Influence of Harvest Stage on Theoretical Bioethanol Yield and Bagasse Feed Quality of Sweet Sorghum Varieties
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Description
2.2. Crop Management, Sample Preparation, Data Collection and Calculations
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. First- and Second-Generation Bioethanol Production
3.2. Feed Quality of Bagasse
3.3. PCA-Based Evaluation of Variety × Harvest Stage Interactions
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| ADF | Acid detergent fiber |
| ADL | Acid detergent lignin |
| ANOVA | Analysis of variance |
| BADF | ADF content of bagasse |
| BCP | Crude protein of bagasse |
| BNDF | NDF content of bagasse |
| DBY | Dry bagasse yield |
| DDM | Digestible dry matter |
| DMI | Dry matter intake |
| FSY | Fresh stem yield |
| H | Harvest stage |
| JEY | Theoretical juice ethanol yield |
| JY | Juice yield |
| LEY | Theoretical lignocellulosic ethanol yield |
| LSD | Least significant difference |
| NDF | Neutral detergent fiber |
| PCA | Principal component analysis |
| RFV | Relative feed values |
| SV | Sources of variation |
| V | Variety |
| Y | Year |
References
- UN DESA. World Population Prospects 2024. New York. 2024. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/assets/Files/WPP2024_Summary-of-Results.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2025).
- World Health Organization. 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-hunger-numbers-rose-to-as-many-as-828-million-in-2021#:~:text=As%20many%20as%20828%20million%20people%20were%20affected%20by%20hunger,9.8%25%20of%20the%20world%20population (accessed on 5 February 2025).
- Olugbemi, O.; Abiola Ababyomi, Y. Effects of nitrogen application on growth and ethanol yield of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) varieties. Adv. Agric. 2016, 2016, 8329754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yucel, C.; Inal, I.; Gundel, F.; Oluk, C.A.; Yucel, H.; Hatipoglu, R. Bagasse yields and silage qualities from bagasse of some sweet sorghum genotypes under Adana conditions. Euroasia J. Math. Eng. Nat. Med. Sci. 2020, 7, 230–238. [Google Scholar]
- Anglani, C. Sorghum carbohydrates—A Review. Plant Food Hum. Nutr. 1998, 52, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
- Reddy, B.V.S.; Ramesh, S.; Reddy, P.S.; Ramaiah, B.; Salimath, P.M.; Kachapur, R. Sweet sorghum-a potential alternate raw material for bio-ethanol and bio-energy. Int. Sorghum Millets Newsl. 2005, 46, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
- Pinnamaneni, S.R.; Somanna, A.K.G.; Ramu, P.; Vanamala, J.K.P.; Srivastava, R.K. Assessment of phenotypic and genotypic diversity in elite temperate and tropical sweet sorghum cultivars. Sugar Tech. 2022, 24, 1670–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Almodares, A.; Abdy, M.; Somani, R.B.; Jilani, S.K. Comparative study of sorghum sudangrass hybrids and lines for forage. Ann. Plant Physiol. 1999, 13, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
- Fazaeli, H.; Golmohhammadi, H.A.; Almodares, A.; Mosharraf, S.; Shaei, A. Comparing the performance of sorghum silage with maize silage in feedlot calves. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2006, 9, 2450–2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Dos Passos Bernardes, A.; Tremblay, G.F.; Bélanger, G.; Seguin, P.; Brégard, A.; Vanasse, A. Bagasse silage from sweet pearl millet and sweet sorghum as influenced by harvest dates and delays between biomass chopping and pressing. BioEnergy Res. 2016, 9, 88–97. [Google Scholar]
- Inal, I.; Yucel, C.; Yucel, D.; Hatipoglu, R. Nutritive value and fodder potential of different sweet sorghum genotypes under Mediterranean conditions. Turk. J. Field Crops 2021, 26, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sun, W.; He, Z.; Liu, B.; Ma, D.; Si, R.; Li, R.; Wang, S.; Malekian, A. Changes in photosynthetic efficiency, biomass, and sugar content of sweet sorghum under different water and salt conditions in arid region of Northwest China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Chen, F.; Wang, J.; Zhang, S.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khanaki, H. Assessing fermentation quality, aerobic stability, in vitro digestibility, and rumendegradation characteristics of silages mixed with sweet sorghum and aerial parts of Licorice. Agriculture 2024, 14, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Murray, S.C.; Sharma, A.; Rooney, W.L.; Klein, P.E.; Mullet, J.E.; Mitchell, S.E.; Kresovich, S. Genetic improvement of sorghum as a biofuel feedstock: I. QTL for stem sugar and grain nonstructural carbohydrates. Crop Sci. 2008, 48, 2165–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Murray, S.C.; Rooney, W.L.; Mitchell, S.E.; Sharma, A.; Klein, P.E.; Mullet, J.E.; Kresovich, S. Genetic improvement of sorghum as a biofuel feedstock: II. QTL for stem and leaf structural carbohydrates. Crop Sci. 2008, 48, 2180–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Netondo, G.; Onyango, J.; Beck, E. Sorghum and salinity: I. Response of growth, water relations, and ion accumulation to NaCl salinity. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 797–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Tesso, T.; Claflin, L.; Tuinstra, M. Analysis of stalk rot resistance and genetic diversity among drought tolerant sorghum genotypes. Crop Sci. 2005, 45, 645–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Almodares, A.; Hadi, M.R.; Dosti, B. Effects of salt stress on germination percentage and seedling growth in sweet sorghum cultivars. J. Biol. Sci. 2007, 7, 1492–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Almodares, A.; Hadi, M.R.; Ahmadpour, H. Sorghum stem yield and soluble carbohydrates under different salinity levels. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2008, 7, 4051–4055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almodares, A.; Hadi, M.R. Production of bioethanol from sweet sorghum: A review. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 4, 772–780. [Google Scholar]
- Tamang, P.L. Nitrogen Fertilizer Requirements for Ethanol Production from Sweet and Photoperiod Sensitive Sorghums in the Texas Southern High Plains. Master’s Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Geng, S.; Hills, F.J.; Johnson, S.S.; Sah, R.N. Potential yields and on-farm ethanol production cost of corn, sweet sorghum, fodderbeet, and sugarbeet. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 1989, 162, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yucel, C.; Hatipoglu, R.; Dweikat, I.; Inal, I.; Gundel, F.; Yucel, H. Determination of the Bioethanol Production Potentials of Different Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor var. saccharatum (L.) Mohlenbr.) Genotypes in the Cukurova and GAP Regions, TUBITAK TOVAG 1003 114O945 Project Final Report. 2018. Available online: https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/620304 (accessed on 5 May 2026).
- Mosali, J.; Rogers, J.; Huhnke, R.; Bellmer, D.; Cook, B. Effect of nitrogen fertilization timing on juice and bagasse quality of sweet sorghum for biofuel production. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, 1–6 August 2010; pp. 48–51. [Google Scholar]
- Tas, T.; Yucel, C.; Dondu Gundel, F.; Oktem, A.; Cetiner, H. Evaluation of sweet sorghum bagasse as an alternative feed resource for livestock in semi-arid regions. MAS J. Appl. Sci. 2021, 6, 303–311. [Google Scholar]
- Nazli, R.I. Effects of harvest time on bioethanol production and bagasse characteristics for combustion and forage in sweet sorghum. Field Crops Res. 2022, 280, 108464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Aydin, N.; Mut, Z.; Mut, H.; Ayana, I. Effect of autumn and spring dates on hay yield and quality of oat (Avena sativa L.) genotypes. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2010, 9, 1539–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Temel, S.; Keskin, B.; Akbay Tohumcu, S. The nutritional and chemical content of Atriplex nitens seeds grown under rainfall and nonfertilize conditions. Turk. J. Field Crop. 2024, 29, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ramesha, Y.M.; Sharanappa. Effect of harvesting stages on juice quality and ethanol yield in sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) cultivars during rabi. Indian J. Agron. 2013, 58, 368–371. [Google Scholar]
- Teixeira, T.P.M.; Pimentel, L.D.; dos Santos Dias, L.A.; da Costa Parrella, R.A.; da Paixão, M.Q.; Biesdorf, E.M. Redefinition of sweet sorghum harvest time: New approach for sampling and decision-making in field. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 109, 579–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yucel, C.; Bilgin, F.D.; Inal, I.; Hatipoglu, R. Bagasse yield and quality traits of silage made from juice-extracted sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor var. saccharatum (L.) Mohlenbr.) stalks. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2023, 35, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Li, Y.; Feng, Q.; Zhu, X.; Bo, B.; Yu, T.; Qu, H. Effects of harvest date and nitrogen rate on silage quality and ın vitro rumen fermentation of photoperiod-sensitive sweet sorghum under rain-fed conditions. Agriculture 2026, 16, 1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Turkes, M.; Acar Deniz, Z. Climatology of south marmara division (North West Anatolia) and observed variations and trends. J. Hum. Sci. 2011, 8, 1579–1600. Available online: https://www.j-humansciences.com/index.php/IJHS/article/view/1558 (accessed on 5 May 2026).
- Ozsoy, G.; Aksoy, E. Characterization, classification and agricultural usage of vertisols developed on neogen aged calcareous marl parent materials. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2007, 1, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
- Lingle, S.E.; Tew, T.L.; Rukavina, H.; Boykin, D.L. Post-harvest changes in sweet sorghum I: Brix and sugars. BioEnergy Res. 2012, 5, 158–167. [Google Scholar]
- Teetor, V.H.; Duclos, D.V.; Wittenberg, E.T.; Young, K.M.; Chawhuaymak, J.; Riley, M.R.; Ray, D.T. Effects of planting date on sugar and ethanol yield of sweet sorghum grown in Arizona. Ind. Crops Prod. 2011, 34, 1293–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhao, Y.L.; Dolat, A.; Steinberger, Y.; Wang, X.; Osman, A.; Xie, G.H. Biomass yield and changes in chemical composition of sweet sorghum cultivars grown for biofuel. Field Crops Res. 2009, 111, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Briand, C.H.; Geleta, S.B.; Kratochvil, R.J. Sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor [L.] Moench) a potential biofuel feedstock: Analysis of cultivar performance in the Mid-Atlantic. Renew. Energy. 2018, 129, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Van Soest, P.J. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1963, 46, 829–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Habyarimana, E.; Lorenzoni, C.; Laureti, D.; Di Fonzo, N. Biomass production and drought resistance at the seedling stage and in field conditions in sorghum. Maydica 2002, 47, 305–309. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, M.M.; Govindasamy, R.; Chandrasekaran, S. Effect of humic acid on Sorghum vulgare var. CSH-9. Curr. Sci. 1987, 56, 1273–1276. [Google Scholar]
- Rohweder, D.; Barnes, R.F.; Jorgensen, N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. J. Anim. Sci. 1978, 47, 747–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- SAS Institute Inc. JMP® 13 Fitting Linear Models; SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lê, S.; Josse, J.; Husson, F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. J. Stat. Software. Montp. Fr. 2008, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Kassambara, A.; Mundt, F. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses, Version 1.0.7. 2020. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra (accessed on 1 February 2026).
- Maw, M.J.W.; Houx, J.H.; Fritschi, F.B. Sweet sorghum ethanol yield component response to nitrogen fertilization. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 84, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Kumar, C.G.; Fatima, A.; Rao, P.S.; Reddy, B.V.; Rathore, A.; Rao, R.N.; Khalid, S.; Kamal, A. Characterization of improved sweet sorghum genotypes for biochemical parameters sugar yield and its attributes at different phenological stages. Sugar Tech. 2010, 12, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Almodares, A.; Hadi, M.R.; Ranjbar, M.; Taheri, R. The effects of nitrogen treatments, cultivars, and harvest stages on stalk yield and sugar content in sweet sorghum. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2007, 6, 423–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Nazli, R.I. Evaluation of different sweet sorghum cultivars for bioethanol yield potential and bagasse combustion characteristics in a semiarid Mediterranean environment. Biomass Bioener 2020, 139, 105624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yucel, C.; Yucel, D.; Hatipoglu, R.; Dweikat, I. Research on the potential of some sweet sorghum genotypes as biyoetanol source under Mediterranean conditions. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2022, 46, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Cole, M.R.; Eggleston, G.; Petrie, E.; Uchimiya, S.M.; Dalley, C. Cultivar and maturity effects on the quality attributes and ethanol potential of sweet sorghum. Biomass Bioener 2017, 96, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zanini, J.R. Influence of physiological maturation on production and quality of seeds and on the industrial yield of sweet sorghum. Agron. Bras. 1990, 25, 881–888. [Google Scholar]
- Chavan, U.D.; Patil, J.V.; Shinde, M.S. An assessment of sweet sorghum cultivars for ethanol production. Sugar Tech. 2009, 11, 319–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Tamang, P.L.; Bronson, K.F.; Malapati, A.; Schwartz, R.; Johnsom, J.; Moore-Kucera, J. Nitrogen requirements for ethanol production from sweet and photoperiod sensitive sorghums in the southern high plains. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Han, K.J.; Alison, M.W.; Pitman, W.D.; Day, D.F.; Kim, M.; Madsen, L. Planting date and harvest maturity impact on biofuel feedstock productivity and quality of sweet sorghum grown under temperate Louisiana conditions. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 1618–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ekefre, D.E.; Mahapatra, A.K.; Latimore, M.; Bellmer, D.D.; Jena, U.; Whitehead, G.J.; Williams, A.L.; Mahapatra, A.K. Evaluation of three cultivars of sweet sorghum as feedstocks for ethanol production in the Southeast United States. Heliyon 2017, 3, e00490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Oyier, M.O.; Owuoche, J.O.; Oyoo, M.E.; Cheruiyot, E.; Mulianga, B.; Rono, J. Effect of harvesting stage on sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) genotypes in western Kenya. Sci. World J. 2017, 2017, 8249532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Asuquo, S.O. Appropriate Harvesting Stage of Sweet-Stem Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) Cultivar for Optimum Bio-Ethanol Production in Namibia. Master’s Thesis, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, S.S.; Patil, J.V.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Reddy, D.C.S.; Mishra, J.S.; Umakanth, A.V.; Reddy, B.V.S.; Kumara, A.A. Sweet sorghum planting effects on stalk yield and sugar quality in semi-arid tropical environment. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 1458–1465. [Google Scholar]
- Tutar, H. Bioethanol yield of the sorghum × sudangrass hybrid under arid and semi-arid conditions: Nitrogen dose effects, orthogonal comparisons and component analyses. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2024, 48, 1070–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mursyid; Syam un, E.; Salengke; Riadi, M. Effect of fertilizer mechanism and harvest time on juice volume, sugar brix and bioethanol in three varieties of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Indian J. Agron. 2017, 62, 228–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Guden, B.; Erdurmus, C.; Erdal, S.; Uzun, B. Evaluation of sweet sorghum genotypes for bioethanol yield and related traits. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2021, 15, 545–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Solomon, J.K.Q.; Opoku, A.; Huber, S.; McCuin, G. Biofuel Feedstock Potential of Sweet Sorghum Varieties in Western Nevada; Extension, Ed.; University of Nevada: Reno, NV, USA, 2024; p. SP-24-05. [Google Scholar]

| Months | Average Temperature (°C) | Average Relative Humidity (%) | Total Precipitation (mm) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2024 | LTA | 2023 | 2024 | LTA | 2023 | 2024 | LTA | |
| June | 24.3 | 25.8 | 22.2 | 63.0 | 56.3 | 70.1 | - | 0.2 | 56.7 |
| July | 26.1 | 27.2 | 24.7 | 57.8 | 60.7 | 63.5 | 0 | 13.4 | 12.6 |
| August | 27.2 | 26.3 | 25.2 | 60.2 | 57.2 | 64.5 | 0 | 0 | 15.4 |
| September | 22.6 | 22.7 | 21.5 | 62.9 | 65.6 | 66.5 | 0 | 23.3 | 36.7 |
| October | 18.2 | 16.5 | 16.1 | 70.5 | 70.4 | 74.4 | 6.7 | 30.8 | 52.2 |
| Mean/Total | 23.7 | 23.7 | 21.9 | 62.9 | 62.0 | 67.8 | 6.7 | 67.7 | 173.6 |
| Characteristics | Depth (0–30 cm) | |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2024 | |
| Texture | Clay | Clay |
| pH | 7.75 | 7.80 |
| EC (µS cm−1) | 643.50 | 642.00 |
| CaCO3 (%) | 2.11 | 2.43 |
| Organic matter (%) | 2.31 | 2.73 |
| N (%) | 0.07 | 0.07 |
| Available P (mg kg−1) | 10.07 | 9.04 |
| Available K (mg kg−1) | 58.13 | 59.08 |
| SV | DF | FSY | JY | B | JEY | LEY | TEY | DBY | BCP | L | C | HC | BADF | BNDF | RFV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y | 1 | 29.87 ** | 25.11 ** | 68.75 ** | 78.27 ** | 61.94 ** | 83.33 ** | 39.81 ** | 0.18 ns | 78.70 ** | 221.53 ** | 256.73 ** | 211.15 ** | 8.46 * | 62.03 ** |
| V | 2 | 58.22 ** | 197.93 ** | 765.86 ** | 210.82 ** | 32.13 ** | 0.93 ns | 9.41 ** | 27.39 ** | 127.89 ** | 46.65 ** | 12.90 ** | 63.20 ** | 241.65 ** | 161.74 ** |
| H | 3 | 5.34 ** | 6.12 ** | 146.58 ** | 67.45 ** | 7.91 ** | 23.51 ** | 13.71 ** | 18.96 ** | 5.83 ** | 0.17 ns | 2.66 ns | 0.50 ns | 1.41 ns | 0.49 ns |
| Y × V | 2 | 25.33 ** | 27.30 ** | 56.91 ** | 6.75 * | 19.91 ** | 14.02 ** | 10.82 ** | 3.30 ns | 3.93 ns | 3.60 ns | 0.43 ns | 4.02 ns | 16.33 ** | 8.02 * |
| Y × H | 3 | 2.60 ns | 3.00 * | 13.61 ** | 8.49 ** | 3.75 * | 2.41 ns | 2.44 ns | 2.12 ns | 0.89 ns | 7.10 ** | 1.05 ns | 6.01 ** | 6.89 ** | 8.99 ** |
| V × H | 6 | 1.91 ns | 2.47 * | 12.75 ** | 6.67 ** | 1.53 ns | 3.10 * | 2.61 * | 4.74 ** | 4.23 ** | 4.66 ** | 0.97 ns | 5.19 ** | 1.70 ns | 3.81 ** |
| Y × V × H | 6 | 2.55 * | 2.57 * | 2.67 * | 2.83 * | 2.24 ns | 2.77 * | 3.38 ** | 1.53 ns | 0.11 ns | 1.64 ns | 1.03 ns | 1.28 ns | 0.23 ns | 0.54 ns |
| CV (%) | 9.34 | 10.56 | 7.16 | 13.70 | 12.29 | 11.06 | 10.65 | 11.27 | 11.89 | 4.58 | 10.29 | 4.93 | 4.03 | 5.99 |
| Harvest Stage | FSY (t ha−1) | JY (L ha−1) | Brix (°Bx) | JEY (L ha−1) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | |
| 2023 | ||||||||||||||||
| H1 | 52.7 | 72.4 | 37.5 | 54.2 b | 26,171 | 39,399 | 12,735 | 26,102 b | 8.6 d | 5.3 f | 7.1 e | 7.0 c | 955.6 de | 761.4 ef | 359.3 g | 692.1 c |
| H2 | 57.0 | 85.7 | 44.5 | 62.4 a | 29,342 | 46,168 | 16,825 | 30,778 a | 10.5 c | 7.3 e | 8.8 d | 8.9 b | 1350.9 c | 1368.5 bc | 626.0 f | 1115.1 b |
| H3 | 51.3 | 76.1 | 44.5 | 57.3 b | 25,104 | 41,481 | 15,434 | 27,339 b | 14.2 a | 8.7 d | 11.5 b | 11.4 a | 1631.2 a | 1533.4 a–c | 791.1 ef | 1318.6 a |
| H4 | 52.9 | 67.1 | 40.4 | 53.5 b | 25,597 | 36,173 | 13,238 | 25,003 b | 13.3 a | 7.2 e | 7.5 e | 9.3 b | 1564.2 ab | 1046.2 d | 402.7 g | 1004.4 b |
| Mean | 53.5 b | 75.3 a | 41.7 c | 56.8 B | 26,553 b | 40,805 a | 14,558 c | 27,305 B | 11.7 a | 7.1 c | 8.7 b | 9.2 B | 1375.5 a | 1177.4 a | 544.8 b | 1032.5 B |
| 2024 | ||||||||||||||||
| H1 | 78.7 | 62.0 | 56.3 | 65.7 | 40,429 ab | 31,436 c | 18,909 d | 30,258 | 8.5 e | 4.9 g | 7.2 f | 6.9 c | 1453.5 de | 540.0 g | 550.3 g | 847.9 c |
| H2 | 71.8 | 64.8 | 60.6 | 65.7 | 39,354 ab | 35,148 bc | 21,215 d | 31,906 | 9.6 c–e | 9.0 de | 9.3 de | 9.3 b | 1626.9 c–e | 1356.8 e | 859.5 fg | 1281.1 b |
| H3 | 76.1 | 79.8 | 56.0 | 70.6 | 39,684 ab | 44,051 a | 19,608 d | 34,448 | 13.3 a | 9.8 c–e | 10.7 bc | 11.3 a | 2416.7 a | 1886.8 bc | 925.1 f | 1742.9 a |
| H4 | 65.1 | 64.3 | 56.6 | 62.0 | 34,380 bc | 35,829 bc | 21,591 d | 30,600 | 13.8 a | 11.3 b | 9.9 cd | 11.7 a | 2180.1 ab | 1799.0 cd | 924.2 f | 1634.4 a |
| Mean | 72.9 a | 67.7 a | 57.4 b | 66.0 A | 38,462 a | 36,616 a | 20,331 b | 31,803 A | 11.3 a | 8.8 c | 9.3 b | 9.8 A | 1919.3 a | 1395.6 b | 814.8 c | 1376.6 A |
| Mean (2-year average) | ||||||||||||||||
| H1 | 65.7 | 67.2 | 46.9 | 59.9 b | 33,300 a | 35,417 b | 15,822 d | 28,188 b | 8.6 de | 5.1 g | 7.1 f | 6.9 d | 1204.6 d | 650.7 f | 454.8 g | 770.0 d |
| H2 | 64.4 | 75.3 | 52.6 | 64.1 a | 34,348 b | 40,658 a | 19,021 d | 31,342 a | 10.1 c | 8.2 e | 9.1 d | 9.1 c | 1488.9 c | 1362.7 cd | 742.8 ef | 1198.1 c |
| H3 | 63.7 | 77.9 | 50.2 | 64.0 a | 32,394 bc | 42,766 a | 17,521 d | 30,894 a | 13.8 a | 9.3 d | 11.1 b | 11.4 a | 2023.9 a | 1710.1 b | 858.1 e | 1530.7 a |
| H4 | 59.0 | 65.7 | 48.5 | 57.7 b | 29,988 c | 36,001 b | 17,414 d | 27,801 b | 13.6 a | 9.3 d | 8.7 de | 10.5 b | 1872.1 ab | 1426.6 c | 663.4 f | 1319.4 b |
| Mean | 63.2 b | 71.5 a | 49.6 c | 32,508 b | 38,711 a | 17,445 c | 11.5 a | 7.9 c | 9.0 b | 1647.4 a | 1286.5 b | 679.8 c | ||||
| Harvest Stage | LEY (L ha−1) | TEY (L ha−1) | DBY (t ha−1) | BCP (%) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | |
| 2023 | ||||||||||||||||
| H1 | 1988 | 2694 | 2284 | 2322 b | 2944 | 3455 | 2643 | 3014 c | 6.98 | 8.08 | 6.99 | 7.35 c | 3.24 bc | 3.11 bc | 3.70 a | 3.35 a |
| H2 | 2473 | 3496 | 2982 | 2984 a | 3823 | 4865 | 3608 | 4099 ab | 8.22 | 10.60 | 9.10 | 9.30 ab | 2.93 b–d | 2.98 b–d | 3.10 bc | 3.00 b |
| H3 | 2196 | 3186 | 3303 | 2895 a | 3827 | 4720 | 4094 | 4214 a | 8.11 | 9.88 | 10.72 | 9.57 a | 2.44 e | 3.35 ab | 2.87 cd | 2.89 b |
| H4 | 2458 | 2997 | 2785 | 2747 a | 4023 | 4044 | 3187 | 3751 b | 8.36 | 8.65 | 8.26 | 8.42 b | 1.98 f | 2.31 ef | 2.58 de | 2.29 c |
| Mean | 2279 b | 3093 a | 2839 a | 2737 B | 3654 b | 4271 a | 3383 b | 3769 B | 7.92 | 9.30 | 9.77 | 8.66 B | 2.65 b | 2.94 a | 3.06 a | 2.88 |
| 2024 | ||||||||||||||||
| H1 | 2956 | 2644 | 4374 | 3325 b | 4410 de | 3184 f | 4925 b–e | 4173 c | 9.71 c–e | 7.63 f | 12.45 a | 9.93 b | 3.05 a–d | 2.73 cd | 3.54 a | 3.11 a |
| H2 | 2637 | 3044 | 4486 | 3389 b | 4264 e | 4401 de | 5345 a–c | 4670 bc | 8.31 ef | 9.36 d–f | 13.05 a | 10.24 b | 3.10 a–d | 2.91 a–d | 2.82 b–d | 2.94 ab |
| H3 | 3489 | 3754 | 4353 | 3865 a | 5906 a | 5641 ab | 5278 a–d | 5608 a | 11.75 ab | 11.29 a–c | 12.62 a | 11.89 a | 2.61 d | 2.99 a–d | 3.45 ab | 3.01 a |
| H4 | 2992 | 2883 | 3481 | 3118 b | 5172 a–d | 4681 c–e | 4405 de | 4753 b | 10.20 b–d | 9.20 d–f | 10.33 b–d | 9.91 b | 1.87 e | 2.53 d | 3.30 a–c | 2.57 b |
| Mean | 3018 b | 3081 b | 4173 a | 3424 A | 4938 | 4477 | 4988 | 4801 A | 9.99 b | 9.37 b | 12.11 a | 10.50 A | 2.66 b | 2.79 b | 3.28 a | 2.91 |
| Mean (2-year average) | ||||||||||||||||
| H1 | 2472 | 2669 | 3329 | 2823 c | 3677 de | 3320 e | 3784 d–e | 3593 c | 8.34 ef | 7.85 f | 9.72 cd | 8.64 c | 3.15 b | 2.92 b | 3.62 a | 3.23 a |
| H2 | 2554 | 3270 | 3734 | 3186 ab | 4043 cd | 4633 ab | 4477 bc | 4384 b | 8.27 ef | 9.98 b–d | 11.08 ab | 9.77 b | 3.02 b | 2.95 b | 2.96 b | 2.97 b |
| H3 | 2843 | 3470 | 3828 | 3380 a | 4867 ab | 5180 a | 4686 ab | 4911 a | 9.93 b–d | 10.58 a–c | 11.67 a | 10.73 a | 2.52 c | 3.17 b | 3.16 b | 2.95 b |
| H4 | 2725 | 2940 | 3133 | 2933 bc | 4597 bc | 4363 bc | 3796 de | 4252 b | 9.28 de | 8.93 d–f | 9.29 de | 9.17 bc | 1.93 d | 2.42 c | 2.94 b | 2.43 c |
| Mean | 2648 c | 3087 b | 3506 a | 4296 | 4374 | 4186 | 8.95 b | 9.4 b | 10.44 a | 2.65 c | 2.86 b | 3.17 a | ||||
| Harvest Stage | Lignin | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | |
| 2023 | ||||||||||||
| H1 | 4.03 | 6.27 | 4.33 | 4.88 c | 36.73 | 45.38 | 40.65 | 40.92 b | 18.26 | 18.97 | 22.42 | 19.88 ab |
| H2 | 4.21 | 5.93 | 4.94 | 5.02 bc | 38.01 | 42.46 | 41.55 | 40.67 b | 20.24 | 21.19 | 21.70 | 21.04 a |
| H3 | 4.51 | 6.71 | 5.32 | 5.51 ab | 36.16 | 43.73 | 39.16 | 39.68 b | 16.02 | 18.49 | 22.43 | 18.31 b |
| H4 | 3.82 | 7.26 | 5.89 | 5.66 a | 38.53 | 45.93 | 43.43 | 42.63 a | 18.35 | 20.86 | 21.79 | 20.33 a |
| Mean | 4.14 c | 6.54 a | 5.12 b | 5.27 A | 37.36 c | 44.37 a | 41.20 b | 40.98 A | 18.22 b | 19.88 ab | 21.59 a | 19.89 B |
| 2024 | ||||||||||||
| H1 | 3.39 | 5.13 | 3.62 | 4.05 | 30.64 c | 36.99 a | 33.96 a–c | 33.86 | 28.05 | 29.84 | 33.79 | 30.69 |
| H2 | 3.71 | 4.72 | 4.01 | 4.15 | 33.53 a–c | 33.80 a–c | 33.79 a–c | 33.71 | 27.39 | 28.99 | 32.67 | 29.68 |
| H3 | 4.05 | 5.44 | 4.88 | 4.79 | 32.40 bc | 35.44 ab | 35.95 a | 34.59 | 25.10 | 28.77 | 30.84 | 28.24 |
| H4 | 2.68 | 5.46 | 4.90 | 4.35 | 26.65 d | 34.43ab | 35.97 a | 32.36 | 30.02 | 26.48 | 28.83 | 28.44 |
| Mean | 3.46 c | 5.19 a | 4.35 b | 4.33 B | 30.80 b | 35.17 a | 34.92 a | 33.63 B | 27.74 | 28.52 | 31.53 | 29.26 A |
| Mean (2-year average) | ||||||||||||
| H1 | 3.71 ef | 5.70 ab | 3.98 de | 4.46 b | 33.68 g | 41.19 a | 37.30 de | 37.39 | 23.35 | 24.41 | 28.10 | 25.28 |
| H2 | 3.96 de | 5.33 b | 4.47 cd | 4.59 b | 35.77 ef | 38.13 b–d | 37.67 c–e | 37.19 | 23.82 | 25.09 | 27.18 | 25.36 |
| H3 | 4.28 de | 6.08 a | 5.10 bc | 5.15 a | 34.28 fg | 39.58 a–c | 37.55 de | 37.14 | 20.56 | 23.63 | 25.63 | 23.27 |
| H4 | 3.25 f | 6.36 a | 5.39 b | 5.00 a | 32.59 g | 40.18 a | 39.71 ab | 37.49 | 24.19 | 23.67 | 25.31 | 24.39 |
| Mean | 3.80 c | 5.86 a | 4.73 b | 34.08 c | 39.77 a | 38.06 b | 22.98 b | 24.20 b | 26.56 a | |||
| Harvest Stage | BADF (%) | BNDF (%) | RFV | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | V1 | V2 | V3 | Mean | |
| 2023 | ||||||||||||
| H1 | 40.76 | 51.65 | 44.97 | 45.79 b | 59.02 | 70.62 | 67.39 | 65.68 b | 90.24 | 64.16 | 74.36 | 76.25 ab |
| H2 | 42.22 | 48.38 | 46.49 | 45.70 b | 62.46 | 69.57 | 68.19 | 66.74 ab | 83.50 | 68.54 | 71.95 | 74.67 b |
| H3 | 40.67 | 50.44 | 44.48 | 45.20 b | 56.69 | 68.93 | 64.91 | 63.51 c | 93.95 | 67.03 | 77.76 | 79.58 a |
| H4 | 42.35 | 53.18 | 49.32 | 48.28 a | 60.70 | 74.04 | 71.11 | 68.62 a | 85.72 | 59.65 | 66.05 | 70.47 c |
| Mean | 41.50 c | 50.91 a | 46.32 b | 46.24 B | 59.72 c | 70.79 a | 67.90 b | 66.13 B | 88.35 a | 64.84 c | 72.53 b | 75.24 B |
| 2024 | ||||||||||||
| H1 | 34.03 d | 42.12 a | 37.58 b-d | 37.91 | 62.48 | 71.96 | 71.37 | 68.60 | 93.05 | 72.55 | 77.74 | 81.11 |
| H2 | 37.24 b-d | 38.53 a-c | 37.80 b-d | 37.85 | 64.63 | 67.51 | 70.47 | 67.54 | 86.30 | 81.17 | 78.64 | 82.04 |
| H3 | 36.45 cd | 40.88 ab | 40.82 ab | 39.38 | 61.54 | 69.65 | 71.67 | 67.62 | 91.63 | 76.21 | 74.22 | 80.69 |
| H4 | 29.33 e | 39.89 a-c | 40.89 ab | 36.71 | 59.36 | 66.37 | 69.72 | 65.15 | 103.73 | 81.13 | 76.96 | 87.27 |
| Mean | 34.26 b | 40.35 a | 39.27 a | 37.96 B | 62.00 b | 68.87 a | 70.80 a | 67.23 A | 93.68 a | 77.76 b | 76.89 b | 80.78 A |
| Mean (2-year average) | ||||||||||||
| H1 | 37.39 ef | 46.89 a | 41.28 cd | 41.85 | 60.75 | 71.29 | 69.38 | 67.14 | 91.64 a | 68.35 e | 76.05 c | 78.68 |
| H2 | 39.73 de | 43.46 bc | 42.14 cd | 41.78 | 63.55 | 68.54 | 69.33 | 67.14 | 84.90 b | 74.86 cd | 75.30 cd | 78.25 |
| H3 | 38.56 e | 45.66 ab | 42.65 c | 42.29 | 59.12 | 69.29 | 68.29 | 65.56 | 92.79 a | 71.62 c-e | 75.99 c | 80.13 |
| H4 | 35.84 f | 46.54 a | 45.11 ab | 42.49 | 60.03 | 70.21 | 70.42 | 66.88 | 94.73 a | 70.39 de | 75.51 c–e | 78.87 |
| Mean | 37.88 c | 45.63 a | 42.79 b | 60.86 b | 69.83 a | 69.35 a | 91.02 a | 71.30 c | 74.71 b | |||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Erol Uyanik, S.; Budakli Çarpici, E. Influence of Harvest Stage on Theoretical Bioethanol Yield and Bagasse Feed Quality of Sweet Sorghum Varieties. Agriculture 2026, 16, 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16131452
Erol Uyanik S, Budakli Çarpici E. Influence of Harvest Stage on Theoretical Bioethanol Yield and Bagasse Feed Quality of Sweet Sorghum Varieties. Agriculture. 2026; 16(13):1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16131452
Chicago/Turabian StyleErol Uyanik, Sebiha, and Emine Budakli Çarpici. 2026. "Influence of Harvest Stage on Theoretical Bioethanol Yield and Bagasse Feed Quality of Sweet Sorghum Varieties" Agriculture 16, no. 13: 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16131452
APA StyleErol Uyanik, S., & Budakli Çarpici, E. (2026). Influence of Harvest Stage on Theoretical Bioethanol Yield and Bagasse Feed Quality of Sweet Sorghum Varieties. Agriculture, 16(13), 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16131452

