Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Post-harvest Changes in Sweet Sorghum II: pH, Acidity, Protein, Starch, and Mannitol

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of four harvesting methods on juice quality and storability in sweet sorghum. Three cultivars (Dale, Theis, and M81-E) were harvested at 90, 115, and 140 days after planting. Stalks were stripped of leaves and topped at the peduncle, then divided into four treatments (whole stalk, 20- or 40-cm billets, or chopped). The sorghum was stored outside at ambient temperature in a shade tent, and juice was extracted from samples removed at 0, 1, 2, and 4 days after harvest. Changes in juice Brix and sugars were reported in an earlier paper (Lingle, Tew, Rukavina, Boykin, Post-harvest changes in sweet sorghum I: Brix and sugars, BioEnergy Research 5:158–167, 2012). In this paper, we report changes in juice pH, titratable acidity (TA), and protein, starch, and mannitol concentrations. Juice pH dropped rapidly after harvest in chopped sorghum, but changed little during 4 days of storage in whole stalks or billets. Similarly, TA increased with storage time in chopped samples, but was unchanged in whole stalks and billets. Protein concentration was highly variable, and no pattern with treatment or storage time could be discerned. In whole stalks and billets, starch content slowly decreased during storage, while in chopped samples starch appeared to increase. This was most likely a result of an increase in dextran synthesized by microorganisms in those samples, which was also detected by the enzymatic starch assay. The concentration of mannitol increased with storage time in chopped samples, but not in whole stalks or billets. Within a harvest date, pH was highly correlated with total sugar, while TA and mannitol were highly negatively correlated with total sugar. The results confirm that whole stalks and billets were little changed over 4 days of storage, while chopped sorghum was badly deteriorated 1 day after harvest. Changes in pH, TA, or mannitol could be used to measure deterioration in sweet sorghum after harvest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Abbreviations

TA:

Titratable acidity

DAP:

Days after planting

DMSO:

Dimethyl sulfoxide

NAD:

Nicotine amide dinucleotide

DTT:

Dithiothreitol

References

  1. Bennett MC (1957) The physical nature and behaviour of cane sugar juice I. Int Sugar J 59:176–178

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett MC (1957) The physical nature and behaviour of cane sugar juice II. Flocculation phenomena. Int Sugar J 59:208–212

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bitzer MJ, Fox JD (2000) Processing sweet sorghum for syrup.University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, Lexington. KY Agr 123:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein dye-binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Broadhead DM (1972) Effect of planting date and maturity on juice quality of Rio sweet sorghum. Agron J 64:389–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Broadhead DM (1972) Effects of stalk chopping on leaf removal and juice quality of Rio sweet sorghum. Agron J 64:306–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chotineeranat S, Wansuksri R, Piyachomkwan K, Chatakanonda P, Weerathaworn P, Sriroth K (2010) Effect of calcium ions on ethanol production from molasses by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Sugar Tech 12:120–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Coble CG, Egg RP, Shmulevich I (1984) Processing techniques for ethanol production from sweet sorghum. Biomass 6:111–117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Daeschel MA, Mundt JO, McCarty IE (1981) Microbial changes in sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) juices. Appl Environ Microbiol 42:381–382

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dixon M, Webb EC (1979) Enzymes, 3rd edn. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eggleston G (2009) Analysis of mannitol as tracer of bacterial infections in cane and beet sugar factories. Proceedings of the 16th AVH Symposium, 26 March 2009, Reims, France, pp 24–34

  12. Eggleston G, Côté G, Santee C (2011) New insights on the hard-to-boil massecuite phenomenon in raw sugar manufacture. Food Chem 126:21–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Eggleston G, Legendre B, Richard C (2001) Effect of harvest method and storage time on sugarcane deterioration I: Cane quality changes. Int Sugar J 103:331–338

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eggleston G, Legendre B, Tew T (2004) Indicators of freeze-damaged sugarcane varieties which can predict processing problems. Food Chem 87:119–133

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Eggleston G, Harper W (2006) Determination of sugarcane deterioration at the factory: development of a rapid, easy and inexpensive enzymatic method to measure mannitol. Food Chem 98:366–372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eggleston G, Karr J, Parris A, Legendre B (2009) A rapid biochemical rest to assess postharvest deterioration of sugarcane and milled juice. Sugar Tech 11:189–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Eggleston G, Monge A, Ogier BE (2003) Sugarcane factory performance of cold, intermediate, and hot lime clarification processes. J Food Proc Pres 26:433–454

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eiland BR, Clayton JE, Bryan WL (1983) Losses of fermentable sugars in sweet sorghum during storage. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 26:1596–1600

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Huber SC, Akazawa T (1986) A novel sucrose synthase pathway for sucrose degradation in cultured sycamore cells. Plant Physiol 81:1008–1013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuepper G (1992) Sweet sorghum production and processing. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Inc., Poteau, pp 1–95

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lingle SE (2010) Opportunities and challenges of sweet sorghum as a feedstock for biofuel. In: Eggleston G (ed) Sustainability of the sugar and sugar–ethanol industries. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 177–188

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Lingle S, Tew T, Rukavina H, Boykin D (2012) Post-harvest changes in sweet sorghum I: Brix and sugars. BioEnergy Res 5:158–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Reidenbach VG, Coble CG (1985) Sugarcane or sweet sorghum processing techniques for ethanol production. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 28:571–575

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rotz CA, Muck RE (1994) Changes in forage quality during harvest and storage. In: Fahey GCJ, Collins M, Mertens DR, Moser LE (eds) Forage quality, evaulation, and utilization. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 828–868

    Google Scholar 

  25. Simpson R (1996) The chemistry of clarification. Proc South Afr Sugar Tech Assoc 70:267–271

    Google Scholar 

  26. Smith BA, Romo RV, Smith RC, de la Cruz RA, Griffiths FP, Cowley WR (1972) Preliminary pilot plant studies of the production of raw sugar from sorghum. Proc Inter Soc Sugar Cane Technol 14:1637–1644

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ventre EK, Byall S, Walton CFJ (1939) Jellying and crystallization of sirups made from different parts of the sorgo stalk at different stages of maturity. J Agric Res 59:139–150

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ventre KE (1940) Preliminary report of the crystallization of sucrose from juices of sorgo plant. Sugar J 3:23–30

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Webster AJ, Hoare CP, Sutherland RF, Keating BA (2004) Observations of the harvesting, transporting and trial crushing of sweet sorghum in a sugar mill. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol 26:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wu X, Staggenborg S, Propheter JL, Rooney WL, Yu J, Wang D (2010) Features of sweet sorghum juice and their performance in ethanol fermentation. Ind Crops Prod 31:164–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Michael Duet, Cory Landry, Jennifer Shaw, Brian Duet, Melvin Adams, Matt Darden, Thad Gianfala, and Brett Andrzejewski for assistance with harvesting and Scottie Sklanka for assistance with harvesting and sample analysis. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Southern Regional Research Center, 1100 Robert E Lee Blvd., New Orleans, LA, 70124, USA

    Sarah E. Lingle

  2. 4658 Browns Hollow Road, Tracy City, TN, 37387, USA

    Thomas L. Tew

  3. Western Illinois University, 318 Knoblauch Hall, Macomb, IL, 61455, USA

    Hrvoje Rukavina

  4. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Mid South Area, 141 Experiment Station Road, Stoneville, MS, 38776, USA

    Deborah L. Boykin

Authors
  1. Sarah E. Lingle
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas L. Tew
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hrvoje Rukavina
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah L. Boykin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah E. Lingle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lingle, S.E., Tew, T.L., Rukavina, H. et al. Post-harvest Changes in Sweet Sorghum II: pH, Acidity, Protein, Starch, and Mannitol. Bioenerg. Res. 6, 178–187 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9248-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9248-5

Keywords