Sugar Tech

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 336–346 | Cite as

Processing Attributes and Performance of Sweet Sorghum Biomass for Large-Scale Biorefineries: 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


Processing attributes of sweet sorghum biomass are critical for the manufacture of biofuels and bioproducts. Two commercial sweet sorghum hybrids 105 and 106, late and early maturing, respectively, were compared to inbred, later-maturing Top 76-6 cultivar, for processing attributes at the soft dough (SD) and hard dough (HD) maturity stages. Crops were grown in South Louisiana, and juice extracted from topped whole-stalks was pilot plant clarified and vacuum evaporated to syrups. Hybrid 106 contained a marked amount of auxiliary seed-head/stalk (side-branch tillers), which reduced growth of the main stalk and detrimentally affected juice sugar content and turbidity, as well as clarification and evaporation performance. Except for 105 at the HD stage, turbidity removal across clarification was very acceptable (>92%) and directly related to the median size of the starch granules in the initial raw juice. Clarification was generally better at SD than HD stage. Considerable variation (P < 0.05) existed for total starch in raw juice with 106 >>> Top 76-6 > 105; insoluble and soluble starch were both removed in the clarification mud. Overall, the hybrids processed similarly to cultivar Top 76-6, and 105 had the additional advantages of having low starch and no auxiliary seed-head/stalk. Further studies are now warranted to ascertain environmental effects on processing.


Sweet sorghum Hybrids Cultivars Maturity Processing characteristics Clarification Evaporation 



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. Abernathy, D., G. Spedding, and B. Starcher. 2009. Analysis of protein and total usable nitrogen in beer and wine using a microwell ninhydrin assay. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 115: 122–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allhands, M. 2007. A treatise on turbidity and TSS. (White Paper).
  3. Alves, F., L. Polesi, C. Aguiar, and S. Sarmento. 2014. Structural and physicochemical characteristics of starch from sugarcane and sweet sorghum stalks. Carbohydrate Polymers 111: 592–597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Bitzer, M. J., and J. Fox. 2000. Processing sweet sorghum for syrup. Part two. Revised version. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky, 1–8.
  7. Broadhead, D.M., K. Freeman, and N. Zummo. 1981. ‘M81 E’-A new variety of sweet sorghum. In University, M. S., Ed., Vol. 1309, 1–4. Meridian, MS: Mississippi Agricultural & Forestry Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  8. 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. Vol. LXXIII, 212–229.Google Scholar
  9. Eggleston, G., B. Andrzejewski, M. Cole, C. Dalley, S. Sklanka, Y. Chung, E. St Cyr, and R. Powell. 2015. Storage technologies for raw and clarified sweet sorghum syrups manufactured under pilot plant conditions. Biomass and Bioenergy 81: 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eggleston, G., B. Andrzejewski, C. Alexander, A. Monge, E. St, M. Cyr, H.Sohljoo Marquette, and K. Pontif. 2011. Design and operation of a pilot-plant for the processing of sugarcane juice into sugar at the Southern Regional Research Center in Louisiana. International Sugar Journal 113: 863–872.Google Scholar
  11. Eggleston, G., M. Grisham, and A. Antoine. 2010. Clarification properties of trash and stalk tissues from sugarcane varieties. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 58: 366–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eggleston, G., M. Heckemeyer, E. St. 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
  13. Eggleston, G., B. Montes, M. Heckemeyer, Triplett, A., Stewart, D., Lima, I. and Cole, M. 2017a. Problems, control, and opportunities of starch in the large scale manufacture of sugarcane and sweet sorghum. International Sugar Journal, in review.Google Scholar
  14. Eggleston, G., L. Wartelle, J. Zatlokovicz, E. Petrie, M. Cole, and E. St. Cyr. 2017b. Quality attributes of sweet sorghum for large-scale biorefineries: A comparison of hybrids and a commercial cultivar. Sugar Tech. doi: 10.1007/s12355-017-0531-9.
  15. Fugelsang, K., and C. Edwards. 2010. In Wine Microbiology, 2nd ed. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
  16. Koninckx, J. 2013. Biorefinery beckons. Iowa plant will produce ethanol from corn stover. Chemical Processing, January edition, 38–39.Google Scholar
  17. Kumar, C., A. Fatima, R. Srinivasa, B. Reddy, A. Rathore, R. Nageswar, S. Khalid, A. Kumar, and A. Kaman. 2010. Sugar Tech 12: 322–328.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