Comparative Efficacy of Sodium Metasilicate and Organic Source Combination on Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) for Reducing the Post-harvest Deterioration Losses

Comparative Efficacy of Sodium Metasilicate and Organic Source Combination on Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) for Reducing the Post-harvest Deterioration Losses | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Comparative Efficacy of Sodium Metasilicate and Organic Source Combination on Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) for Reducing the Post-harvest Deterioration Losses R. Anitha, R. Brindavathy, N. Sritharan, N. Jagathjothi, R. Sathya Priya, and 9 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3274899/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 Sep, 2023 Read the published version in Silicon → Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Sugarcane must be processed quickly after being harvested because it is a destructible commodity. Harvested cane may degrade for a variety of reasons, including exposure to microbes, mechanical or manual harvesting, cultivar, maturity, cut-to-crush interval, and storage. Due to the quick loss of sucrose and deterioration after harvest, sugarcane needs to be treated at the right time and way. The higher sugar content of mature internodes offers the perfect conditions for microbial growth, which enters the harvested stalk through wounds or cut ends. The bacteria Leuconostoc spp. is primarily responsible for these post-harvest losses, which negatively affect sugar percent. The trials were carried out to assess the efficacy of Sodium metasilicate (SMS), Benzalkonium chloride (BKC), Nisin (Lactobacteria), and Neem sources on sugarcane for reducing the post-harvest degradation losses. An investigation is underway now to reveal that foliar spray of neem cake @ 5% + dried neem leaves extract @ 5% (in heaping) is the most effective and eco-friendly substance that might be able to significantly enhance sugar recovery. This treatment was comparable with the chemical formulation of SMS @ 2% (3 days before harvest) + BKC @ 2000 ppm (in heaping) which might be a consequence of controlling the proliferation of Leuconostoc spp. bacterium. Likewise, the juice obtained from these treatments has a lower rate of inclination in pH, reducing sugar, total soluble solids, titrable acidity index, invertase activity, higher sucrose, and commercial cane sugars (CCS) recovery, furthermore with relatively smaller losses in cane weight. Hence, these treatments offer a significant potential role in reducing post-harvest deterioration losses in the sugar industry. Sodium meta silicate neem nisin leuconostoc quality parameters Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction India is the second-largest producer of sugar, it plays a significant role in the global sugar trade. The sugarcane cultivation area of India was 4316 thousand tons in 2000-01 which declined to 4201 thousand tons in 2005-06 and increased to 4732 thousand tons in 2017-18. The productivity of sugarcane was 68.58 tons/ha in 2000-01which was increased to 79.65 tons/ha in 2017-18 [1]. In 2019-20, India contributed the highest share of sugarcane production globally (24%) followed by Brazil (21%) and Thailand (10%). After harvest the deterioration in sugarcane is the utmost crucial problem of Indian sugar industries and has attracted widespread attention in recent years. Bio-deterioration due to microbial invasion and proliferation in harvested canes leads to a loss of up to 62% [2]. Leuconostoc , Lactobacillus saccharomyces , Rodotorula , and some other bacteria serve to cause the inversion of sucrose and a significant amount of dextran, acids, and ethanol to be produced, which alters the kinetics of sucrose crystallization [3, 4]. It causes heavy losses in the sugar mills economy. In sugar industries, the crushing of stale sugarcane resulted in losses of 12–50% in sugar recovery [2]. Based on research evidence, more losses accordingly one thousand six hundred crores challenged by sugar industries due to the supply of sucrose-degraded canes [5]. There are numerous reasons for post-harvest sugarcane degradation but microbial sucrose losses are primarily caused by storage conditions and this was due to the time frame between harvest and crushing (staling) [6]. Field losses in CCS were in the early season at 0.35, mid-season at 1.0, and late-crushing period at 1.32 units per day [7]. The traditional practice of newly harvested sugarcane is permitted to be left in open fields in piles or transport trucks for a lengthy period of interval which paves the way for ample invasion, growth, and proliferation of microbes that lead to single cane weight loss and reduction in sucrose recovery [4, 8]. The naturally occurring sugarcane enzyme invertase, which is likewise quite active after harvest, was stronger when the ambient temperature was higher. During milling, an abundance of invertases are released and turn sucrose into inverted sugars, thus reducing the purity. In the sugarcane field polysaccharides generate bacteria from mainly Leuconostoc spp . which enter through the cut ends and exploited the stored sucrose further reducing the quality of milled juice. Such a condition was obtained when canes are stored in cane centers. This leads to a drop in juice quality, thereby lowering the recovery percentage [9, 10]. The most important and harmful microbes that invade harvested sugarcane stalks are the lactic acid bacteria groups like Leuconostoc spp . [11, 12]. This bacterium is soil-borne and obtained freely on sugarcane tissue and juice [10]. This species used sucrose as its main energy and transfer it into different substances like ethanol, organic acids, reducing sugars, and polymers with lengthy and intricate chains [13, 14]. In most of the time, harvested sugarcane stalks build a slimy layer due to the incidence of Leuconostoc microbe. In the first 14 hrs, sucrose losses through microorganisms (93.0%), enzyme activity (5.7%), and acid degradation (1.3%). It has been noted that this bacterium is more prevalent in harvested sugarcane [10, 15, 16]. According to studies, stale canes are inclined to hold more of this bacterium and produce dextran than sugarcane harvested recently [17]. This is true because Leuconostoc mesenteroides / dextranicum secrete the dextrasucrase enzyme, which is necessary for the synthesis of dextran [18, 19, 20]. Alteration in the establishment of dextran in stale and newly harvested canes is due to the time frame being more among harvesting and crushing. Extended sugar crystals, increased viscosity, filters blockage due to dextran, and insoluble solids were also obtained as this bacterium is washed off into juice during the cane refining process, it causes sucrose to be converted into a polymer called dextran [21, 22]. Higher sugar content (15%) and pH of 5.0–5.5 of cane juice make a perfectly congenial environment for these bacteria to occur [23]. This pH changes the quality of harvested cane which leads to losses in sucrose levels [17]. The BKC is a well-known quaternary ammonium with strong bactericidal and fungicidal qualities that works well as a surfactant, disinfectant, deodorising, and cleaning agent for hard surfaces [24, 25]. The safety to be considered that this chemical used in sugarcane, where the end product, sucrose is converted into crystalline form was taken into account while using them. Due to their anti-bacterial properties, the chemical SMS is applied as an aqueous formulation to harvested sugarcane which minimizes the sucrose losses [18]. Although many steps have been taken to stop these sucrose losses by microbes, little progress has been made in eliminating them. The goal of the current study is to learn how different chemicals act and put an effort to reduce post-harvest deterioration losses in sugarcane. To compare the fresh and stale canes and find out how antibacterial and anti-inversion chemicals affect post-harvest quality losses. Materials and Methods Experimental site and initial soil characteristics The experimental farm was situated at an altitude of 4.6 m above MSL in Tamil Nadu's North Eastern Zone at 11o46"N latitude and 79o46"E longitude. Clayey loam soil with a pH of 7.2 and bore well irrigation make up the soil type. The mean annual rainfall is 1210 mm. This area experiences a warm and humid climate. In Cuddalore, the summer season began in April and lasted until June, which was very hot. During these months, the temperature ranges from 23 to 40 degrees Celsius. The winter season begins in December and lasts until January with temperatures ranging from 12 to 30 degrees Celsius. Experimental design and treatment schedule The treatment package was arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The pile of whole cane stalks that had been harvested with their cut ends and growth cracks which were thought to be the sites of microbial invasion were sprayed with each treatment. Rolling crushers were used to crush the canes, and juice was taken from each pile control at 0, 3, 6 and 9 days after harvest to estimate the microbial population. Juice from various treatments was used to assess the percentage of sucrose in the juice as well as other factors like pH, reducing sugar, total soluble solids, titrable acidity index, invertase activity, and commercial cane sugar. Treatments Schedule Treatments Application rate ppm or (%) Time of application Tr.1 Heaping of sugarcane (control) - After harvest Tr.2 Heaping and covering with trash - After harvest Tr.3 Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) 2% (3 days before harvest) Tr.4 Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) + foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride 2% + 2000 ppm (3 days before harvest) + In heaping Tr.5 Foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride (Anti-inversion and Anti-bacterial) 2000 ppm In heaping Tr.6 Foliar spray of neem cake + dried neem leaves extract 5% + 5% In heaping Tr.7 Foliar spray of Nisin (Lactobacteria) 500 ppm In heaping Selection of cultivar, planting, and agronomic practices The sugarcane (variety -CoC 25 86032 with a duration of 10–12 months) was planted in the early season (December 2018 to January 2021). The 7 months old cane nursery was obtained for the preparation of setts and 75,000 two-budded setts/ha were used. The setts were soaked in fungicide (Carbendazim 0.1% + 2.5 kg urea in 250 liters of water) for 15 minutes and then treated with Azospirillum (2000 g/ha) for 15 minutes before planting. After irrigating the plots, setts were placed in the center of the furrows continuously by keeping the buds in the lateral position and pressed gently beneath the soil. FYM was applied at 12.5 t/ha at last ploughing, incorporated, and then leveled. All the plots were kept weed-free up to 120 days after planting (DAP), as the period is considered the critical period of crop-weed competition. Earthing up was done three times on 120, 150, and 180 DAP. The experimental plots were applied with inorganic fertilizers as per blanket recommendation (275:62.5:112.5 kg of N, P 2 O 5 , K 2 O/ha). The entire quantity of P was applied as basal through DAP. Remaining nitrogen in the form of urea and potassium as muriate of potash was applied in four equal splits at 30, 60 90, and 120 DAP. The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam in texture with low available nitrogen of 45 kg/ac, higher available phosphorus of 10 kg/ac, higher available potassium of 135 kg/ac, available micronutrients were Fe of 17.80 ppm; Mn of 8.52 ppm; Zn of 1.17 ppm; Cu of 1.45 ppm present in the soil and EC of 0.15 dSm − 1 . The plant’s dried leaves were removed, and the green leaves were tied together by gathering all the canes into a single bundle. At the point of physiological maturity, the crop was manually harvested. Quality parameters sampling, juice extraction, and analysis A clean laboratory roller crusher was used to crush three canes from each bundle to extract juice at intervals of three days (0, 3, 6, and 9 days after harvest). Before crushing, the roller crusher was surface cleaned with 0.01% HgCl 2 solution and washed three times in hot, sterile water. After being filtered through a four-layer muslin cloth and collected in sterilized glass bottles (500 ml), the juice was then processed for physical, chemical, and microbiological analysis on the same day. pH The pH meter was used to record the juice's pH (Systronics pH system 362, India). Reducing sugars An aliquot of 0.5 cc of 10% diluted juice was taken in sugar tubes. Using 1.5 ml of distilled water and 2 ml of copper reagent, a final volume of 2 ml was produced. After that, the mixture was submerged for 20 minutes in a pot of boiling water. Measure the absorbance at 540 nm after adding 2 ml of the arsenomolybdate reagent and 25 ml of distilled water to make the volume equal. The outcomes are presented in mg/ml using the method of [25], the reducing sugar was estimated. Total soluble solids Whatman filter paper 40 was used to filter the extracted juice, and a refractometer with 0.01% accuracy was used to determine the percentage of total soluble solids [6]. Titrable acidity index To determine the titrable acidity, a potentiometric titration using 0.1 N NaOH up to pH 8.1 and 1 ml of the diluted juice in 25 ml of distilled water was used. Acid invertase By using the procedure of [26], the juice's acid invertase activity was measured through extraction with 1.0 ml of citrate buffer (pH 5.4). One milliliter of 0.2 M sucrose was added to 1.5 milliliters of 0.1 M citrate buffer (pH 5.4) and one milliliter of juice to start the reaction. The reaction was heated to 37°C for an hour. The reaction was halted by soaking the tubes in hot water for five minutes. The tubes were centrifuged at 8000 g for 15 min. According to [25] estimates the concentration of inverted sugars in a 0.5 ml aliquot of the supernatant. The acid invertase activity was expressed as Mmol invert sugars/mg protein/min. Sucrose A test tube was filled with an aliquot of 0.01 ml of 10% diluted juice. Resorcinol thiourea 2.0 ml was added to 1.99 ml of distilled water to make the final volume of 2 ml. The 6 ml of conc. HCl was added after a thorough mixing and then the tube was gently shaken. The tubes were then transferred to a water bath that was kept at 80°C for 20 min after which they were cooled under running water. Within 30 min the absorbance at 490 nm was measured against a reagent blank. The outcome is given in mg/ml juice. The resorcinol-thiourea method, as described by [28], was used to estimate the amount of sucrose in the sample. Single cane weight pH Cane weight was determined before the crushing of canes with various treatments. Commercial cane sugar Commercial cane sugar (CCS) was computed [25] as the total percent of recoverable sugar in the cane at maturity. CCS (t/ha) = [Cane yield (t/ha) x Sugar recovery (%)] / 100 Sugar recovery (%) = [S-0.4(B-S)] x 0.73 Where, S = Sucrose (%), B = Corrected Brix (%) Identification of Leuconostoc bacteria The presence of Leuconostoc spp. was investigated by their morphological, biochemical, and cultural characteristics. Gram staining using the standard technique, and a motility test using SIMs medium, were used to identify morphological traits (sulfide indole motility media). The strains obtained were identified using the 16S rDNA sequencing method for molecular characterization. Using a Thermocycler, we amplified the 16S rRNA gene from genomic DNA using the 27F (5' AGAGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG 3') and 1492R (5' TACGGYTACCTT GTTACGACTT 3') primers at an initial temperature of 94 degrees Celsius for 2 minutes, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94 degrees Celsius for 1 minute, annealing at 56 degrees Celsius for 1 minute, and extension at 72 Single-pass analysis in both the forward and reverse orientations was used to sequence PCR products (Priority Life Science, India). With the help of MEGA11, we were able to look at the sequence data and see how it matched up to other, closely similar sequences in the EzBioCloud database. The MEGA 11 program's neighbor-joining strategy was used to build the phylogenetic tree. Each node has a Bootstrap value (> 50%) based on a sample size of 1,000 tests. Statistical analysis The data shown is mean values. Statistical analysis was done using the WASP 2.0 Web Agri Stat package software. Information from four independent replicates of each treatment is used to calculate the means and standard errors (±) in the tables and figures. Results and Discussion pH of sugarcane juice Sugarcane juice is widely recognized for its high sucrose content and pH range of 5.5–6.5. The pH of the juice falls as the crushing time increases creating an ideal habitat for Leuconostoc spp to thrive [12]. It is an acidophilic bacterium and desirably its growth increased when an initial medium pH of 6.0 decreased to 4.0 likely after 20 hrs incubation period. The Leuconostoc bacterium has resulted in a faster pH reduction [29]. This bacterium can cause sugarcane juice to degrade. The (Fig. 1a) depicts the pH level changes because of delayed sugarcane crushing with different treatments. The initial fall in sugarcane juice pH occurred three days after staling and the pH decline outline variance was observed in all the treated and control sugarcane. In the control cane, 3 days after staling pH of the juice started to decline, and a sharp fall in juice pH was seen after 6 days of staling. There was a progressive drop in pH up to 6 days of staling with a sustained decrease up to 9 days of staling in canes treated with a foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaves extract (T 6 ) and a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS on 3 days before harvest with foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane (T 4 ). The study revealed that the control cane percentage change in pH decrease was highest (17.86%), followed by canes treated with heaping and covering with trash (8.88%), BKC (8.48%), Nisin (7.75%), SMS (7.56%) and lowest percentage change of pH reduction was observed with SMS + BKC (7.53%) and Neem extract (6.59%). This proved that the juice pH begins to drop over the progression of the harvesting process leading to increasing the juice acidity and encouraging the growth of the Leuconostoc bacterium. Similarly, the slight pH fall is due to the potential for small amounts of lactic acid to be produced. At the same time as 0.1% lactic acid is required to achieve about 0.1 pH level drop was earlier reported by [30]. Level of reducing sugars in cane juice Sugar reduction is a crucial sign of cane [18]. The level of reduced sugars increases as time extends in storing canes after harvest. In all treatments, the pattern of increasing reducing sugars was consistent (Fig. 1b). In normal heaping of sugarcane (T 1 ) reducing sugars level was obtained to be 2.84% at 0 days although, after 9 days of staling, this was increased to 4.32% whereas in a foliar spray of 5% neem cake and 5% dried neem leaves extract in heaping of sugarcane (T 6 ), the level of reducing sugar was 2.80% at 0 days which raised after 9 days of harvest to 3.13% as well as a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS + foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane treatment (T 4 ), the reducing sugars content was 2.81 percentage at 0 days which increased after 9 days of staling to 3.34. These all point out that there was an increase of 52.11% after a 9-day staling period in control heap canes but this increased level was quite lesser in neem extract and SMS + BKC treated canes as 11.79% and 18.86%. So, the T 6 and T 4 showed the least rate of reducing sugar increase with time of staling compared to other treatments. Gradual rises of reducing sugar decline the quality of sugarcane juice [31]. Generally, juice may become intense during the staling period because of moisture loss, which may also increase the activity of other hydrolytic enzymes. These microbial enzymes break down sucrose and convert it to reducing sugars [32]. [33] also reported that more than 4 to 5-fold increase in reducing sugar from harvest to staling period due to redounded in a hasty transition from sucrose to reducing sugar. The effects of cane heap temperature and extended period on harvested sugarcane stalks reported higher reducing sugars as a result of cane being stored at high ambient temperatures [34]. Total soluble solids of cane juice Both sugars and non-sugars are included in the description of total soluble solids, which also indicates high reducing sugars are thought to be responsible for increased total soluble solids in stale canes. An increase in total soluble solids was seen along with the increase in cane staling. In contrast to control canes, those treated with neem extract and SMS with BKC experienced a gradual total soluble solids increase. Overall, 9 days after harvest, control canes showed a higher percentage change in total soluble solids (7.48%), followed by canes heaping and covering with trash (7.14%). This study implies that after 9 days of harvest, canes treated with neem extract (1.77%) and a combination of SMS + BKC (3.03%) experienced the least increase in total soluble solids. The total soluble solids values in each sample of cane juice that received a different treatment were plotted against time in days shown in (Fig. 1c). Results are confirmed by the study reports of [35, 36] Titrable acidity index (TAI) in cane juice The titrable acidity index (TAI) is also one of the indicators to supervise the sugarcane post-harvest deterioration. Acid-producing bacteria led to poorer juice pH and an increase in sugarcane juice acidity [37]. Progress of acidity is based on acids produced in the harvested sugarcane storage. In this experiment, After 9 days of harvest, all the treatment canes showed an increasing tendency in titrable acidity index due to an increase in the pattern of TAI differences between both control and treated canes (Fig. 1d). TAI of untreated canes or control increased gradually up to 6 days after staling before increasing sharply up to 9 days after sugarcane staling. The 9 days after harvest, a steady TAI increase was noticed in the cane that had been treated with a foliar spray containing 5% neem cake and neem leaf extract (T6) followed by the combined application of SMS with BKC in heaping of sugarcane (T4). Both these treatments had the lowest rate of TAI increase throughout staling. It claimed the juice pH value decreases while being stored or delayed during transportation of canes, increasing juice acidity. The intermingled levels of high acidity and low pH may be known for the formation of acids, which may be related to the development and propagation of the microbes particularly where the oxygen is limited [22, 12]. [38] reported acidity to be involved in sugarcane deterioration and to have a positive correlation with Leuconostoc bacterial activity. Invertase activity in cane juice Invertase activities dependable post-harvest sucrose losses in sugarcane. Commonly, immature internodes have extensively higher invertase activity. Over time after harvest, increased invertase activity lowers the amount of recoverable sugars because it activates the invertase enzyme [39], which lowers milling efficiency. From three days to nine days after staling, invertase activity in harvested canes increased in both control and treated canes (Table 1 ). After 9 days of harvest, the control canes had the greatest increase in invertase activity value from 20.15 to 43.12 µmol sucrose hydrolyzed/mg/protein/hr with a percentage change of 114%. While the canes treated with a foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaf extract (T6) had the least increase in invertase activity value from 20.18 to 32.15 µmol sucrose hydrolyzed/mg/protein/hr with a percentage change of 59.32%. This is followed by a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS + foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane treatment (T4) with invertase activity value from 20.60 to 34.76 µmol sucrose hydrolyzed/mg/protein/hr with percentage change of 68.74%. Cane tissue loses its specificity once it has been harvested due to the invertase activity. After the cane is harvested, invertase activities play a role in sucrose degradation, which reduces sugar yield and recovery [40, 41]. Invertase activities have been observed to become active shortly after cane harvest for several rationales, Leuconostoc development is one of them in harvested canes because this organism is capable of reversing sucrose into fructose and glucose. Sucrose content in cane juice The critical issue of post-harvest sucrose losses in sugarcane must be addressed by farmers and sugar millers. Farmers lose a lot of sucrose when they leave cut canes in the fields for a few days [42]. Additionally, microbes influence post-harvest sucrose losses. When they invade the harvested canes, they alter the quality parameters. Due to the mature internodes with high sugar content when bacteria enter the harvested stalk through cuts they flourish there [43]. A significant factor in the deterioration of sucrose has been identified as Leuconostoc bacterium invasion in harvested sugarcane. The cane juice quality of sucrose content decreases with the time between harvest and staling period increases (Table 1 ). Based on staling period, sucrose declined most in control canes and reached 15.1% after 9 days of staling with a percentage change of 17.69% which is followed by canes treated with heaping and covering with trash (14.30%), Nisin (11.69%), BKC (11.43%) and SMS (9.99%). The lowest percentage change of sucrose content was observed with SMS + BKC (7.46%) and neem extract (7.41%) which were comparable to each other. In harvested stale canes, the rate of respiration increases quickly, leading to an increase in reducing sugars and deprivation in sucrose condensation. Stacked sugarcane significantly influences the deterioration of sucrose due to the release of carbon dioxide during respiration which increases temperature and accelerates deterioration. The reduced sucrose content was more as staling period increased [33] and delays in the cut-to-crush process caused the cane to dry out too much and cause a significant reversal of sucrose due to respiration [34]. Table 1 Influence of sodium metasilicate and organic source on invertase activity and sucrose content of sugarcane at different staling periods Treatments Invertase activity (µmol sucrose hydrolysed/mg/protein/hr) Sucrose content (%) 0 days 3 days 6 days 9 days 0 days 3 days 6 days 9 Days Tr.1- Heaping of sugarcane (control) 20.15 28.25 32.85 43.12 18.48 17.83 17.02 15.21 Tr.2- Heaping and covering with trash 20.21 26.57 34.25 42.10 18.74 18.38 17.82 16.06 Tr.3- Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) 20.25 28.06 36.54 38.08 19.52 19.09 18.62 17.57 Tr.4- Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) + foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride 20.60 28.25 30.78 34.76 19.7 19.46 18.97 18.23 Tr.5- Foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride (Anti-inversion and Anti-bacterial) 20.36 28.56 36.32 39.25 19.24 18.89 18.33 17.04 Tr.6- Foliar spray of neem cake + dried neem leaves extract 20.18 26.57 28.59 32.15 20.11 20.08 19.66 18.62 Tr.7- Foliar spray of Nisin (Lactobacterical) 21.56 28.23 31.56 42.45 19.25 18.62 18.21 17.00 SEd 0.46 0.39 0.61 0.51 0.34 0.33 0.26 0.44 CD (p = 0.05) 1.00 0.85 1.34 1.11 0.73 0.72 0.56 0.96 Single sugarcane weight The single cane weight of sugarcane at different staling periods is presented in (Table 2 ). All the treatments applied on harvested sugarcanes exhibited better results in comparison to control canes from the time of harvest until 9 days after staling. In control, the highest percentage change of single cane weight from 0 to 9 days after a staling period with 40.95%. Among the treatments, foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaves extract (T 6 ) and a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS on 3 days before harvest with foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane (T 4 ) treated cane showed a marginal difference in decreasing pattern after 6 days of staling. The least percentage change of 22.17% and 23.50% was obtained in the T6 and T4 treatments, respectively after 9 days of staling were comparable will aid in reducing cane weight loss because the staling period is directly related to loss in cane moisture content. The cane growers may suffer significant financial losses if the gap between cutting and milling widens. The rate of moisture loss in sugarcane is influenced by cane storage time and technique [44]. Commercial cane sugars When analyzing post-harvest sugarcane losses, commercial cane sugars are crucial because they show how much cane sugar is commercially available. The study revealed that a decrease in commercial cane sugar content was seen in all treatments with different staling periods. After 10 days of harvest, control canes show a sharp decline in commercial cane sugars, whereas in treatments of foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaves extract (T 6 ) and pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS on 3 days before harvest with foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane (T 4 ) showed a gradual decline. With the reduction in time after harvest, there was a higher reduction in commercial cane sugars in control canes with values of 12.86–9.08% during 0 to 9 days after the staling period of cane. The lowest decline of commercial cane sugars was obtained in a foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaves extract (T 6 ) and a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS on 3 days before harvest with foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane (T 4 ) with values of 14.68–13.08% and 14.38–12.46% during 0 to 9 days after harvesting time of cane, respectively. The highest reduction percentage change of commercial cane sugars was showed by control canes (29.39%) which is followed by canes treated with heaping and covering with trash (23.58%), Nisin (19.59%), BKC (17.94%), SMS (17.12%). The lowest commercial cane sugars reduction percentage change was observed with neem extract (10.90%) which is significantly comparable with the SMS + BKC (13.35%). Commercial cane sugar reduction is correlated with the reduction of sucrose and cane weight [6, 45]. The nature of neem products possesses antimicrobial effectiveness especially higher antibacterial activity capacity [46, 47]. Similarly, the potent antibacterial effect of silicon components for gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial pathogens [48] by creating oxidative injury to its membrane led to bacterial dead [49, 50, 51]. These specific characteristics of neem products and SMS component helps to reduce the spoilage of sugarcane quality parameters during an extended period of staling for milling and provided higher commercial cane sugars recovery compared to all other treatments. Table 2 Influence of sodium metasilicate and organic source on single cane weight and commercial cane sugars at different staling periods Treatments Single sugarcane weight (g) Commercial cane sugars (%) 0 days 3 days 6 days 9 days 0 days 3 days 6 days 9 days Tr.1- Heaping of sugarcane (control) 1.05 0.81 0.74 0.62 12.86 12.09 10.86 9.08 Tr.2- Heaping and covering with trash 1.52 1.31 1.28 0.95 13.02 12.56 11.50 9.95 Tr.3- Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) 2.01 1.65 1.54 1.45 14.25 13.29 12.37 11.81 Tr.4- Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) + foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride 2.00 1.7 1.64 1.53 14.38 13.50 12.63 12.46 Tr.5- Foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride (Anti-inversion and Anti-bacterial) 1.97 1.66 1.56 1.42 14.05 12.78 12.04 11.53 Tr.6- Foliar spray of neem cake + dried neem leaves extract 2.03 1.76 1.68 1.58 14.68 13.97 13.77 13.08 Tr.7- Foliar spray of Nisin (Lactobacterical) 1.79 1.35 1.3 1.23 13.68 12.66 11.87 11.00 SEd 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.37 0.34 0.32 CD (p = 0.05) 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.72 0.74 0.69 0.64 Identification of Leuconostoc spp. Cane juice samples that were plated in Leuconostoc -specific media resulted in colonies that were shiny, smooth, and clear. They were found to be gram-positive. In studies on pH (pH levels 4.0 to 7.0); profuse colonies were discovered in pH 7, while pH 4.0 showed no growth. It was clear from the carbohydrate fermentation profile with various carbon sources that the bacteria cultivated after 24 to 48-hour incubation used glucose, maltose, sucrose, fructose, and dextrose as carbon sources and released oxygen. However, they didn't use starch. All of these characteristics supported Bergey's manual assertion that Leuconostoc spp . was present in sugarcane juice. The isolated strains' identification as Leuconostoc mesenteroides R1 was further supported by molecular testing, and they were given the accession number. The phylogenetic connections to other Leuconostoc sp. were shown in (Fig. 2). Conclusion Post-harvest losses are a subject to consider and realize because the decrease in quality of cane juice like sucrose content over the period following cane harvest leads to low sugar recovery and reduces mills financial prudence. The research study demonstrated was revealed that foliar spray of treated cane with 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaf extract produced the best results in reducing post-harvest losses when compared to control and other treatments tried in this experiment. Because it had a dual effect on Leuconostoc spp . inhibition and sucrose inversion process control by acquiring more antibacterial action ability. So, neem extract act as a low-cost source to diminish post-harvest losses in sugarcane. On the other hand, considering chemical component treatments, the neem extract treatment was comparable with a pre-harvest spray of 2% sodium meta silicate 3 days before harvest with a foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride of 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane due to effective antibacterial consequence of silicon-based constituent. This is finally reflected in post-harvest quality management of sugarcane with different staling periods. Declarations Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge Sugarcane Research Station, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, India for conducting the research experiment. Author Contributions Conceptualization: [R. Anitha, R Brindavathy. P. Jeyakumar] Methodology: [R. Anitha, R. Brindavathy, V. Dhanushkodi, M. Yuvaraj, S. Thiruvarassan] Formal analysis: [R. Anitha, T. Thirumurugan, D. Sassikumar V. Dhanushkodi, S. Thiruvarassan] Investigation: [R. Anitha, M. Jayachandran T.Thirumurugan, P. Jeyakumar] Writing–original draft: [R. Anitha, N. Sritharan T.Thirumurugan, P. Jeyakumar, N. Jagathjothi, R. Sathya Priya] Writing review and editing: [R. Anitha, N.Sritharan P. Jeyakumar M. Yuvaraj, C. Jaiby, T. Thirumurugan]; Supervision: [R. Anitha, M. Jayachandran, D. Sassikumar N. Sritharan, K.B. Sujatha]. Funding As part of the first author's required research duties, there is no funding assistance for the research for this study. Data Availability All relevant data are within the research paper. Ethics approval Not applicable Declarations Consent to Participate Consent was obtained from every researcher who participated in the experiment. Consent for Publication The authors have given permission for this research paper to be published in the journal. Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interests References Upadhyay TK (2021) A study of area, production and productivity of sugarcane in India and Uttar Pradesh. Int J Multi discip Educ Res 10(1):59–65. Solomon S (2009) Post-harvest deterioration of sugarcane. Sugar Tech 11:109–123. Foster DH, Inkerman PA, Neil KE (1980) Studies on cane deterioration in Australia. Proc.17 th Congress ISSCT 3:2204–2220. Singh P, Arya N, Tiwari P, Suman A, Rai RK, Shrivastava AK, Solomon S (2008) Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56 (16): 7176-7183. DOI: 10.1021/jf801394j Solomon S (2002) Post-harvest cane deterioration and its milling consequences. Sugar Tech 2:1-18. Misra V, Solomon S, Shrivastava AK, Shukla SP, Ansari MI (2016) Post-harvest sugarcane deterioration: Leuconostoc and its effect. J Funct Environ Bot 6:1–7. Solomon S, Banerji R, Ashok K. Shrivastava, Singh P, Singh I, Verma MCP, Prajapati, Sawnani A (2006) Post-harvest deterioration of sugarcane and chemical methods to minimize sucrose losses. Sugar Tech 8(1):74–78. Singh P, Solomon S, Prajapati CP, Kumar S, Misra V, Chandra A (2014) Dynamics of deterioration of fresh and stale juice in relation to expression of invertases and growth of Leuconostoc sp ., Proceedings of green technologies for sustainable growth of sugar and integrated industries in developing countries, Nanning, PR China 120–124. Krishnankumar T, Thamilselvi C, Devadas CT (2013) Effect of delayed extraction and storage on quality of sugarcane. Afr J Agric Res 8:930–935. Solomon S, Singh P (2009) Efficacy of electrolysed water to minimize post-harvest sucrose losses in sugarcane. Sugar Tech 11:228–230. Bruijn J (1966) Deterioration of sugarcane after harvesting part 1, changes in juice composition. Int Sugar J 68:331–334. Misra V, Solomon S, Ansari MI (2016) Impact of drought on post-harvest quality of sugarcane crop Adv Life Sci 5:9496–9505. Kim B, Robyt JF (1995) Production selection and characterization of mutants of Leuconostoc mesenteroides B742 constitutive of dextransucrase, Enzyme Microbiol Technol 17:689–695. Misra V, Solomon S, Singh P, PrajapatiCP, AnsariMI (2016) Effect of water logging on post-harvest sugarcane deterioration. Agrica 5:119–132. McCleskey CS, FavilleLW, BarnettRO (1947) Characteristics of Leuconostoc mesenteroidesfrom cane juice. J Bacteriol 54:697–708. Misra V, Mall AK, Pathak AD, Solomon S, Kishor R (2017) Microorganisms affecting post-harvest sucrose losses in sugarcane Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 6:2554–2566. Singh P, Solomon S, Prajapati CP, Kumar S, Misra V, Chandra A(2016) Deterioration of fresh and stale cane juice at high ambient temperature in relation to expression of invertases and the growth of Leuconostoc sp , Agrica 4:79–85. Misra V, Solomon S, Hashem A, Abd-Allah EF, Al-Arjani AF, Mall AK, Prajapati CP, Ansari MI (2020) Minimization of post-harvest sucrose losses in drought affected sugarcane using chemical formulation Saudi J Biol Sci 27:309–317. Huang SX, Hou DZ, Qi PX, Wei YJ, Wang Q, Liang YP, Chen S (2019) Efficacy of neutral electrolyzed water for reducing Leuconostoc mesenteroides in sugarcane mixed juice. Sugar Tech 21:986–994. Zohra RR, Waseem S, Aman A, Siddiqui A, Kazmi SK, Zohra RR (2019) Dextran production by microbial biotransformation of sugarcane waste. FUUAST J Biol 9:87–94. Cuddihy JA, Rauh JS, Porro ME (1998) Improving sugar recovery with sugar process chemicals. (Accessed 8 Jul 2004) http://www.midlandresearchlabsinc.com. Sharma KP, Batta SK, Singh R (1994) Studies on minimizing dextran problems in sugarcane under subtropical conditions. Trop Agricult (Trinidad) 71:119–122. Tilbury RH (1975) Occurrence and effects of lactic acid bacteria in the sugar industry, in: JG. Carr, CV. Cutting, GC (Eds.), Whiting lactic acid bacteria in beverages and foods, Academic Press, London, pp. 103–128. Holt JG, Lippincott W, Wilkins, Bergeys (1994) Manual of Determinant Bacteriology, 9 th edition), pp. 541 529. Nelson N (1944) A photometric adaption of Somogyi method for determination of reducing sugar. J Biol Chem 153:375–380. Hatch MD, Glasziou KT (1963) Sugar-accumulation cycle in sugarcane. II Relationship of invertase activity to sugar content and growth rate in storage tissue of plants grown in controlled environments. Plant Physiol 38:34. Gupta AP, Nigam N (1982) Formation of non-sucrose compounds in sugarcane on storage during post-harvest period. Maharashtra Sugar 7(3):51–64. Roe JH, Papadopoulos NM (1954) The determination of fructose6- phosphate and fructose 1, 6 diphosphate. J Biol Chem 210:703. Robert H, Gabriel V, Lefebvre D, Rabier P, Vayssier Y, Faucher CF (2006) Study of the behaviour of Lactobacillus plantarum and Leuconostoc starters during – A complete wheat sourdough bread making process. Lebensmittel -Wissenschaft und-Technologie 39(3):256-265. DOI:10.1016/j.lwt.2005.01.013. Vermeiren L, Devlieghere F, De Graef V, Debevere J (2005) In vitro and in situ growth characteristics and behaviour of spoilage organisms associated with anaerobically stored cooked meat products. Journal of Applied Microbiology 98:33–42. Xiao Z, Liao X, Guo S (2017) Analysis of Sugarcane Juice Quality Indexes, Journal of Food Quality, Article ID 1746982, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1746982. Chandra A, Roopendra K, Singh P, Jain R, Prajapati CP, Solomon S (2014). Time-course expression of soluble acid invertase (SAI) gene mirroring post-harvest cane quality deterioration: effective treatments cause reduction of SAI gene expression. Curr Sci 107: 184–186. Rakkiyappan P, Shekinah DE, Gopalasundaram P, Mathew MD, Asokan S (2009) Post-harvest deterioration of sugarcane with special reference to quality loss. Sugar Tech 11(2):167-170. Lontom W, Kosittrakun M, Weerathaworn P (2009) Impact of storage temperature and duration on sucrose catabolism in harvested sugarcane stalks. Sugar Tech 11:146–153 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-009-0022-8. Bhatia S, Jyoti SK, Uppal KS, Thind SK, Batta (2009) Post-harvest quality deterioration in sugarcane under different environmental conditions. Sugar Tech 11 (2):154–160. Saxena P, Srivastava RP, Sharma ML (2010) Impact of cut to crush delay and bio-chemical changes in sugarcane. Aust J Crop Sci 4:692–699. Khan MT, Yasmeen S, Khan IA (2020) Comparative analysis of sugarcane genotypes for post-harvest deterioration under natural conditions. Pak J. Bot 52:4 Eggleston G, Huet JM. (2012) The measurement of mannitol in beet sugar factories to monitor deterioration and processing problems. Zuckerindustrie – Sugar Industry 137(1):33–39. Mao L, Que F, Wang G (2006) Sugar metabolism and involvement of enzymes in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) stems during storage. Food Chem 98:338–342. Shivalingamurthy SG, Anangi R, Kalaipandian S, Glassop D, King GF, Rae AL (2018) Identification and Functional Characterization of Sugarcane Invertase Inhibitor (ShINH1): A Potential Candidate for Reducing Pre- and Post-harvest Loss of Sucrose in Sugarcane. Front. Plant Sci. 9:598. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00598 Devi K, Prathima, Gomathi R, Manimekalai R, Lakshmi K, Selvi A (2019) Gene Expression Profiling in Sugarcane Genotypes during Drought Stress and Rehydration. Sugar Tech 21(5): 717–733. Mukunda Rao M, Vijaya Kumar M, Sambasiva Rao CH, Balaji Naik R, Sekhar D (2008) Sugarcane quality deterioration between harvest and crushing period under Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. Cooperative Sugar 39(12):19-21. Solomon S, Singh P, Shrivastava AK, Singh P, Chandra A, Jain R, Prajapati CP (2011) Physico-chemical method of preserving sucrose in harvested sugarcane at high ambient temperature in a sub-tropical climate. Sugar Tech 13(1):60–67. Uppal SK, Bhatia S, Thind KS (2008) Pre milling cane preparation for high sugar recovery and reduction of post harvest losses in sugarcane. Sugar Tech 10:346–349 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-008-0061-6. Misra V, Mall AK, Solomon S, Ansari MI (2022) Post-harvest biology and recent advances of storage technologies in sugarcane. Biotechnol Rep (Amst) 30;33:e00705. doi: 10.1016/j.btre.2022.e00705. PMID: 35145888; PMCID: PMC8819023. Mohammed HA, Omer AA (2015) Antibacterial Activity of Azadirachta indica (Neem) Leaf Extract against Bacterial Pathogens in Sudan. American Journal of Research Communication 3(5):246-251. Yilleng TM, Samuel NY, Stephen D, Akande JA, Agendeh ZM, Madaki LA (2020) Biosynthesis of Copper and Iron Nanoparticles using Neem (Azadirachta indica) Leaf Extract and their Anti-bacterial Activity. J Appl Sci Environ Manage 24(11):1987-1991. Luthfiah A, Deawati Y, Firdaus ML, Rahayu I, Eddy DR (2021) Silica from Natural Sources: a Review on the Extraction and Potential Application as a Supporting Photocatalytic Material for Antibacterial Activity. Science and Technology Indonesia 6(3):144–155. https://doi.org/10.26554/sti.2021.6.3.144-155. Smirnov NA, Kudryashov SI, Nastulyavichus AA, Rudenko AA, Saraeva IN, Tolordava ER, Gonchukov SA, Romanova YM, Ionin AA, Zayarny DA (2018) Antibacterial properties of silicon nanoparticles. Laser Phys Lett 15(10):5602. DOI 10.1088/1612-202X/aad853. Tian B, Liu Y (2020) Antibacterial applications and safety issues of silica-based materials: A review. Int J Applied ceramic technology 18(2): 289-301. Anitha R, Vanitha K, Tamilselvi C, Jeyakumar P, Vijayalakshmi D, Yuvaraj M, Nageswari R, Dhanushkodi V and Jaiby Cyriac (2023) Potential Applications of Silicate Solubilizing Bacteria and Potassium Silicate on Sugarcane Crop under Drought Condition. Silicon https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-023-02534-z. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 Sep, 2023 Read the published version in Silicon → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Accepted 12 Sep, 2023 Reviews received at journal 11 Sep, 2023 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Sep, 2023 Reviewers invited by journal 21 Aug, 2023 Submission checks completed at journal 21 Aug, 2023 Editor assigned by journal 21 Aug, 2023 First submitted to journal 18 Aug, 2023 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3274899","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":227981055,"identity":"33aaa69d-0025-49b7-8e19-cfceb6140ab7","order_by":0,"name":"R. Anitha","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sugarcane Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"R.","middleName":"","lastName":"Anitha","suffix":""},{"id":227981056,"identity":"bccf8f55-a9a9-4c98-a92b-1902425a36ec","order_by":1,"name":"R. Brindavathy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oilseeds Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"R.","middleName":"","lastName":"Brindavathy","suffix":""},{"id":227981057,"identity":"d00294c8-123b-4d87-8dce-f55fe60acf88","order_by":2,"name":"N. Sritharan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"N.","middleName":"","lastName":"Sritharan","suffix":""},{"id":227981058,"identity":"c39e35f0-1441-4e10-ac06-00a7d5de6f62","order_by":3,"name":"N. Jagathjothi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"N.","middleName":"","lastName":"Jagathjothi","suffix":""},{"id":227981059,"identity":"3b9b3b0f-56a9-47e3-894b-916d8094a5eb","order_by":4,"name":"R. Sathya Priya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"R.","middleName":"Sathya","lastName":"Priya","suffix":""},{"id":227981060,"identity":"addff1ff-c0c8-4fd3-9afd-5a42b1211dd6","order_by":5,"name":"M. Yuvaraj","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Agricultural College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"M.","middleName":"","lastName":"Yuvaraj","suffix":""},{"id":227981061,"identity":"c030d04a-5acb-49d9-83d2-dcd25228020e","order_by":6,"name":"C. Jaiby","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Newman College","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"C.","middleName":"","lastName":"Jaiby","suffix":""},{"id":227981062,"identity":"b9e77917-7ba9-40aa-a8f9-e730d74675c6","order_by":7,"name":"V. Dhanushkodi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anbil Dharmalingam Agricultural College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"V.","middleName":"","lastName":"Dhanushkodi","suffix":""},{"id":227981063,"identity":"abdbea2e-c1ea-46df-9e7f-9dc92f47c08c","order_by":8,"name":"T. Thirumurugan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sugarcane Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"T.","middleName":"","lastName":"Thirumurugan","suffix":""},{"id":227981064,"identity":"34d7d88d-9753-4738-bd7c-30a9e89ae30f","order_by":9,"name":"K. B. Sujatha","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Forest College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"K.","middleName":"B.","lastName":"Sujatha","suffix":""},{"id":227981065,"identity":"535c65e5-cf5c-471e-9a2d-a6a1e745f89c","order_by":10,"name":"S. Thiruvarassan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oilseeds Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"S.","middleName":"","lastName":"Thiruvarassan","suffix":""},{"id":227981066,"identity":"c63acf37-d45f-4f2b-ad80-47324c504466","order_by":11,"name":"P. Jeyakumar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"P.","middleName":"","lastName":"Jeyakumar","suffix":""},{"id":227981067,"identity":"785d83ec-9652-4d35-a60f-78b59c12ea28","order_by":12,"name":"D. Sassikumar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sugarcane Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"D.","middleName":"","lastName":"Sassikumar","suffix":""},{"id":227981068,"identity":"458986d7-4c03-4108-b06c-58511d8f5464","order_by":13,"name":"M. Jayachandran","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sugarcane Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"M.","middleName":"","lastName":"Jayachandran","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-08-18 09:59:24","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3274899/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3274899/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-023-02679-x","type":"published","date":"2023-09-26T15:01:36+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":42157611,"identity":"5748e683-937b-43d3-a9b5-3e33aa8ee316","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-08-25 18:27:25","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":155346,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInfluence of SMS and organic source on post-harvest quality parameters of \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;sugarcane at different staling periods (a. pH), (b. Reducing sugars), (c. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Total soluble solids), (d. Titrable acidity index)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3274899/v1/fa303ea6a79d12132c632f89.png"},{"id":42157612,"identity":"ec19b0ab-8e90-4e8c-b398-70319babb08d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-08-25 18:27:25","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":184743,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeuconostoc \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecolony \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;and their species identification by rDNA \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;sequencing method\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3274899/v1/13af8e3b38b35f567d944da5.png"},{"id":43974479,"identity":"d0710a08-31f6-4d9c-874e-58d3663e7b64","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-10-02 15:08:00","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":960399,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3274899/v1/6f7acceb-95dc-4e3c-b425-caeffafe42f7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Comparative Efficacy of Sodium Metasilicate and Organic Source Combination on Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) for Reducing the Post-harvest Deterioration Losses","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIndia is the second-largest producer of sugar, it plays a significant role in the global sugar trade. The sugarcane cultivation area of India was 4316 thousand tons in 2000-01 which declined to 4201 thousand tons in 2005-06 and increased to 4732 thousand tons in 2017-18. The productivity of sugarcane was 68.58 tons/ha in 2000-01which was increased to 79.65 tons/ha in 2017-18 [1]. In 2019-20, India contributed the highest share of sugarcane production globally (24%) followed by Brazil (21%) and Thailand (10%). After harvest the deterioration in sugarcane is the utmost crucial problem of Indian sugar industries and has attracted widespread attention in recent years. Bio-deterioration due to microbial invasion and proliferation in harvested canes leads to a loss of up to 62% [2]. \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus saccharomyces\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eRodotorula\u003c/em\u003e, and some other bacteria serve to cause the inversion of sucrose and a significant amount of dextran, acids, and ethanol to be produced, which alters the kinetics of sucrose crystallization [3, 4]. It causes heavy losses in the sugar mills economy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn sugar industries, the crushing of stale sugarcane resulted in losses of 12\u0026ndash;50% in sugar recovery [2]. Based on research evidence, more losses accordingly one thousand six hundred crores challenged by sugar industries due to the supply of sucrose-degraded canes [5]. There are numerous reasons for post-harvest sugarcane degradation but microbial sucrose losses are primarily caused by storage conditions and this was due to the time frame between harvest and crushing (staling) [6]. Field losses in CCS were in the early season at 0.35, mid-season at 1.0, and late-crushing period at 1.32 units per day [7].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe traditional practice of newly harvested sugarcane is permitted to be left in open fields in piles or transport trucks for a lengthy period of interval which paves the way for ample invasion, growth, and proliferation of microbes that lead to single cane weight loss and reduction in sucrose recovery [4, 8]. The naturally occurring sugarcane enzyme invertase, which is likewise quite active after harvest, was stronger when the ambient temperature was higher. During milling, an abundance of invertases are released and turn sucrose into inverted sugars, thus reducing the purity. In the sugarcane field polysaccharides generate bacteria from mainly \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc spp\u003c/em\u003e. which enter through the cut ends and exploited the stored sucrose further reducing the quality of milled juice. Such a condition was obtained when canes are stored in cane centers. This leads to a drop in juice quality, thereby lowering the recovery percentage [9, 10].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most important and harmful microbes that invade harvested sugarcane stalks are the lactic acid bacteria groups like \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc spp\u003c/em\u003e. [11, 12]. This bacterium is soil-borne and obtained freely on sugarcane tissue and juice [10]. This species used sucrose as its main energy and transfer it into different substances like ethanol, organic acids, reducing sugars, and polymers with lengthy and intricate chains [13, 14]. In most of the time, harvested sugarcane stalks build a slimy layer due to the incidence of \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003e microbe. In the first 14 hrs, sucrose losses through microorganisms (93.0%), enzyme activity (5.7%), and acid degradation (1.3%). It has been noted that this bacterium is more prevalent in harvested sugarcane [10, 15, 16].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to studies, stale canes are inclined to hold more of this bacterium and produce dextran than sugarcane harvested recently [17]. This is true because \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc mesenteroides / dextranicum\u003c/em\u003e secrete the dextrasucrase enzyme, which is necessary for the synthesis of dextran [18, 19, 20]. Alteration in the establishment of dextran in stale and newly harvested canes is due to the time frame being more among harvesting and crushing. Extended sugar crystals, increased viscosity, filters blockage due to dextran, and insoluble solids were also obtained as this bacterium is washed off into juice during the cane refining process, it causes sucrose to be converted into a polymer called dextran [21, 22]. Higher sugar content (15%) and pH of 5.0\u0026ndash;5.5 of cane juice make a perfectly congenial environment for these bacteria to occur [23]. This pH changes the quality of harvested cane which leads to losses in sucrose levels [17].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe BKC is a well-known quaternary ammonium with strong bactericidal and fungicidal qualities that works well as a surfactant, disinfectant, deodorising, and cleaning agent for hard surfaces [24, 25]. The safety to be considered that this chemical used in sugarcane, where the end product, sucrose is converted into crystalline form was taken into account while using them. Due to their anti-bacterial properties, the chemical SMS is applied as an aqueous formulation to harvested sugarcane which minimizes the sucrose losses [18]. Although many steps have been taken to stop these sucrose losses by microbes, little progress has been made in eliminating them. The goal of the current study is to learn how different chemicals act and put an effort to reduce post-harvest deterioration losses in sugarcane. To compare the fresh and stale canes and find out how antibacterial and anti-inversion chemicals affect post-harvest quality losses.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental site and initial soil characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experimental farm was situated at an altitude of 4.6 m above MSL in Tamil Nadu's North Eastern Zone at 11o46\"N latitude and 79o46\"E longitude. Clayey loam soil with a pH of 7.2 and bore well irrigation make up the soil type. The mean annual rainfall is 1210 mm. This area experiences a warm and humid climate. In Cuddalore, the summer season began in April and lasted until June, which was very hot. During these months, the temperature ranges from 23 to 40 degrees Celsius. The winter season begins in December and lasts until January with temperatures ranging from 12 to 30 degrees Celsius.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental design and treatment schedule\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe treatment package was arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The pile of whole cane stalks that had been harvested with their cut ends and growth cracks which were thought to be the sites of microbial invasion were sprayed with each treatment. Rolling crushers were used to crush the canes, and juice was taken from each pile control at 0, 3, 6 and 9 days after harvest to estimate the microbial population. Juice from various treatments was used to assess the percentage of sucrose in the juice as well as other factors like pH, reducing sugar, total soluble solids, titrable acidity index, invertase activity, and commercial cane sugar.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTreatments Schedule\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplication rate ppm or (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime of application\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTr.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeaping of sugarcane (control)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter harvest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTr.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeaping and covering with trash\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter harvest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTr.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3 days before harvest)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTr.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) +\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003efoliar spray of benzalkonium chloride\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2% + 2000 ppm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3 days before harvest)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;In heaping\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTr.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFoliar spray of benzalkonium chloride\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Anti-inversion and Anti-bacterial)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2000 ppm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn heaping\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTr.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFoliar spray of neem cake\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;dried neem leaves extract\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5% + 5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn heaping\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTr.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFoliar spray of Nisin (Lactobacteria)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500 ppm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn heaping\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSelection of cultivar, planting, and agronomic practices\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sugarcane (variety -CoC 25 86032 with a duration of 10\u0026ndash;12 months) was planted in the early season (December 2018 to January 2021). The 7 months old cane nursery was obtained for the preparation of setts and 75,000 two-budded setts/ha were used. The setts were soaked in fungicide (Carbendazim 0.1% + 2.5 kg urea in 250 liters of water) for 15 minutes and then treated with \u003cem\u003eAzospirillum\u003c/em\u003e (2000 g/ha) for 15 minutes before planting. After irrigating the plots, setts were placed in the center of the furrows continuously by keeping the buds in the lateral position and pressed gently beneath the soil. FYM was applied at 12.5 t/ha at last ploughing, incorporated, and then leveled. All the plots were kept weed-free up to 120 days after planting (DAP), as the period is considered the critical period of crop-weed competition. Earthing up was done three times on 120, 150, and 180 DAP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experimental plots were applied with inorganic fertilizers as per blanket recommendation (275:62.5:112.5 kg of N, P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e, K\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO/ha). The entire quantity of P was applied as basal through DAP. Remaining nitrogen in the form of urea and potassium as muriate of potash was applied in four equal splits at 30, 60 90, and 120 DAP. The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam in texture with low available nitrogen of 45 kg/ac, higher available phosphorus of 10 kg/ac, higher available potassium of 135 kg/ac, available micronutrients were Fe of 17.80 ppm; Mn of 8.52 ppm; Zn of 1.17 ppm; Cu of 1.45 ppm present in the soil and EC of 0.15 dSm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e. The plant\u0026rsquo;s dried leaves were removed, and the green leaves were tied together by gathering all the canes into a single bundle. At the point of physiological maturity, the crop was manually harvested.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuality parameters sampling, juice extraction, and analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA clean laboratory roller crusher was used to crush three canes from each bundle to extract juice at intervals of three days (0, 3, 6, and 9 days after harvest). Before crushing, the roller crusher was surface cleaned with 0.01% HgCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e solution and washed three times in hot, sterile water. After being filtered through a four-layer muslin cloth and collected in sterilized glass bottles (500 ml), the juice was then processed for physical, chemical, and microbiological analysis on the same day.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003epH\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pH meter was used to record the juice's pH (Systronics pH system 362, India).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eReducing sugars\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn aliquot of 0.5 cc of 10% diluted juice was taken in sugar tubes. Using 1.5 ml of distilled water and 2 ml of copper reagent, a final volume of 2 ml was produced. After that, the mixture was submerged for 20 minutes in a pot of boiling water. Measure the absorbance at 540 nm after adding 2 ml of the arsenomolybdate reagent and 25 ml of distilled water to make the volume equal. The outcomes are presented in mg/ml using the method of [25], the reducing sugar was estimated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTotal soluble solids\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhatman filter paper 40 was used to filter the extracted juice, and a refractometer with 0.01% accuracy was used to determine the percentage of total soluble solids [6].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTitrable acidity index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine the titrable acidity, a potentiometric titration using 0.1 N NaOH up to pH 8.1 and 1 ml of the diluted juice in 25 ml of distilled water was used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAcid invertase\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy using the procedure of [26], the juice's acid invertase activity was measured through extraction with 1.0 ml of citrate buffer (pH 5.4). One milliliter of 0.2 M sucrose was added to 1.5 milliliters of 0.1 M citrate buffer (pH 5.4) and one milliliter of juice to start the reaction. The reaction was heated to 37\u0026deg;C for an hour. The reaction was halted by soaking the tubes in hot water for five minutes. The tubes were centrifuged at 8000 g for 15 min. According to [25] estimates the concentration of inverted sugars in a 0.5 ml aliquot of the supernatant. The acid invertase activity was expressed as Mmol invert sugars/mg protein/min.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSucrose\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA test tube was filled with an aliquot of 0.01 ml of 10% diluted juice. Resorcinol thiourea 2.0 ml was added to 1.99 ml of distilled water to make the final volume of 2 ml. The 6 ml of conc. HCl was added after a thorough mixing and then the tube was gently shaken. The tubes were then transferred to a water bath that was kept at 80\u0026deg;C for 20 min after which they were cooled under running water. Within 30 min the absorbance at 490 nm was measured against a reagent blank. The outcome is given in mg/ml juice. The resorcinol-thiourea method, as described by [28], was used to estimate the amount of sucrose in the sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSingle cane weight pH\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCane weight was determined before the crushing of canes with various treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommercial cane sugar\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommercial cane sugar (CCS) was computed [25] as the total percent of recoverable sugar in the cane at maturity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCCS (t/ha) = [Cane yield (t/ha) x Sugar recovery (%)] / 100\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSugar recovery (%) = [S-0.4(B-S)] x 0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere, S\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Sucrose (%), B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Corrected Brix (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eIdentification of\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003ebacteria\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe presence of \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc spp.\u003c/em\u003e was investigated by their morphological, biochemical, and cultural characteristics. Gram staining using the standard technique, and a motility test using SIMs medium, were used to identify morphological traits (sulfide indole motility media). The strains obtained were identified using the 16S rDNA sequencing method for molecular characterization. Using a Thermocycler, we amplified the 16S rRNA gene from genomic DNA using the 27F (5' AGAGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG 3') and 1492R (5' TACGGYTACCTT GTTACGACTT 3') primers at an initial temperature of 94 degrees Celsius for 2 minutes, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation at 94 degrees Celsius for 1 minute, annealing at 56 degrees Celsius for 1 minute, and extension at 72 Single-pass analysis in both the forward and reverse orientations was used to sequence PCR products (Priority Life Science, India). With the help of MEGA11, we were able to look at the sequence data and see how it matched up to other, closely similar sequences in the EzBioCloud database. The MEGA 11 program's neighbor-joining strategy was used to build the phylogenetic tree. Each node has a Bootstrap value (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;50%) based on a sample size of 1,000 tests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data shown is mean values. Statistical analysis was done using the WASP 2.0 Web Agri Stat package software. Information from four independent replicates of each treatment is used to calculate the means and standard errors (\u0026plusmn;) in the tables and figures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003epH of sugarcane juice\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSugarcane juice is widely recognized for its high sucrose content and pH range of 5.5\u0026ndash;6.5. The pH of the juice falls as the crushing time increases creating an ideal habitat for \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc spp\u003c/em\u003e to thrive [12]. It is an acidophilic bacterium and desirably its growth increased when an initial medium pH of 6.0 decreased to 4.0 likely after 20 hrs incubation period. The \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003e bacterium has resulted in a faster pH reduction [29]. This bacterium can cause sugarcane juice to degrade.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1a) depicts the pH level changes because of delayed sugarcane crushing with different treatments. The initial fall in sugarcane juice pH occurred three days after staling and the pH decline outline variance was observed in all the treated and control sugarcane. In the control cane, 3 days after staling pH of the juice started to decline, and a sharp fall in juice pH was seen after 6 days of staling. There was a progressive drop in pH up to 6 days of staling with a sustained decrease up to 9 days of staling in canes treated with a foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaves extract (T\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e) and a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS on 3 days before harvest with foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane (T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e). The study revealed that the control cane percentage change in pH decrease was highest (17.86%), followed by canes treated with heaping and covering with trash (8.88%), BKC (8.48%), Nisin (7.75%), SMS (7.56%) and lowest percentage change of pH reduction was observed with SMS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;BKC (7.53%) and Neem extract (6.59%). This proved that the juice pH begins to drop over the progression of the harvesting process leading to increasing the juice acidity and encouraging the growth of the \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003e bacterium. Similarly, the slight pH fall is due to the potential for small amounts of lactic acid to be produced. At the same time as 0.1% lactic acid is required to achieve about 0.1 pH level drop was earlier reported by [30].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eLevel of reducing sugars in cane juice\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSugar reduction is a crucial sign of cane [18]. The level of reduced sugars increases as time extends in storing canes after harvest. In all treatments, the pattern of increasing reducing sugars was consistent (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1b). In normal heaping of sugarcane (T\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) reducing sugars level was obtained to be 2.84% at 0 days although, after 9 days of staling, this was increased to 4.32% whereas in a foliar spray of 5% neem cake and 5% dried neem leaves extract in heaping of sugarcane (T\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e), the level of reducing sugar was 2.80% at 0 days which raised after 9 days of harvest to 3.13% as well as a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane treatment (T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e), the reducing sugars content was 2.81 percentage at 0 days which increased after 9 days of staling to 3.34. These all point out that there was an increase of 52.11% after a 9-day staling period in control heap canes but this increased level was quite lesser in neem extract and SMS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;BKC treated canes as 11.79% and 18.86%. So, the T\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e and T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e showed the least rate of reducing sugar increase with time of staling compared to other treatments. Gradual rises of reducing sugar decline the quality of sugarcane juice [31]. Generally, juice may become intense during the staling period because of moisture loss, which may also increase the activity of other hydrolytic enzymes. These microbial enzymes break down sucrose and convert it to reducing sugars [32]. [33] also reported that more than 4 to 5-fold increase in reducing sugar from harvest to staling period due to redounded in a hasty transition from sucrose to reducing sugar. The effects of cane heap temperature and extended period on harvested sugarcane stalks reported higher reducing sugars as a result of cane being stored at high ambient temperatures [34].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eTotal soluble solids of cane juice\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoth sugars and non-sugars are included in the description of total soluble solids, which also indicates high reducing sugars are thought to be responsible for increased total soluble solids in stale canes. An increase in total soluble solids was seen along with the increase in cane staling. In contrast to control canes, those treated with neem extract and SMS with BKC experienced a gradual total soluble solids increase. Overall, 9 days after harvest, control canes showed a higher percentage change in total soluble solids (7.48%), followed by canes heaping and covering with trash (7.14%). This study implies that after 9 days of harvest, canes treated with neem extract (1.77%) and a combination of SMS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;BKC (3.03%) experienced the least increase in total soluble solids. The total soluble solids values in each sample of cane juice that received a different treatment were plotted against time in days shown in (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1c). Results are confirmed by the study reports of [35, 36]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eTitrable acidity index (TAI) in cane juice\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe titrable acidity index (TAI) is also one of the indicators to supervise the sugarcane post-harvest deterioration. Acid-producing bacteria led to poorer juice pH and an increase in sugarcane juice acidity [37]. Progress of acidity is based on acids produced in the harvested sugarcane storage. In this experiment, After 9 days of harvest, all the treatment canes showed an increasing tendency in titrable acidity index due to an increase in the pattern of TAI differences between both control and treated canes (Fig. 1d). TAI of untreated canes or control increased gradually up to 6 days after staling before increasing sharply up to 9 days after sugarcane staling. The 9 days after harvest, a steady TAI increase was noticed in the cane that had been treated with a foliar spray containing 5% neem cake and neem leaf extract (T6) followed by the combined application of SMS with BKC in heaping of sugarcane (T4). Both these treatments had the lowest rate of TAI increase throughout staling. It claimed the juice pH value decreases while being stored or delayed during transportation of canes, increasing juice acidity. The intermingled levels of high acidity and low pH may be known for the formation of acids, which may be related to the development and propagation of the microbes particularly where the oxygen is limited [22, 12]. [38] reported acidity to be involved in sugarcane deterioration and to have a positive correlation with \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003e bacterial activity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eInvertase activity in cane juice\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertase activities dependable post-harvest sucrose losses in sugarcane. Commonly, immature internodes have extensively higher invertase activity. Over time after harvest, increased invertase activity lowers the amount of recoverable sugars because it activates the invertase enzyme [39], which lowers milling efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrom three days to nine days after staling, invertase activity in harvested canes increased in both control and treated canes (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). After 9 days of harvest, the control canes had the greatest increase in invertase activity value from 20.15 to 43.12 \u0026micro;mol sucrose hydrolyzed/mg/protein/hr with a percentage change of 114%. While the canes treated with a foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaf extract (T6) had the least increase in invertase activity value from 20.18 to 32.15 \u0026micro;mol sucrose hydrolyzed/mg/protein/hr with a percentage change of 59.32%. This is followed by a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane treatment (T4) with invertase activity value from 20.60 to 34.76 \u0026micro;mol sucrose hydrolyzed/mg/protein/hr with percentage change of 68.74%. Cane tissue loses its specificity once it has been harvested due to the invertase activity. After the cane is harvested, invertase activities play a role in sucrose degradation, which reduces sugar yield and recovery [40, 41]. Invertase activities have been observed to become active shortly after cane harvest for several rationales, \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003e development is one of them in harvested canes because this organism is capable of reversing sucrose into fructose and glucose.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSucrose content in cane juice\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe critical issue of post-harvest sucrose losses in sugarcane must be addressed by farmers and sugar millers. Farmers lose a lot of sucrose when they leave cut canes in the fields for a few days [42]. Additionally, microbes influence post-harvest sucrose losses. When they invade the harvested canes, they alter the quality parameters. Due to the mature internodes with high sugar content when bacteria enter the harvested stalk through cuts they flourish there [43]. A significant factor in the deterioration of sucrose has been identified as \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003e bacterium invasion in harvested sugarcane.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe cane juice quality of sucrose content decreases with the time between harvest and staling period increases (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Based on staling period, sucrose declined most in control canes and reached 15.1% after 9 days of staling with a percentage change of 17.69% which is followed by canes treated with heaping and covering with trash (14.30%), Nisin (11.69%), BKC (11.43%) and SMS (9.99%). The lowest percentage change of sucrose content was observed with SMS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;BKC (7.46%) and neem extract (7.41%) which were comparable to each other. In harvested stale canes, the rate of respiration increases quickly, leading to an increase in reducing sugars and deprivation in sucrose condensation. Stacked sugarcane significantly influences the deterioration of sucrose due to the release of carbon dioxide during respiration which increases temperature and accelerates deterioration. The reduced sucrose content was more as staling period increased [33] and delays in the cut-to-crush process caused the cane to dry out too much and cause a significant reversal of sucrose due to respiration [34].\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfluence of sodium metasilicate and organic source on invertase activity and sucrose content of sugarcane at different staling periods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertase activity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026micro;mol sucrose hydrolysed/mg/protein/hr)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSucrose content (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edays\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edays\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edays\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edays\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDays\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.1- Heaping of sugarcane (control)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.2- Heaping and covering with trash\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.3- Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.4- Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) +\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efoliar spray of benzalkonium chloride\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.5- Foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Anti-inversion and Anti-bacterial)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.6- Foliar spray of neem cake\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;dried neem leaves extract\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.7- Foliar spray of Nisin (Lactobacterical)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSEd\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.46\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.39\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.61\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.51\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.34\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.33\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.26\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.44\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCD (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.85\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.34\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.73\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.72\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.56\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.96\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSingle sugarcane weight\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe single cane weight of sugarcane at different staling periods is presented in (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). All the treatments applied on harvested sugarcanes exhibited better results in comparison to control canes from the time of harvest until 9 days after staling. In control, the highest percentage change of single cane weight from 0 to 9 days after a staling period with 40.95%. Among the treatments, foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaves extract (T\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e) and a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS on 3 days before harvest with foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane (T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e) treated cane showed a marginal difference in decreasing pattern after 6 days of staling. The least percentage change of 22.17% and 23.50% was obtained in the T6 and T4 treatments, respectively after 9 days of staling were comparable will aid in reducing cane weight loss because the staling period is directly related to loss in cane moisture content. The cane growers may suffer significant financial losses if the gap between cutting and milling widens. The rate of moisture loss in sugarcane is influenced by cane storage time and technique [44].\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eCommercial cane sugars\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen analyzing post-harvest sugarcane losses, commercial cane sugars are crucial because they show how much cane sugar is commercially available. The study revealed that a decrease in commercial cane sugar content was seen in all treatments with different staling periods. After 10 days of harvest, control canes show a sharp decline in commercial cane sugars, whereas in treatments of foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaves extract (T\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e) and pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS on 3 days before harvest with foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane (T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e) showed a gradual decline. With the reduction in time after harvest, there was a higher reduction in commercial cane sugars in control canes with values of 12.86\u0026ndash;9.08% during 0 to 9 days after the staling period of cane. The lowest decline of commercial cane sugars was obtained in a foliar spray of 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaves extract (T\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e) and a pre-harvest spray of 2% SMS on 3 days before harvest with foliar spray of BKC @ 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane (T\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e) with values of 14.68\u0026ndash;13.08% and 14.38\u0026ndash;12.46% during 0 to 9 days after harvesting time of cane, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe highest reduction percentage change of commercial cane sugars was showed by control canes (29.39%) which is followed by canes treated with heaping and covering with trash (23.58%), Nisin (19.59%), BKC (17.94%), SMS (17.12%). The lowest commercial cane sugars reduction percentage change was observed with neem extract (10.90%) which is significantly comparable with the SMS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;BKC (13.35%). Commercial cane sugar reduction is correlated with the reduction of sucrose and cane weight [6, 45]. The nature of neem products possesses antimicrobial effectiveness especially higher antibacterial activity capacity [46, 47]. Similarly, the potent antibacterial effect of silicon components for gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial pathogens [48] by creating oxidative injury to its membrane led to bacterial dead [49, 50, 51]. These specific characteristics of neem products and SMS component helps to reduce the spoilage of sugarcane quality parameters during an extended period of staling for milling and provided higher commercial cane sugars recovery compared to all other treatments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfluence of sodium metasilicate and organic source on single cane weight and commercial cane sugars at different staling periods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle sugarcane weight (g)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommercial cane sugars (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edays\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edays\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edays\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.1- Heaping of sugarcane (control)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.2- Heaping and covering with trash\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.3- Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.4- Sodium metasilicate (Pre-harvest spray) +\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efoliar spray of benzalkonium chloride\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.5- Foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Anti-inversion and Anti-bacterial)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.6- Foliar spray of neem cake\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;dried neem leaves extract\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTr.7- Foliar spray of Nisin (Lactobacterical)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSEd\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.04\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.03\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.03\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.03\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.36\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.37\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.34\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.32\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCD (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.09\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.06\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.05\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.05\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.72\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.74\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.69\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.64\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIdentification of\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eLeuconostoc spp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCane juice samples that were plated in \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003e-specific media resulted in colonies that were shiny, smooth, and clear. They were found to be gram-positive. In studies on pH (pH levels 4.0 to 7.0); profuse colonies were discovered in pH 7, while pH 4.0 showed no growth. It was clear from the carbohydrate fermentation profile with various carbon sources that the bacteria cultivated after 24 to 48-hour incubation used glucose, maltose, sucrose, fructose, and dextrose as carbon sources and released oxygen. However, they didn\u0026apos;t use starch. All of these characteristics supported Bergey\u0026apos;s manual assertion that \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc spp\u003c/em\u003e. was present in sugarcane juice. The isolated strains\u0026apos; identification as \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc mesenteroides\u003c/em\u003e R1 was further supported by molecular testing, and they were given the accession number. The phylogenetic connections to other \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc sp.\u003c/em\u003e were shown in (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003ePost-harvest losses are a subject to consider and realize because the decrease in quality of cane juice like sucrose content over the period following cane harvest leads to low sugar recovery and reduces mills financial prudence. The research study demonstrated was revealed that foliar spray of treated cane with 5% neem cake extract and 5% dried neem leaf extract produced the best results in reducing post-harvest losses when compared to control and other treatments tried in this experiment. Because it had a dual effect on \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc spp\u003c/em\u003e. inhibition and sucrose inversion process control by acquiring more antibacterial action ability. So, neem extract act as a low-cost source to diminish post-harvest losses in sugarcane. On the other hand, considering chemical component treatments, the neem extract treatment was comparable with a pre-harvest spray of 2% sodium meta silicate 3 days before harvest with a foliar spray of benzalkonium chloride of 2000 ppm in heaping of sugarcane due to effective antibacterial consequence of silicon-based constituent. This is finally reflected in post-harvest quality management of sugarcane with different staling periods.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors acknowledge Sugarcane Research Station, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, India for conducting the research experiment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptualization:\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; [R. Anitha, R Brindavathy. P. Jeyakumar] Methodology: [R. Anitha, R. Brindavathy, V. Dhanushkodi, M. Yuvaraj, S. Thiruvarassan] Formal analysis: [R. Anitha, T. Thirumurugan, D. Sassikumar V. Dhanushkodi, S. Thiruvarassan] Investigation: [R. Anitha, M. Jayachandran T.Thirumurugan, P. Jeyakumar] Writing–original draft: [R. Anitha, N. Sritharan T.Thirumurugan, P. Jeyakumar, N. Jagathjothi, R. Sathya Priya] Writing review and editing: [R. Anitha, N.Sritharan P. Jeyakumar M. Yuvaraj, C. Jaiby, T. Thirumurugan]; Supervision: [R. Anitha, M. Jayachandran, D. Sassikumar N. Sritharan, K.B. Sujatha].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; As part of the first author's required research duties, there is no funding assistance for the research for this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;All relevant data are within the research paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclarations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Consent was obtained from every researcher who participated in the experiment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have given permission for this research paper to be published in the journal.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The authors declare no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUpadhyay TK (2021) A study of area, production and productivity of sugarcane in India and Uttar Pradesh. \u003cem\u003eInt J Multi discip Educ Res\u003c/em\u003e10(1):59\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSolomon S (2009) Post-harvest deterioration of sugarcane. Sugar Tech 11:109\u0026ndash;123.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFoster DH, Inkerman PA, Neil KE (1980) Studies on cane deterioration in Australia. Proc.17\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e Congress ISSCT 3:2204\u0026ndash;2220.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSingh P, Arya N, Tiwari P, Suman A, Rai RK, Shrivastava AK, Solomon S (2008) \u0026nbsp;Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry \u0026nbsp;56 (16): 7176-7183. DOI: 10.1021/jf801394j\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSolomon S (2002) Post-harvest cane deterioration and its milling consequences. Sugar Tech 2:1-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMisra V, Solomon S, Shrivastava\u0026nbsp;AK, Shukla SP, Ansari MI (2016) Post-harvest sugarcane deterioration: \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc\u003c/em\u003eand its effect. J Funct Environ Bot 6:1\u0026ndash;7.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSolomon S, Banerji R, Ashok K. Shrivastava, Singh P, Singh I, Verma MCP, Prajapati, Sawnani A (2006) Post-harvest deterioration of sugarcane and chemical methods to minimize sucrose losses. Sugar Tech 8(1):74\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSingh P, Solomon S, Prajapati CP, Kumar S, Misra V, Chandra A (2014) Dynamics of deterioration of fresh and stale juice in relation to expression of invertases and growth of \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc sp\u003c/em\u003e., Proceedings of green technologies for sustainable growth of sugar and integrated industries in developing countries, Nanning, PR China 120\u0026ndash;124.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKrishnankumar T, Thamilselvi C, Devadas CT (2013) Effect of delayed extraction and storage on quality of sugarcane. Afr J Agric Res 8:930\u0026ndash;935.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSolomon S, Singh P (2009) Efficacy of electrolysed water to minimize post-harvest sucrose losses in sugarcane. Sugar Tech 11:228\u0026ndash;230.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBruijn J (1966) Deterioration of sugarcane after harvesting part 1, changes in juice composition. Int Sugar J 68:331\u0026ndash;334.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMisra V, Solomon S, Ansari MI (2016) Impact of drought on post-harvest quality of sugarcane crop Adv Life Sci 5:9496\u0026ndash;9505.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKim B, Robyt JF (1995) Production selection and characterization of mutants of \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc mesenteroides\u003c/em\u003e B742 constitutive of dextransucrase, Enzyme Microbiol Technol 17:689\u0026ndash;695.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMisra V, Solomon S, Singh P, PrajapatiCP, AnsariMI (2016) \u0026nbsp;Effect of water logging on \u0026nbsp;post-harvest sugarcane deterioration. Agrica 5:119\u0026ndash;132.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcCleskey CS, FavilleLW, BarnettRO (1947) Characteristics of Leuconostoc mesenteroidesfrom cane juice. J Bacteriol 54:697\u0026ndash;708.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMisra V, Mall AK, Pathak AD, Solomon S, Kishor R (2017) Microorganisms affecting post-harvest sucrose losses in sugarcane Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 6:2554\u0026ndash;2566.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSingh P, Solomon S, Prajapati CP, Kumar S, Misra V, Chandra A(2016) Deterioration of fresh and stale cane juice at high ambient temperature in relation to expression of invertases and the growth of \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc sp\u003c/em\u003e, Agrica 4:79\u0026ndash;85.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMisra V, Solomon S, Hashem A, Abd-Allah EF, Al-Arjani AF, Mall AK, Prajapati CP, Ansari MI (2020) Minimization of post-harvest sucrose losses in drought affected sugarcane using chemical formulation Saudi J Biol Sci 27:309\u0026ndash;317.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;Huang SX, Hou DZ, Qi PX, Wei YJ, Wang Q, Liang YP, Chen S (2019) Efficacy of neutral electrolyzed water for reducing \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc mesenteroides\u003c/em\u003e in sugarcane mixed \u0026nbsp;juice. Sugar Tech 21:986\u0026ndash;994.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZohra RR, Waseem S, Aman A, Siddiqui A, Kazmi SK, Zohra RR (2019) Dextran production by microbial biotransformation of sugarcane waste. FUUAST J Biol 9:87\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCuddihy JA, Rauh JS, Porro ME (1998) Improving sugar recovery with sugar process chemicals. (Accessed 8 Jul 2004) http://www.midlandresearchlabsinc.com.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSharma KP, Batta SK, Singh R (1994) Studies on minimizing dextran problems in sugarcane under subtropical conditions. Trop Agricult (Trinidad) 71:119\u0026ndash;122.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTilbury RH (1975) Occurrence and effects of lactic acid bacteria in the sugar industry, in: JG. Carr, CV. Cutting, GC (Eds.), Whiting lactic acid bacteria in beverages and foods, Academic Press, London, pp. 103\u0026ndash;128.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHolt JG, Lippincott W, Wilkins, Bergeys (1994) Manual of Determinant Bacteriology, 9\u003csup\u003eth\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eedition), pp. 541 529.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNelson N (1944) A photometric adaption of Somogyi method for determination of reducing sugar. J Biol Chem 153:375\u0026ndash;380.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHatch MD, Glasziou KT (1963) Sugar-accumulation cycle in sugarcane. II Relationship of invertase activity to sugar content and growth rate in storage tissue of plants grown in controlled environments. Plant Physiol 38:34.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGupta AP, Nigam N (1982) Formation of non-sucrose compounds in sugarcane on storage during post-harvest period. Maharashtra Sugar 7(3):51\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoe JH, Papadopoulos NM (1954) The determination of fructose6- phosphate and fructose 1, 6 diphosphate. J Biol Chem 210:703.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRobert H, Gabriel V, Lefebvre D, Rabier P, Vayssier Y, Faucher CF (2006) Study of the behaviour of Lactobacillus plantarum and Leuconostoc starters during \u0026ndash; A complete wheat sourdough bread making process. Lebensmittel -Wissenschaft und-Technologie\u0026nbsp;39(3):256-265.\u0026nbsp;DOI:10.1016/j.lwt.2005.01.013.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVermeiren L, Devlieghere F, De Graef V, Debevere J (2005) In vitro and in situ growth characteristics and behaviour of spoilage organisms associated with anaerobically stored cooked meat products. Journal of Applied Microbiology 98:33\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXiao Z, Liao X, Guo S (2017) Analysis of Sugarcane Juice Quality Indexes,\u0026nbsp;Journal of Food Quality, Article ID 1746982, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1746982.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChandra A, Roopendra K, Singh P, Jain R, Prajapati CP, Solomon S (2014). Time-course expression of soluble acid invertase (SAI) gene mirroring post-harvest cane quality deterioration: effective treatments cause reduction of SAI gene expression.\u0026nbsp;Curr Sci 107: 184\u0026ndash;186.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRakkiyappan P, Shekinah DE, Gopalasundaram P, Mathew MD, Asokan S (2009) Post-harvest deterioration of sugarcane with special reference to quality loss. Sugar Tech 11(2):167-170.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLontom W, Kosittrakun M, Weerathaworn P (2009) Impact of storage temperature and duration on sucrose catabolism in harvested sugarcane stalks. Sugar Tech 11:146\u0026ndash;153 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-009-0022-8.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhatia S, Jyoti SK, Uppal KS, Thind SK, Batta (2009) Post-harvest quality deterioration in sugarcane under different environmental conditions. Sugar Tech 11 (2):154\u0026ndash;160.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaxena P, Srivastava RP, Sharma ML (2010) Impact of cut to crush delay and bio-chemical changes in sugarcane. Aust J Crop Sci 4:692\u0026ndash;699.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKhan MT, Yasmeen S, Khan IA (2020) Comparative analysis of sugarcane genotypes for post-harvest deterioration under natural conditions. Pak J. Bot 52:4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEggleston G, Huet JM. (2012) The measurement of mannitol in beet sugar factories to monitor deterioration and processing problems. Zuckerindustrie \u0026ndash; Sugar Industry 137(1):33\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMao L, Que F, Wang G (2006) Sugar metabolism and involvement of enzymes in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) stems during storage. Food Chem 98:338\u0026ndash;342.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShivalingamurthy SG, Anangi R, Kalaipandian S, Glassop D, King GF, Rae AL (2018) Identification and Functional Characterization of Sugarcane Invertase Inhibitor (ShINH1): A Potential Candidate for Reducing Pre- and Post-harvest Loss of Sucrose in Sugarcane. Front. Plant Sci. 9:598. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00598\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDevi K, Prathima, Gomathi R, Manimekalai R, Lakshmi K, Selvi A (2019) Gene Expression Profiling in Sugarcane Genotypes during Drought Stress and Rehydration. Sugar Tech 21(5): 717\u0026ndash;733.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMukunda Rao M, Vijaya Kumar M, Sambasiva Rao CH, Balaji Naik R, Sekhar D (2008) Sugarcane quality deterioration between harvest and crushing period under Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. Cooperative Sugar 39(12):19-21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSolomon S, Singh P, Shrivastava AK, Singh P, Chandra A, Jain R, Prajapati CP (2011) Physico-chemical method of preserving sucrose in harvested sugarcane at high ambient temperature in a sub-tropical climate. Sugar Tech 13(1):60\u0026ndash;67.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUppal SK, Bhatia S, Thind KS (2008) Pre milling cane preparation for high sugar recovery and reduction of post harvest losses in sugarcane. Sugar Tech 10:346\u0026ndash;349 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-008-0061-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMisra V, Mall AK, Solomon S, Ansari MI (2022) Post-harvest biology and recent advances of storage technologies in sugarcane. Biotechnol Rep (Amst) 30;33:e00705. doi: 10.1016/j.btre.2022.e00705. PMID: 35145888; PMCID: PMC8819023.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMohammed HA, Omer AA (2015) Antibacterial Activity of Azadirachta indica (Neem) Leaf Extract against Bacterial Pathogens in Sudan. American Journal of Research Communication 3(5):246-251.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYilleng TM, Samuel NY, Stephen D, Akande JA, Agendeh ZM, Madaki LA (2020) Biosynthesis of Copper and Iron Nanoparticles using Neem (Azadirachta indica) Leaf Extract and their Anti-bacterial Activity. J Appl Sci Environ Manage 24(11):1987-1991.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLuthfiah A, Deawati Y, Firdaus ML, Rahayu I, Eddy DR (2021) Silica from Natural Sources: a Review on the Extraction and Potential Application as a Supporting Photocatalytic Material for Antibacterial Activity. Science and Technology Indonesia 6(3):144\u0026ndash;155. https://doi.org/10.26554/sti.2021.6.3.144-155.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmirnov NA, Kudryashov SI, Nastulyavichus AA, Rudenko AA, Saraeva IN, Tolordava ER, Gonchukov SA, Romanova YM, Ionin\u0026nbsp;AA, Zayarny DA\u0026nbsp;(2018)\u0026nbsp;Antibacterial properties of silicon nanoparticles. Laser Phys Lett\u0026nbsp;15(10):5602. DOI\u0026nbsp;10.1088/1612-202X/aad853.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTian B, Liu Y (2020) Antibacterial applications and safety issues of silica-based materials: A review. Int J Applied ceramic technology 18(2): 289-301.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnitha R, Vanitha K, \u0026nbsp;Tamilselvi C, Jeyakumar P, Vijayalakshmi D, Yuvaraj M, Nageswari R, Dhanushkodi V and \u0026nbsp; Jaiby Cyriac (2023) Potential Applications of Silicate Solubilizing Bacteria and Potassium Silicate on Sugarcane Crop under Drought Condition. Silicon https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-023-02534-z.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"silicon","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scon","sideBox":"Learn more about [Silicon](https://www.springer.com/journal/12633)","snPcode":"12633","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12633/3","title":"Silicon","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Sodium meta silicate, neem, nisin, leuconostoc, quality parameters","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3274899/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3274899/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSugarcane must be processed quickly after being harvested because it is a destructible commodity. Harvested cane may degrade for a variety of reasons, including exposure to microbes, mechanical or manual harvesting, cultivar, maturity, cut-to-crush interval, and storage. Due to the quick loss of sucrose and deterioration after harvest, sugarcane needs to be treated at the right time and way. The higher sugar content of mature internodes offers the perfect conditions for microbial growth, which enters the harvested stalk through wounds or cut ends. The bacteria \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc spp.\u003c/em\u003e is primarily responsible for these post-harvest losses, which negatively affect sugar percent. The trials were carried out to assess the efficacy of Sodium metasilicate (SMS), Benzalkonium chloride (BKC), Nisin (Lactobacteria), and Neem sources on sugarcane for reducing the post-harvest degradation losses. An investigation is underway now to reveal that foliar spray of neem cake @ 5% + dried neem leaves extract @ 5% (in heaping) is the most effective and eco-friendly substance that might be able to significantly enhance sugar recovery. This treatment was comparable with the chemical formulation of SMS @ 2% (3 days before harvest) + BKC @ 2000 ppm (in heaping) which might be a consequence of controlling the proliferation of \u003cem\u003eLeuconostoc spp.\u003c/em\u003e bacterium. Likewise, the juice obtained from these treatments has a lower rate of inclination in pH, reducing sugar, total soluble solids, titrable acidity index, invertase activity, higher sucrose, and commercial cane sugars (CCS) recovery, furthermore with relatively smaller losses in cane weight. Hence, these treatments offer a significant potential role in reducing post-harvest deterioration losses in the sugar industry.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Comparative Efficacy of Sodium Metasilicate and Organic Source Combination on Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) for Reducing the Post-harvest Deterioration Losses","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2023-08-25 18:27:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3274899/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Accepted","date":"2023-09-13T02:40:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2023-09-11T11:33:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"68cb0ef1-8e03-4187-bfc8-2b5fee9f22f4","date":"2023-09-05T12:07:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2023-08-21T23:46:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2023-08-21T22:34:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2023-08-21T22:34:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Silicon","date":"2023-08-18T09:55:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"silicon","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scon","sideBox":"Learn more about [Silicon](https://www.springer.com/journal/12633)","snPcode":"12633","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12633/3","title":"Silicon","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"05ca6ec7-5cac-4a28-abaa-787a01907e4a","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 25th, 2023","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2023-10-02T15:04:25+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3274899","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-023-02679-x","journal":{"identity":"silicon","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Silicon"},"publishedOn":"2023-09-26 15:01:36","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 26th, 2023"},"versionCreatedAt":"2023-08-25 18:27:20","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s12633-023-02679-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-023-02679-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3274899","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3274899","identity":"rs-3274899","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"rHA-KDH7Qsr4HCuvH75dn","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}