Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Vol.

35, 2015

INFLUENCE OF PANICLES AND LEAFY MATERIAL ON SWEET SORGHUM JUICE

QUALITY

Howard P. Viator1*, Shyue Lu2, and Daira Aragon2

1
Iberia Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Jeanerette, LA
2
Audubon Sugar Institute, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, St. Gabriel, LA
*Corresponding author: Email: sviator@agcenter.lsu.edu

ABSTRACT

Sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) is considered a potential crop for biofuel
production throughout much of the tropical and temperate regions of the world, and is considered
a leading candidate for biofuel production in the southeastern United States. The energy
requirements of certain biorefinery models dictate that whole plant harvesting be utilized to
provide maximum fiber. Therefore, mechanical harvesters have been proposed to be used to
capture the maximum amount of stalks, leaves and panicles. Unlike sugarcane (Saccharum spp.
interspecific hybrids), the predominant sugar crop used for biofuel production, a full
understanding is lacking on the influence of extraneous material (panicles, leaves and sheaths)
on extraction and composition of sugars in juice of sweet sorghum. The objective of this study
was to assess juice and fiber components of sweet sorghum processed with and without panicles
and leaves intact. This was part of a larger project to evaluate the performance of first generation
sweet sorghum hybrids planted from late March to early June on soil and environmental
conditions typical of the sub-tropical sugarcane production region of Louisiana. Clean stalk
samples, stripped of panicles, leaves and sheaths were compared to trashy stalk samples with
panicles, leaves and sheaths intact. Harvesting occurred at the hard dough stage of seed
development, approximately 30 days after anthesis. Brix was measured on a refractometer and
fresh and dry sample weights and the total suspended solids in juice were used to determine
percent fiber. Percent sucrose, glucose, and fructose in the juice were analyzed by High Pressure
Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). The presence of extraneous plant material in the processed
samples generally resulted in reduced Brix and purity but higher fiber. Sugars in juice were also
affected by trash, with the trashy samples producing only 62% of the total sugars in juice of the
clean samples, a higher reduction than that reported in the literature for studies including only
leaves and sheaths intact. Sucrose was clearly the dominant sugar for both clean and trashy
stalks, with fructose present in the least amount. The presence of panicles and leaves in our
trashy samples apparently interfered with sugar recovery to a higher degree than with just leaves
attached.

Keywords: Sweet sorghum, sugars in juice, extraneous plant material, panicles.

INTRODUCTION

The long history of commercial sugarcane juice extraction and processing has advanced
understanding of the role of extraneous material, leaves, tops and soil, in the interference of juice
recovery and its effects of juice quality (Legendre and Irvine 1974; Eggleston et al. 2009). Such
is not the case for sweet sorghum processing into biofuel in the United States. Little research has

21
 Viator et al. Influence of panicles and leafy material on sweet sorghum juice

been conducted on effects of various types and amounts of extraneous material on the quality of
juice extracted from sweet sorghum. In general, roller milling of whole sweet sorghum stalks
often results in recovering less than half of the juice (Cundiff and Worley 1992; Miller and
Ottman 2010; Monroe et al. 1984; Prasad et al. 2006). While not feasible for small scale
experiments, greater extraction can be achieved using multi-stage technology typically employed
for sugarcane. Broadhead (1973) removed tops of sorghum Rio at both the boot and flowering
stages of panicle development. Juice from deheaded plants contained higher Brix (soluble
solids), sucrose and starch, but less of it was extracted. Similar effects on Brix for top removal at
either the boot stage or anthesis were measured by Erickson et al. (2011), but, unlike the report
by Broadhead (1973), they reported higher sugar yield from juice when tops were removed
earlier than the soft dough stage. Other researchers contrasted sweet sorghum sugar yield using
stalks with panicles and leaves removed at the ripe seed stage (hard dough) to stalks with only
panicles removed. Deheaded stalks without leaves yielded greater sugar content than deheaded
stalks with leaves in a study conducted by Sipos et al. (2009). They also showed that sucrose was
proportionally dominant to glucose and fructose, results that agree with studies conducted by
Smith et al. (1987), Amaducci et al. (2004) and Han et al. (2012). Rao et al. (2013) compared
three stalk crushing treatments for juice extraction and sugar quality traits, stalk only, stalk plus
leaf sheath, and whole plant with panicles removed. Juice extraction percentage among crushing
treatments was not significantly different and the only juice quality parameter affected was Brix.
They concluded that leaf removal was not necessary when crushing the tropically adapted sweet
sorghum varieties used in the study. A field trial conducted by Webster et.al. (2004) resulted in
observations concerning the harvest, transport and crushing of sweet sorghum. In a comparison
of sweet sorghum and sugarcane milling, it was observed that the higher starting fiber of sweet
sorghum resulted in the recovery of lower Brix than for sugarcane. Also, sweet sorghum
harvested with extractor fans turned on or off produced similar Brix.
None of the previous studies measured the proportion of sugars in juice using intact
panicles at the ripe stage of seed development. Therefore, the objective of this study was to
assess juice and fiber components of sweet sorghum processed with and without panicles and
leaves intact. This was part of a larger project to evaluate the performance of first generation
sweet sorghum hybrids planted from late March to early June on soil and environmental
conditions typical of the sub-tropical sugarcane production region of Louisiana. The goal was to
investigate hybrid and planting date combinations that would provide an uninterrupted supply of
feedstock from the initiation of harvest in mid-summer to late fall.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field experiments were conducted near Jeanerette, LA (301554.51"N, 910552.10"W)

in 2012 and 2013. The soil type was a Commerce silty clay loam (Fine-silty, mixed, superactive,
non-acid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts). The average monthly temperature and
precipitation for the March through October growing season for the experimental site are
provided in Table 1.
Sweet sorghum hybrids (Ceres, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA) with early, medium and late
maturity were used in the experiment. It was anticipated that hybrids in these maturity groups
would require approximately 90, 120 and 150 days to mature, respectively. Photoperiod
sensitivity of the maturity groups varied from insensitivity for the early hybrids, and moderate to
high sensitivity for the medium and late hybrids. Interaction between the day length and

22
 Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Vol. 35, 2015

temperature can influence flowering of photoperiod sensitive hybrids, resulting in a narrowing of

the expected difference in maturity between the medium and late maturity hybrids.
Six hybrids, two for each maturity group, were scheduled for planting each month for
four months beginning in March of 2012 and 2013. Wet soil conditions prevented planting in
March 2012, but all remaining planting dates were achieved for both years. Planting dates were
April 11, May 7, and May 30 in 2012, and March 21, April 9, May 9 and June 5 in 2013.
Although the March planting was accomplished in 2013, the seedlings were affected by cold soil
conditions (temperature at 10 cm soil depth at planting was 13.9C) and emerged at
approximately the same time as the seedlings planting the following month of April.
Furthermore, emergence of the seedlings for March planting was erratic causing variable plant
population within plots. As a result, March 2013 planting was eliminated from the experiment.
Performance of hybrids was evaluated using a split-plot design, with month as the main plot and
hybrids within maturity group as the split plot. A source of variation for hybrid within maturity
group was not partitioned because hybrid performance was not as important as variation in
maturity group. Four replications were used for the experiment. Plot dimensions were three rows
wide (1.8 m) by 12.2 m long. Planting was done at the rate of 5 to 6 seeds per 30.5 cm in each of
two drills spaced 38 cm apart on top of 1.8 m wide beds used for sugarcane. Sugarcane row
configuration was used to accommodate sugarcane harvesting and transporting equipment.
A tank-mix of atrazine and s-metolachlor were applied preemergence at 2.3 and 2.1 kg ai
-1
ha , respectively immediately following planting. The seeds were treated with oxabetrinil, a
safener to prevent herbicide phytotoxicity. Plots were fertilized with 89 kg ha-1 of N, 45 kg ha-1
of P2O5, and 45 kg ha-1 of K2O as a broadcast application approximately two weeks after
emergence.
Individual plots were harvested as panicles reached the hard dough stage of maturity,
approximately 30 days after mid-anthesis in 2012 and 2013. Fifteen stalks, with panicles and
leaves, were randomly selected from each plot for juice and fiber analyses. Each of these
samples, with leaves and panicles intact, was initially shred on a hammer mill (Dedini,
Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil) and homogenized. From the homogenized material, approximately
1 kg was weighed out to be pressed for 45 seconds on a Honiron hydraulic press (Honiron
Corporation, Jeanerette, LA) at 10.3 MPa in order to separate the majority of the sorghum juice
from the fiber. Both materials were collected and weighed. The juice samples were kept on ice
and were either analyzed immediately or frozen at -80 C until analysis. Quantified components
in the juice samples included Brix, total suspended solids, sucrose, glucose, and fructose. Brix
was measured on a refractometer calibrated for Brix as a measure of total soluble solids. Total
suspended solids were calculated by weight using a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube containing the
juice sample that was centrifuged for 10 minutes at 10,000 rpm, decanted, and dried in a 45
5C oven for eight to twelve hours. The measured total suspended solids were added to the total
fiber percentage since it is presumed to be fiber material lost to the juice during processing.
Sucrose, glucose, and fructose percentage in juice were analyzed on a 44.44 times dilution of the
juice sample in ultrapure water by High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) using a
BioRad Aminex HPX-87K column (BioRad, Hercules, CA) with appropriate calibration
standards. A fermentable sugars purity value was calculated for each sample using the following
formula:

Fermentable sugar purity = ((% sucrose in juice + % glucose in juice + % fructose in

juice)/Brix) 100

23
 Viator et al. Influence of panicles and leafy material on sweet sorghum juice

This formula determines the percentage of the Brix value composed of fermentable sugars.
Fresh, pressed and dry weights and the total suspended solids in juice were used to determine the
percentage fiber for each sorghum plot, with juice assumed to be the remaining percentage.
Percentage juice was not calculated by weight due to significant losses during processing. A
subsample of the pressed fiber collected was transferred to an aluminum loaf pan and dried at 45
5C for at least 3 days before recording dry weight.
Total fermentable sugar yields have not been calculated or reported because extraction
rate of sweet sorghum harvested with panicles intact have not been standardized for either
commercial or experimental processing. Applying an arbitrarily selected extraction percentage
could be misleading as well as the use of total fermentable sugars calculated without applying a
juice extraction percentage, which could inflate the amount of sugar recovered. Therefore, the
sugars in juice, that is, sucrose, glucose and fructose are presented individually as grams per
gram of dry weight (g g dry weight-1). Percentage extraction for this experiment was calculated
only to provide comparative data to that of other experiments using the following formula:

Percentage extraction = average [((fresh weight of fiber to be pressed (g) fresh weight of fiber
after pressing (g)) / weight of extracted juice corrected for moisture remaining in the pressed
fiber and total suspended solids remaining in the pressed juice (g)) 100]

In 2013, an additional sampling procedure using ten stalks stripped of leaves, sheaths and
panicles were processed utilizing the same procedures described above for samples with
panicles, leaves and sheaths intact. This parallel sampling approach was run to determine the
influence of extraneous material (trash) on the quality and recovery of juice. Brix, purity and
fiber percentages and sugars in the juice were contrasted for the clean stalk samples and samples
with intact leaves and panicles. Sugar in the juice was calculated using the following formula:

Sugar in the juice (g g dry weight-1) = (weight of stalks in g) (% juice in stalk/100) (%

sugar in juice/100)) / (weight of stalks in g) (% fiber in stalk/100))

Brix, purity and fiber percentages and sugars in juice were analyzed using PROC
MIXED, SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute 2010). Planting date, maturity group, stalk trash and their
interactions were considered fixed effects, while other effects and their interactions were
considered random. Treatment means were differentiated using Tukeys HSD test (P 0.05)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A comparison of juice content and quality between sweet sorghum stalks with and
without leaves and panicles was conducted only in 2013. While this comparison is based on data
from only one growing season because samples with cleaned stalks were not included in 2012
processing, we feel confident that results of this endeavor to measure the influence of extraneous
plant materials (trash) on juice quality would be repeatable, as the average percentage of fiber for
samples of stalks with leaves and panicles intact was 23% in both 2012 and 2013.
Further evidence of the similarity between growing seasons was that Brix and percentage purity
were 13.4 and 13.9% for 2012 and 80.8 and 84.4%, for 2013, respectively for the trashy samples.
Also, Lingle et al. (2012), Sipos et al. (2009) and Teetor et al. (2011), reported on the
composition of sweet sorghum juice from a single growing season.

24
 Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Vol. 35, 2015

The late maturity group was not included in the analysis because the hybrids were
harvested at different stages of maturity and, therefore, exhibited dissimilar juice attributes to the
early and medium maturity groups. Brix was lower and the proportion of sucrose in juice was
lower for the full-season hybrids (data not shown). Han et al. (2012) demonstrated that sweet
sorghum varieties harvested prior to the hard dough stage of maturity differed in proportions of
sugars in juice from varieties harvested in the hard-dough stage, with greater proportions of
sucrose being available in varieties harvested at the optimum time.
The main effect, trash, was significant for all variables (Table 2). Effect of planting date
was significant for sugars in juice and percentage fiber, while maturity group effects were
significant for Brix and sugars in juice. Significant interactions among main effects were
expected as hybrid performance is largely dependent on the prevailing growing environment and
reflective of maturity timelines unique to each maturity group. Luechen et al. (1991) suggested
that seasonal variation over rides growth time in the determination of optimal harvest date. The
disparities in means were due to differences in magnitude and not reversals of mean rankings.
Therefore, observations and conclusions are centered on the main effects. Furthermore, this
article features a discussion of the effects of trash on juice quality, which is the principle
objective of the study. A discussion of the influence of the other main effects, planting date and
hybrid maturity group, is being deferred to a companion article being developed concerning the
logistics of the production of sweet sorghum feedstock for biofuel processing.
The presence of extraneous plant material in the processed samples generally resulted in
reduced amounts of sugars in juice (Table 3), Brix and percentage purity, but greater percentage
fiber (Table 4). The trashy samples produced an average of 62% of the total sugars in juice of the
clean samples in this study. Sipos et al. (2009) compared the sugar yield of sweet sorghum stalks
with and without leaves and measured approximately 20% greater total sugar content (sucrose,
glucose and fructose) from samples processed without leaves. In contrast, Rao et al. (2013)
found no differences in the magnitude of total sugars between stalk crushing treatments varying
in trash content. Juice was extracted in all three crushing treatments using a power operated 3-
roller mill without imbibition water. The only benefit for trash removal prior to crushing was
higher Brix. Differences in extraction procedures make it impossible to directly compare the
sugar recovery between the three experiments. The use of a shredder and hydraulic press (10.3
MPa of pressure) rather than a commercial roller mill for extraction in our study led to greater
extraction of juice (77.4, 77.6 and 86.2% for 2012 trashy stalks, 2013 trashy stalks, and 2013
clean stalks, respectively) than that achieved by Rao et al. (2013) who reported juice extraction
percentages of 44.38% for stalks plus sheaths, 40.83% for whole plants with no panicles, and
40.42% for stalks alone. The extraction procedure by Sipos et al. (2009) was not described in the
article, but a 3-roller mill was shown in a schematic diagram. Regardless, it is likely that the
presence of panicles and leaves in our trashy samples apparently interfered with sugar recovery
to a higher degree than with just leaves attached. Several researchers speculated that the presence
of leaves, which contain little sugar, reduces sugar extraction in approximate proportion to the
weight of the leaves (Guigou et al. 2011) and that extraction efficiency is reduced as a direct
result of leaf absorption of juice from stalks (Cundiff and Worley 1992).
Sucrose was clearly the dominant sugar and fructose was consistently present in the least
amount for each planting date and maturity group (Table 3) for both clean and trashy stalks. Han
et al. (2012) measured higher proportions of sucrose when sweet sorghum harvesting was
delayed from the early heading stage to the hard dough stage of seed development. Smith et al.
(1987) and Lingle et al. (2012) found similar results regarding sugars in the juice profile. In

25
 Viator et al. Influence of panicles and leafy material on sweet sorghum juice

conventional fermentation processes the relative amounts of sugars in juice are not considered
important because all the sugars are normally exhausted in fermentation (Teetor et al. 2011).
However, sugar profile may be relevant for biofuel products other than ethanol or possibly for
the need for a particular ethanol quality standard.

CONCLUSIONS

The uniqueness of this research was to measure the amount and proportionality of sugars
in juice of sweet sorghum processed with panicles intact. Considerably less sugar in juice was
extracted with intact panicles and leaves than for processing with just stalks. The reduction in
sugar recovery was greater than that reported in the literature for sweet sorghum processed with
just leaves and sheaths. Presumably panicles interfere with juice extraction and/or sugar recovery
to a greater degree than just leaves and sheaths. However, extraction procedure differences may
also have attributed to the disparity in sugar extraction among previous comparative studies.
Therefore, our research is the first to report the level of sugar recovery and proportionality of
sugars in juice for sweet sorghum processed with panicles intact. The proportions of sucrose,
glucose and fructose were similar to that reported in the literature for other sweet sorghum
studies for which maturation was complete. Existing harvest methods are not capable of
capturing stalks from which extraneous plant material is completely removed, as a result, some
level of trash will be transported for processing. Future studies are necessary to determine the
consequences to processing including different sources and levels of vegetative components of
sweet sorghum. But, this should not be undertaken in isolation from harvesting and crushing
operations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of personnel at the Iberia and
Sugar Research Stations and the Audubon Sugar Institute who helped make this research
possible. Research was partially supported by NIFA.

REFERENCES

Amaducci, S., A. Monti, G. Venturi. 2004. Non-structural carbohydrates and fibre components in
sweet and fibre sorghum as affected by low and normal input techniques. Ind. Crops Prod. 20:
111-118.

Broadhead, D. M. 1973. Effects of deheading on stalk yield and juice quality of Rio sweet
sorghum. Crop Sci. 13: 395-396.

Cundiff, J. S. and J. W. Worley. 1992. Chopping parameters for separation of sweet sorghum
pith and rind-leaf. Bioresource Technol. 39: 263-269.
Eggleston, G., M. Grisham, T. Tew, R. Triche, and A. Antoine. 2009. Potential biomass quantity
and sugar processing quality of trash and stalk tissues by different US sugarcane varieties. Int.
Sugar J. 111: 108-118.

26
 Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Vol. 35, 2015

Erickson, J. E., K. R. Woodard, and L. E. Sollenberger. 2011. Optimizing sweet sorghum

production for biofuel in the Southeastern USA through nitrogen fertilization and top removal.
Bioenerg. Res. 5: 86-94.

Guigou, M., C. Lareo, L. V. Perez, M. E. Lluberas, D. Vazquez, and M. D. Ferrari, M.D. 2011.
Bioethanol production from sweet sorghum: evaluation of post-harvest treatments on sugar
extraction and fermentation. Biomass Bioenerg. 35: 3058-3062.

Han, K. J., M. W. Alison, W. D. Pitman, D. F. Day, M. Kim, and L. Madsen. 2012. Planting date
and harvest maturity impact on biofuel feedstock productivity and quality of sweet sorghum
grown under temperate Louisiana conditions. Agron. J. 104: 1618-1624.

Legendre, B. L. and J. E. Irvine. 1974. Some effects of cane trash on milling quality of
sugarcane. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 3: 167-173.

Lingle, S. E., T. L. Tew, H. Rukavina, and D. L. Boykin. 2012. Post-harvest changes in sweet
sorghum I: Brix and Sugars. Bioenerg. Res. 5: 158-167.

Luechen, W. E., D. H. Putnam, B. K. Kanne, and T. R. Hoverstad. 1991. Agronomic practices

for production of ethanol from sweet sorghum. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 619-625.

Miller, A. N. and M. J. Ottman. 2010. Irrigation frequency effects on growth and ethanol yield
in sweet sorghum. Agron. J. 102: 60-70.

Monroe, G., R. Nichols, W. Bryan, and H. Sumner. 1984. Sweet sorghum juice extraction with
3-roll mills. T ASAE 27: 651-654.

Prasad, S., H. C. Joshi, N. Jain, and R. Kaushik. 2006. Screening and identification of forage
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) cultivars for ethanol production from stalk juice. Indian J. Agri. Sci.
76: 557-560.

Rao, S. S., J. V. Patil, D. Chandrasekara Reddy, B. S. Vijay Kumar, P. Srinivasa Rao, and S. R.
Gadakh. 2013. Effect of different crushing treatments on sweet sorghum juice extraction and
sugar quality traits in different seasons. Sugar Tech. 15: 311-315.

SAS Institute. 2010. SAS system for Windows Release 9.3. SAS Institute, Cary, North
Carolina, USA.

Sipos, B., J. Reczey, Z. Somorai, Z. Kadar, D. Dienes, and K. Reczey. 2009. Sweet sorghum as
feedstock for ethanol production: enzymatic hydrolysis of steam-pretreated bagasse. Appl.
Biochem. Biotech. 153: 151-162.

Smith, G. A., M. O. Bagby, R. T. Lewellan, D. L. Doney, P. H. Moore, F. J. Hills, L. G.

Campbell, G. J. Hogaboam, G. E. Coe, and K. Freeman. 1987. Evaluation of sweet sorghum for
fermentable sugar production potential. Crop Sci. 27: 788-793.

27
 Viator et al. Influence of panicles and leafy material on sweet sorghum juice

Teetor, V. H., D. V. Duclos, E. T. Wittenberg, K. M. Young, J. Chawhuaymak, M. R. Riley, and

D. T. Ray. 2011. Effects of planting date on sugar and ethanol yield of sweet sorghum grown in
Arizona. Ind. Crop. Prod. 34: 1293-1300.

Webster, A. J., C. P. Hoare, R. F. Sutherland, and B. A. Keating. 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.

Table 1. Average growing season monthly temperature and precipitation in 2012 and 2013 at
the experimental site near Jeanerette, LA.
Year Month Temperature Precipitation
o
( C) (cm)
2012 March 15.9 17.2
April 19.6 10.5
May 23.7 10.1
June 26.6 19.1
July 27.5 18.5
August 27.4 31.0
September 25.2 10.3
October 20.4 2.9
2013 March 12.8 2.4
April 18.8 20.5
May 23.7 26.0
June 27.4 15.4
July 27.0 12.5
August 27.3 18.2
September 26.6 18.1
October 21.1 5.2

28
 Journal of American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, Vol. 35, 2015

Table 2. Significance of fixed effects of planting date (PD), maturity group (MG), stalk trash (T)
and interactions among main effects for Brix, percentage purity, percentage fiber, and sugars in
the juice (sucrose, fructose, and glucose in g g dry weight -1) in 2013.

Effect Brix Purity Fiber Sucrose Fructose Glucose

P-value
PD 0.1806 0.2386 0.0053 0.0278 0.0103 0.0109
MG 0.0026 0.2131 0.6885 0.0103 0.0001 0.0001
T 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
PD MG 0.0001 0.0001 0.7426 0.0001 0.0001 0.1191
PD T 0.5417 0.0653 0.0001 0.5034 0.0001 0.0001
MG T 0.0014 0.0687 0.0102 0.1792 0.2837 0.0052
PD MG T 0.9945 0.4502 0.1257 0.0100 0.0198 0.0943

Table 3. Influence of planting date and hybrid maturity group on sugars in the juice for stalks
with (clean) and without leaves and panicles intact (trashy).a
Sugar in juice Stalk type
(g g dry weight-1) Clean Trashy
Planting date
April Sucrose 0.521a 0.296b
Glucose 0.071a 0.045b
Fructose 0.045a 0.027b
May Sucrose 0.551a 0.353b
Glucose 0.068a 0.062a
Fructose 0.046a 0.043a
June Sucrose 0.528a 0.308b
Glucose 0.080a 0.054b
Fructose 0.048a 0.034b
Hybrid maturity group
Early Sucrose 0.560a 0.324b
Glucose 0.069a 0.054a
Fructose 0.047a 0.036a
Medium Sucrose 0.507a 0.316b
Glucose 0.077a 0.054b
Fructose 0.046a 0.034a
a
Means within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukeys HSD test at P
0.05)

29
 Viator et al. Influence of panicles and leafy material on sweet sorghum juice

Table 4. Influence of planting date and hybrid maturity group on Brix, percentage purity, and
percentage fiber for stalks with (clean) and without leaves and panicles intact (trashy). a
Stalk type
Clean Trashy
Planting date
April Brix 15.8a 13.9b
Purity 93.1a 85.9a
Fiber 18.9b 25.0a
May Brix 15.7a 14.2b
Purity 94.6a 83.4b
Fiber 18.5a 21.0a
June Brix 15.0a 13.7b
Purity 91.4a 83.9a
Fiber 17.6b 22.9a
Hybrid maturity group
Early Brix 16.0a 13.7b
Purity 95.3a 84.2b
Fiber 18.6a 22.5a
Medium Brix 15.0a 14.1a
Purity 91.2a 84.6a
Fiber 18.1b 23.4a
a
Means within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukeys HSD test at P
0.05)

30