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.
KeywordsSweet 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.
- Bala Ravi, S., P. Biswas, and C. Ratnavathi. 1996. Advances in value addition of Kharif sorghum. Crop Improvement 23: 169–177.Google Scholar
- Broadhead, D. 1972. Effect of planting date and maturity on juice quality of Rio sweet sorghum. Crop Science 13: 389–390.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Godshall, M. 1997. Color analysis. In Proceedings of the sugar industry technologists meeting, Canada, LVI, 211–231.Google Scholar
- Hahn, D., L. Rooney, and C. Earp. 1984. Tannins and phenols of sorghum. Cereal Foods World 29: 776–779.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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