Investigation on Physicochemical Properties and Anti-nutritional content of the three sorghum Varieties Grown in Ethiopia

Investigation on Physicochemical Properties and Anti-nutritional content of the three sorghum Varieties Grown in Ethiopia | 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 Investigation on Physicochemical Properties and Anti-nutritional content of the three sorghum Varieties Grown in Ethiopia Getenet Bogale, Eskinder Getachew, Habtamu Admassu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3893611/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The physicochemical properties of grains play very important role to determine the quality of grains. An investigation was conducted to evaluate the physicochemical properties and phytochemical content of three sorghum varieties: Tilahun, Melkam, and Argity. Results demonstrated that Melkam exhibited the highest values in bulk density (0.86 g/mL), hectoliter weight (82.67 kg/hl), and flour extraction yield (79.4%). Argity, on the other hand, displayed higher values in thousand kernel weight (45.46g), size (3.6 mm), volume (37.6 mL), and angle of repose (30.07 0 ). Additionally, Melkam presented significantly higher levels of crude protein (12.81%), crude fiber (2.74%), and crude fat (3.07%), coupled with lower moisture (12.30%) and ash content (1.27%). Furthermore, Melkam exhibited lower levels of anti-nutritional factors such as tannin (0.21 mg/100g) and phytate content (320.3 mg/100g), while Tilahun demonstrated higher levels of ash, moisture, and phytate (334.07 mg/100g). In terms of mineral content, Melkam demonstrated the highest levels of calcium (24 mg/100g), phosphorus (266.12 mg/100g), and iron (4.16 mg/100g), with Tilahun displaying lower levels of calcium (12.34 mg/100g), phosphorus (255.57 mg/100g), and iron (4.0 mg/100g). Magnesium content was found to be highest in Argity (155.77 mg/100g) and lowest in Melkam (130.89 mg/100g). Based on the physicochemical properties observed, Melkam was selected as a favorable candidate for further food product development due to its nutritional qualities. Mineral content physicochemical properties sorghum variety Figures Figure 1 1. INTRODUCTION Sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L. Moench ) is the fifth most important cereal crop globally, is crucial for food security in Sub-Saharan Africa, supporting around 300 million people (Rashwan et al., 2021 ). It is a versatile ingredient in African and Asian diets and is a staple food for around 500 million people in 30 countries across Africa and Asia (Khoddami et al., 2023 ). In Ethiopia, it is the primary source of stable food, ranking second in overall production and third in terms of production per hectare and cultivated land area (Habyarimana et al., 2022 ). From 2000/01 to 2020/21, Ethiopia produced an average total of 69,979,742 tons of sorghum (Bezabih et al., 2023 ). Over 52 sorghum varieties have been released, with various colors and yields ranging from 15 to 80 quintals per hectare. The Melkam variety yields 37–78 quintals per hectare, the Argity variety yields 37.82 quintals per hectare, and the Tilahun variety, released in 2009, yields 26–60 quintals per hectare (Bezabih et al., 2023 ). Sorghum is a gluten-free cereal with a high nutritional content, including carbohydrates (55.7–65.2%), protein (4.4–21.1%), fat (2.1–7.6%), fiber (1-3.4%), and ash (1.3–3.3%) (Abah et al., 2020a ; Hegde et al., 2023 ). It is rich in essential minerals like phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, vitamins D, E, and K, and B-complex vitamins (thiamine, riboflavin, and pyridoxine). The nutritional quality of sorghum is influenced by its chemical composition, which includes anti-nutritional factors like phytate and tannin. Sorghum is a cost-effective source of food and nutrition security, with an energy value ranging from 296.1 kcal to 356.0 kcal per 100g (Lindsay, 2010 ). Sorghum-based food products are rich in essential vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, making them beneficial for overall health (Tanwar et al., 2023 ). They are naturally gluten-free, making them suitable for those with gluten intolerance or celiac disease (Hegde et al., 2023 ). Sorghum also contains phytochemicals like antioxidants and phenolic compounds that reduce the risk of heart diseases (Xiong et al., 2019 ). It is a good source of dietary fiber, promoting better digestion and a healthy digestive system (Espitia-Hernández et al., 2022 ). Its low glycemic index makes it suitable for those managing blood sugar levels (Ebere, 2019 ). However, the consumption of sorghum grains, particularly pigmented ones, as human food presents challenges due to the presence of various anti-nutritional components, such as tannins, Phytic acid, trypsin inhibitor, and protein cross-linker. These components can have negative effects on health. Technological processing approaches can help reduce these components and improve the quality of sorghum grains and derived products like bread, cake, porridges, and starch (Rashwan et al., 2021 ). Thus, to design proper processing methods, understanding of detailed physical properties and chemical compositions and identifying better varieties have pertinent importance in product development. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the nutritional quality of three distinct sorghum grain verities by analyzing their physicochemical properties, mineral content, and phytochemicals. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 Material Sorghum ( sorghum bicolor L. moench ) varieties like Argity, Tilahun , and Melkam were collected from Ethiopian Sorghum Improvement Program at Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre, Ethiopia, with fulfilling the national sample collection guideline system. The collected sample was the harvest of 2022 harvesting season. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the sorghum varieties used in this study. Chemicals and regents used in this study were analytical grade. Glassware and equipment required were found and available in Addis Ababa Science and Technology University food process engineering laboratory. 2.2 Sorghum flour preparation The sorghum varieties underwent a thorough cleaning process to eliminate any foreign substances before being finely ground into flour. The flour was then sifted to remove any remaining impurities, and the cleanliness of the grains was verified through visual inspection. Finally, the flour was packed in plastic bags and stored at room temperature for further analysis. 2.3 Physical properties of sorghum grain varieties The physical properties of three sorghum grain varieties ( Argity , Tilahun , and Melkam ) were analyzed. The properties that were examined included the geometric mean diameter, thousand kernel weight, bulk density, angle of repose and flour extraction yield. The results of these properties measurements were used for selection of sorghum varieties. 2.3.1 Geometric mean diameter The length, thickness, and breadth of sorghum seeds were measured to determine their dimensions. The calculation of the geometric mean diameter of the seeds was performed using Eq. (2.1) as stated in the study by Gursoy and Guzel ( 2010 ). \(\text{G}\text{M}\text{D}= \sqrt[3]{\text{L} \times \text{W}\times \text{T}} (\) 2. 1) Where: GMD is geometric mean diameter (mm), L is length (mm), W is width (mm) And T is thickness (mm). 2.3.2 Thousand kernel weight and volume The thousand kernel weights of neat, clean, and sorted 1000 sorghum grains were measured by an electronic balance, and the average weight was calculated. Similarly, volume of 1000 sorted sorghum grain was measured by water displacement in milliliters using graduated cylinder. 2.3.3 Bulk density The AOAC ( 2016 ) method was used to measure the bulk density of the grain. This involved weighing a representative sample (W1) and recording its initial (V1) and final (V2) volume in a 1000 mL graduated cylinder to calculate the bulk density (BD) using Eq. (2.2). \(BD = \left(\frac{W1}{\left(V2 - V1\right)}\right)\) (2. 2) Where: BD = bulk density (g/mL) W 1 = weight of the sample (g), V 1 = initial volume of the sample (mL), V2 = final volume of the sample (mL). 2.3.4 Hectoliter weight The hectoliter weight analysis, a standard practice in the grain industry, offers crucial insights into grain density, quality, and commercial value, providing information about bulkiness, seed size, and potential yield. A hectoliter weight apparatus was used to measure the volume of the grain. The apparatus consisted of a container with a known volume and a funnel for filling the container. The hectoliter weight was calculated by dividing the net weight by the volume of the container. The result is expressed in kilograms per hectoliter (kg/hl). 2.3.5 Angle of repose The slop of a grain mass’s cone formed during free fall was measured by angle of repose, determined through the height (h) and radius (r) of circular pile, with calculation using Eq. (2.3), as described by Patekar and Hashmi ( 2017 ). \(A\text{n}\text{g}\text{l}\text{e} \text{o}\text{f} \text{R}\text{e}\text{p}\text{o}\text{s}\text{e} \left({\theta }\right)= \text{t}\text{a}\text{n} \left(\frac{\text{h}}{\text{r}}\right) (\) 2. 3) 2.3.6 Flour extraction yield The sorghum flour extraction yield was determined by grinding sorghum into flour, then weighing 50 grams of the flour, rinsing it with distilled water, and subsequently drying it at a low temperature (around 50 0 C) to attain a constant weight. The final yield percentage was calculated by multiplying the weight of the extracted flour by 100 and dividing it by the initial weight of the flour. 2.4 Proximate analysis of sorghum varieties Proximate compositions are the chemical characteristics of sorghum varieties that provide useful information for nutritional value of sorghum grain. Sorghum varieties ( Melkam, Tilahun , and Argity ) flour were analyzed for moisture content, ash, fat, fiber, protein and total carbohydrate. 2.4.1 Determination of moisture content The moisture content of whole sorghum grain was measured by Draminski GMM mini grain moisture meter (v: 10–860, Olsztyn, Poland). The moisture content of flour was determined using moisture analyzers (DSH-50-5 model.). 2.4.2 Determination of total ash The ash content was determined according to AOAC ( 2016 ) method using muffle furnace (Gallenkamp, model FSL 340 − 0100, UK) at 550°C for 5 h. The percentage of total ash was calculated using Eq. (3.4). \(Ash\left(\text{%}\right)=\left[\frac{W3-W1}{W2-W1}\right]\times 100\) (2. 4) Where; W 1 : the weight of an empty crucible, W 2 : a sample with a crucible, and W 3 : a crucible with ash are all measured in grams. 2.4.3 Determination of crude fat The crude fat content was determined according to the AOAC ( 2016 ) method using Soxhlet apparatus with petroleum ether solvent. The percentage of crude fat content was calculated using Eq. (3.5). \(Fat \left(\text{%}\right)=\frac{Mf}{Ms}\times 100\text{%} (\) 2. 5) Where; Mf: weight of fat (g) is the difference of weight of extraction flask after extraction and weight of extraction flask before extraction, M s : weight of sample (g) 2.4.4 Determination of crude fiber Crude fiber content was determined according to AOAC ( 2016 ) method. The percentage of crude fiber content was calculated using Eq. (2.6). \(Crude fiber=\frac{\left(M1 -M2\right)}{M3}\times 100\) (2. 6) Where: M 1 , Crucible weight after drying, M2 is crucible weight after ashing, and M 3 is sample dry weight (g) 2.4.5 Determination of crude protein Crude protein content was determined according to AOAC ( 2016 ) method. Percentage of nitrogen and protein calculated by using Eq. (2.7) and (2.8) respectively. \(\text{N}\text{i}\text{t}\text{r}\text{o}\text{g}\text{e}\text{n}\left(\text{%}\right) =\frac{(\text{V}2-\text{V}1)\times \text{N}\times 14\times 100}{\text{W}}\) (2. 7 ) \(Protein content \left(\text{%},\frac{w}{w}\right)=\text{%} Nitrogen \times 6.25\) (2. 8) Where: W is weight of the sample (g) ,V2 is volume of the standard sulfuric acid solution used in the titration of the sample (mL), V1 is volume of the standard Sulfuric acid solution used in the titration of the blank (mL), and N is normality of standard sulfuric acid. 2.4.6 Determination of carbohydrate The carbohydrate content of the samples were determine by subtracting the percentages of moisture, protein, fat, ash, and crude fiber from 100%. 2.4.7 Determination of total caloric value The energy content of a food sample was calculated by multiplying the mean values of crude protein, fat, and total carbohydrate by factors of 4, 9, and 4, and then results expressed (kcal/100g). 2.5 Determination of minerals content The mineral content of sorghum varieties (Melkam, Tilahun, and Argity) were analyzed following AOAC ( 2016 ) guidelines using atomic absorption spectrophotometry method 999.10. The concentrations of calcium, iron, potassium, and magnesium were measured using the Flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (model 200 series AA) instrument at specific wavelengths of 422.7 nm, 248.3 nm, 766.5 nm, and 285.2 nm, respectively. 2.6 Determination of anti-nutritional factor 2.6.1 Determination of tannin content To determine the tannin content, a modified method from (Hawa et al., 2018 ) was used. Approximately 0.5g of flour and extruded snacks were extracted with 10mL of 1% HCl in methanol for 24h at room temperature using mechanical shaking. The resulting mixture was centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 5min, and 5 mL of vanillin-HCl reagent was added to aliquots. The absorbance was measured at 500 nm, and a standard curve was created using a stock catechins solution. Test tubes were employed in the preparation of the standard calibration curve, and the tannin content value was expressed in mg of D-catechins equivalent 100g using Eq. (2.9). \(Tannin\left(\frac{mg}{100g}\right) = \frac{ \left[\left(AS-AB\right)- b\right]*100 }{m* ƿ*W}\) (2. 9) Where, AS is absorbance of sample, AB absorbance of blank p is density of solution (0.791g/mL) W is weight of sample (g) 2.6.2 Determination of Phytic acid A modified method from Hawa et al. ( 2018 ) was used to determine the Phytic acid content, with Phytic acid as the standard solution. Standard solutions with varying Phytic acid concentrations (4–40 ppm) were prepared in 0.2N HCI to create a standard curve. The Phytic acid content in the sample was determined by extracting 0.5 g of sample with 10 mL of 0.2 N HCl and then centrifuging the mixture. The clear supernatant was collected and mixed with wade reagent before measuring the absorbance at 500 nm using a UV-VIS spectrophotometer (CE1021, England). The amount of Phytic acid (mg/100g) dry weight was calculated using Eq. (3–22). \(Phytic acid \left(\frac{mg}{100g}\right)= \left[\frac{\left[\left(AS-AB\right)- b\right]\text{*}10}{Mx W x 3}\right]\) (2. 10) Where, AB represents the absorbance of the blank, AS represents the absorbance of the sample, W denotes the fresh sample weight, M indicates the slope of the calibration curve, b signifies the intercept of the calibration curve. 2.7 Statistical data analysis Minitab statistical software (Minitab ® 21.2, Inc. USA) was utilized to analyze the results of the measurement of physicochemical properties, mineral analysis, and phytochemical content analysis of sorghum grain. One-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there were statistically significant differences (p 0.05) in the means of two or more groups. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Physical properties of sorghum grain varieties The physical properties of the three sorghum grain varieties, including geometric mean diameter, thousand kernel weight, thousand kernel volumes, bulk density, and angle of repose were analyzed. The results for physical properties of the three-sorghum grain varieties are presented in Table 1 .The thousand kernel weight and volume of the samples ranged from 40.26g to 45.46g and 28.2mL to 37.6mL, respectively. Analysis revealed that the Argity sorghum variety had the highest thousand kernel weight (45.46g) and thousand kernel volume (37.60mL), while the Melkam variety had the lowest weight (40.26g) and volume (28.2mL).The differences in thousand kernel weight and volume among the varieties were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). These variations may be attributed to genotypic differences, environmental factors, and farming methods (Liu et al., 2012 ; Shinda et al., 2022 ). Similarly, the analysis of bulk density revealed that the sorghum grain varieties exhibited a range of bulk densities, ranging from 0.77 g/mL to 0.86 g/mL. The Melkam sorghum variety had the highest bulk density, measuring 0.86 g/mL, while Tilahun exhibited the lowest bulk density (0.77 g/mL). Statistical analysis demonstrated a significant difference (p 0.05) in bulk density observed between the Argity and Tilahun varieties. Additionally, the sorghum grain varieties were analyzed for their hectoliter weight, which is a crucial physical property that measures the weight of a fixed volume of grain, providing insights into its density and overall quality (Bejiga et al., 2020 ). The results showed that the hectoliter weight of the sorghum grain varieties ranged from 78 kg/hl to 82.67 kg/hl, as presented in Table 1 . The Melkam variety had the highest hectoliter weight, measuring 82.67 kg/hl, followed by Argity with a hectoliter weight of 81.33 kg/hl. In contrast, the Tilahun variety had the lowest hectoliter weight at 78.0 kg/hl. The higher hectoliter weight observed for the Melkam variety suggests that these grains are more compact and dense compared to the Tilahun and Argity varieties. This characteristic advantageous for producing flour-based snacks and for processing purposes, resulting a higher extraction yield of flour. The differences in hectoliter weight among the varieties were statistically significant (p < 0.05). These findings suggested that Melkam had a higher bulk density and better hectoliter weight compared to the other two varieties, which could be advantageous for storage and transportation efficiency. Table 1 Physical properties for three sorghum grain varieties Physical properties Sorghum Varieties Argity Melkam Tilahun Thousand Kernel Weight(g) 45.46 ± 0.06 a 40.26 ± 0.08 c 43.57 ± 0.04 b Thousand kernel volume (mL) 37.6 ± 0.20 a 28.2 ± 0.20 c 34.4 ± 0.2 b Bulk density (g/mL) 0.79 ± 0.02 b 0.86 ± 0.02 a 0.77 ± 0.04 b Angle of repose (Degrees) 30.07 0 ±0.15 a 28.60 0 ±0.1 c 29.50 0 ±0.15 b Hectoliter weight(kg/hl) 81.33 ± 0.08 b 82.67 ± 0.04 a 78.00 ± 0.10 c Kernel size G.M.D (mm) 3.60 ± 0.05 a 3.24 ± 0.06 c 3.44 ± 0.06 b Moisture content (%) 11.73 ± 0.05 b 11.32 ± 0.07 c 12.45 ± 0.12 a Flour extraction yield (%) 73.53 ± 0.04 c 79.40 ± 0.07 a 74.80 ± 0.03 b Values are mean of three determinations plus or minus the standard deviation. Mean with the same superscript letters within the row are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Remark: The same graduated cylinder for both the initial and final volume measurements was used in bulk density measurement. The measurement of kernel size as geometric mean diameter (GMD) conducted on the sorghum grains and the results were 3.60, 3.24, and 3.44 mm for Argity , Melkam , and Tilahun , respectively, at moisture content (Wb) of 11.73%, 11.32%, and 12.45%, respectively. The range of kernel size values was between 3.24 mm to 3.60 mm, with the highest value of kernel size recorded for Argity (3.6mm) and the lowest value observed in Melkam (3.24 mm). The differences in GMD among the Argity , Melkam , and Tilahun varieties were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Their moisture content variation may contributed for this difference. The angle of Repose (Degrees) was determined using a method described by Patekar and Hashmi ( 2017 ). The angle of repose of the sorghum varieties for Argity, Melkam , and Tilahun , respectively, at a moisture content (wb) of 11.73%, 11.32%, and 12.45%, was 30.07 0 , 28.60 0 and 29.57 0 , respectively. The sorghum varieties shown significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) in angle of Repose. The Melkam variety exhibited the lowest angle of repose (28.60 0 ), indicating better flow-ability and ease of movement of the grains. The Argity variety had the highest angle of repose (29.57 0 ), suggesting relatively poorer flow-ability. The Tilahun variety fell in between with an angle of repose of (29.57 0 ). The obtained values for physical properties recorded in the present study were in good agreement with the values reported by (Chavan et al., 2016 ; Gursoy & Guzel, 2010 ). The moisture content of three sorghum varieties was determined using a Draminski GMM mini grain moisture meter. The three sorghum grain varieties' mean moisture content was varied from 11.32 to 12.45 percent as shown in Table 1 .The highest moisture content was found in Tilahun (12.45%), followed by Melkam (11.32%). All sorghum varieties had statistically significant differences in moisture content (p < 0.05).The moisture content of sorghum grain significantly affects its physical properties, shelf life, storage conditions, and overall quality. Thus, variety of sorghum with higher moisture content may possess a shorter shelf life and storage conditions to maintain its quality. This information can help farmers to determine appropriate harvesting and storage practices for each variety as moisture content plays a crucial role in sorghum grain quality (Kudos et al., 2016 ). Additionally, the flour extraction yield of the sorghum grain varieties was analyzed (Table 1 ). The results showed variations in the percentage of flour extracted yield. Among the three varieties, Melkam has shown the highest yield (79.40%). The Tilahun variety had a slightly lower yield of 74.80%, while the Argity variety had the lowest yield of 73.53%. The Melkam variety had a significant difference (p < 0.05) in flour extraction yield, suggesting it is more suitable for flour production (Taylor & Anyango, 2011 ). The lower yields in the Argity and Tilahun varieties has price concerns for the consumers, as the yield is low. The differences in yield may attributed to variations in grain morphology, such as kernel size, density, hectoliter weight, moisture content, and hardness. The composition and structure of the endosperm also influence flour yield during the milling process (Curti et al., 2021 ). Therefore, these findings have implications for the selection and utilization of sorghum varieties in flour-based products and food processing industries. The Melkam variety, with higher flour extraction yield may preferred for applications requiring higher yields. The study provides valuable insights for developing efficient milling processes and selecting sorghum varieties for flour production. However, further nutritional analysis is needed to determine the suitability of these properties for food product development. 3.2 Proximate composition of sorghum flour verities The proximate composition (biochemical parameters) of three sorghum varieties, Argity , Melakam , and Tilahun flour, were determined, including carbohydrates, protein, fiber, fat, and ash content, as shown in Table 2 . These parameters are crucial in determining the nutritional value and suitability of these sorghum flour varieties for food product development. Table 2 Proximate analysis of three sorghum variety flour (g /100 g) Proximate Composition Sorghum variety flour Argity Melkam Tilahun Moisture 12.72 ± 0.04 b 12.30 ± 0.07 c 13.30 ± 0.10 a Ash 1.28 ± 0.05 b 1.27 ± 0.02 b 1.45 ± 0.03 a Crud Fat 3.05 ± 0.05 a 3.07 ± 0.02 a 3.01 ± 0.06 a Crud fiber 2.25 ± 0.02 b 2.74 ± 0.05 a 1.97 ± 0.03 c Crud Protein 10.73 ± 0.05 c 12.81 ± 0.05 a 11.17 ± 0.05 b Carbohydrate 69.97 ± 0.05 a 67.36 ± 0.11 c 69.10 ± 0.22 b Energy (Kcal.) 350.22 ± 0.44 a 348.19 ± 0.23 b 348.17 ± 0.38 b Values are the mean of three measurements plus or minus the standard deviation (SD). Means with the same letters in a row are not statistically different at (p > 0.05) There is a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in moisture content among the sorghum flour varieties. The moisture content ranged from 12.30–13.30%. Specifically, the Tilahun flour variety had the highest moisture content at 13.30%, potentially resulting in a shorter shelf life compared to the other two varieties. The moisture content for the Argity variety was 12.72%, slightly lower than Tilahun , while the Melkam variety had the lowest moisture content at 12.30%. Higher moisture levels can promote microbial growth and spoilage, thus impacting the quality and shelf life of food products (Barbosa-Cánovas et al., 2020 ). Therefore, Tilahun flour may require more careful storage and handling to maintain its quality and prolong its shelf life compared to the other two flour varieties. In this study also, the sorghum flour varieties were examined for their ash content, which determines the total mineral content of the flour. A significant difference (p 0.05) in ash content between the Melkam and Argity flour varieties. This suggests that Tilahun may be advantageous for providing essential minerals in extrudates. Additionally, the crude fat content of the sorghum varieties was analyzed, ranging from 3.01–3.07%. Among the varieties, Argity had the highest crude fat content at 3.05%, followed by Melkam at 3.07% and Tilahun at 3.01%. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in the crude fat content between the sorghum flour varieties. On the other hand, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in crude fiber content was observed among the flour varieties. The dietary fiber content of the sorghum varieties was significantly influenced by their crude fiber content. Melkam had the highest crude fiber content at 2.74%, suggesting its potential contribution to extrudates. Argity and Tilahun had crude fiber contents of 2.25% and 1.97% respectively. These results are consistent with previous studies conducted by Adebo and Kesa ( 2023 ), who reported ash, crude fat, and crude fiber content of white sorghum ranging from 0.59 to 13.71%, 1.28 to 5.71%, and 0.57 to 8.25%, respectively, and Tasie and Gebreyes ( 2020 ) reported similar ash, crude fat, and crude fiber content in white sorghum ranging from 1.12 to 2.29%, 2.48 to 4.60%, and 2.17 to 8.59% respectively . The crude protein content of three sorghum varieties played a crucial role in determining their overall protein content. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in the crude protein content among the flour varieties. Melkam exhibited the highest crude protein content among the tested varieties, measuring (12.81%), followed by Tilahun (11.17%), and Argity (10.73%). These results suggest that Melkam could be an excellent option for producing food products that are rich in protein. These results are consistent with previous studies conducted by Adebo and Kesa ( 2023 ), who reported crude protein content ranging from 9.01–13.71%. Additionally, Desta et al. ( 2023 ) found protein content in white sorghum varieties to range from 9.92–14.72%, further supporting the suitability of Melkam for producing protein-rich food products. Environmental and genetic factors may account for the observed differences in protein content (Shinda et al., 2022 ). The higher protein content of Melkam flour suggests that they should be considered for food product development to address protein energy malnutrition. Carbohydrates serve as a primary source of energy in most people's diets and are highly valued for their readily available energy for our body's metabolic processes. The study observed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in carbohydrate values among the flour varieties. The recorded carbohydrate values ranged from 67.36–69.97%. Argity flour variety displayed the highest carbohydrate content (69.97%), followed by Tilahun (69.10%), and Melkam (67.36%). The significantly higher carbohydrate content of Argity flour has a notable impact on its energy content. Furthermore, the energy content of the sorghum varieties, measured in kcal, played a crucial role in determining their caloric value. Among the varieties, Argity had the highest energy content (352.22 Kcal), followed by Tilahun (348.17 Kcal) and Melkam (348.19 Kcal). This suggests that Argity may provide a higher caloric value in food product. These findings agreement with previous studies conducted by Tasie and Gebreyes ( 2020 ), who reported carbohydrate content ranging from 67.56 to 76.41%, and the food energy value varied from 329.05 to 364.24kcal. The proximate composition of the present study is consistent with previous findings by Abah et al. ( 2020b ),who reported a range of crude fat, protein, carbohydrates, crude fiber, and ash in sorghum flour as 2.10–7.60%, 55.60–75.20%, 1.00-3.40%, and 1.30–3.30% respectively. Overall significance difference were observed in nutrient content among three sorghum varieties Melkam had the highest level of protein, fat, and fiber ,while Argity had the highest carbohydrate and energy content. Due to its significance level of crude protein, Melkam was found to be the most suitable option for producing protein-rich food products. 3.3 Mineral composition of sorghum verities The mineral composition analysis of three types of sorghum flour in the study is presented in Table 3 . The calcium content of sorghum flour varieties showed significant differences (p < 0.05). The calcium content ranged from 12.34 to 24.44 mg/100g, with Melkam flour exhibiting the highest level of calcium content (24.44 mg/100 g) and Tilahun flour showing the lowest level (12.34 mg/100g). These results are consistent with those found by Tasie and Gebreyes ( 2020 ), whose values ranged from 9.594 mg/100 g to 67.158 mg/100. Similarly, Phosphorus content also showed significant differences (p 0.05) between the Argity and Tilahun varieties. Phosphorus content in sorghum grain varieties ranged from 255.57 to 266.12 mg/100g, with Melkam sorghum flour having a higher level of phosphorus content (266.12 mg/100g), whereas the lowest level of phosphorus content was found in Tilahun (255.57mg/100g). This result is consistent with the findings of Tasie and Gebreyes ( 2020 ), whose values ranged from 112.55 to 367.97mg/100g. The iron content in Tilahun flour varieties was significantly different (p < 0.05) compared to Argity and Melkam flour varieties, with a range of 4.00 to 4.16 mg/g. Melkam flour had the highest level of iron content at 14.16 mg/g. The obtained iron content values recorded in the present study were in good agreement with the values reported by Tasie and Gebreyes ( 2020 ), which ranged between 2.262 and 14.08 mg/100 g of iron content. Additionally, the current study findings are also in line with this research report in Kaijage et al. ( 2014 ),the iron concentration study on 12 varieties of sorghum from Tanzania showed iron content in the range of 5.50 mg/100 g to 182 mg/100. Table 3 Mineral content and anti-nutritional factors of three sorghum flour varieties Mineral content (mg/100gm) Sorghum flour varieties Melkam Argity Tilahun Calcium 24.44 ± 0.09 a 19.03 ± 0.05 b 12.34 ± 0.05 c Phosphorous 266.12 ± 0.69 a 256.36 ± 0.29 b 2.55.57 ± 0.41 b Iron 4.16 ± 0.03 a 4.15 ± 0.07 a 4.00 ± 0.06 b Magnesium 130.89 ± 0.25 c 151.77 ± 0.28 a 131.75 ± 0.90 b Values are the mean of three measurements plus or minus the standard deviation (SD). Means with the same letters in a row are not statistically different at p > 0.05 Additionally, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in magnesium content between the flour varieties. The magnesium content of the three different varieties of sorghum grain ranged from 130.89 to 151.77mg/g, with the Argity variety showing the highest level (151.77mg/100g) and the Melkam variety showing the lowest level (130.89mg/100g). This result is fully in agreement with Tasie and Gebreyes ( 2020 ) and Badigannavar et al. ( 2016 ),who found a concentration of magnesium ranging from 65.00-375.26 mg/100g and 59.9-210.54 mg/100g respectively. The observed differences in mineral content among the Argity , Melkam , and Tilahun sorghum varieties may be attributed to variations in genotype, soil mineral concentration, environmental factors, and plant development. According to Tasie and Gebreyes ( 2019 ), Ethiopian sorghum cultivars had a total content of P, Ca, Mg, and Fe ranging from 112.554 to 367.965, 79.85 to 319.6, 59.9 to 210.54, and 2.262 to 14.08 (mg/100 g), respectively. In contrast, Abdelhalim et al. ( 2019 ) reported that Sudanese wild sorghum genotypes had a total content of Ca, P, Fe, and Zn ranging from 0.5 to 2.7 (mg/g), 1.13 to 1.98 (mg/g), 1.18 to 1.91 (mg/100g), and 0.45 to 0.87 (mg/100g), respectively. These findings suggest that the mineral composition of sorghum varies significantly depending on the variety and origin of the plant material. 3.4 Phytochemical content of sorghum varieties The results of the anti-nutritional composition of three sorghum grain varieties are presented in Table 4 , indicating significant differences (p < 0.05) in tannin content among the flour varieties. The tannin concentration in the sorghum flour varieties ranged from 0.21 to 1.20 mg/100g, with the highest tannin concentration recorded in the Argity flour variety at 1.21 mg/100g, while the lowest tannin concentration was observed in the Melkam flour variety. High tannin content in food crops can have negative effects on nutrient availability and digestibility, as well as result in bitterness, which can affect the sensory attributes of food products. Therefore, the Melkam flour variety, with its low tannin content, may be the best choice for producing high-quality food products with favorable sensory attributes and improved mineral-protein bioavailability. The lower tannin concentration of the grain flour is preferred for selection, and the tannin concentration values obtained in this study are consistent with those reported in a previous study (Tasie & Gebreyes, 2019 ). Table 4 Phytochemicals (anti-nutritional factors) of three sorghum flour varieties Anti-nutritional factors (mg/100gm) Sorghum flour varieties Melkam Argity Tilahun Tannin 0.21 ± 0.04 c 1.20 ± 0.03 a 0.78 ± 0.11 b Phytate 320.3 ± 0.4 c 324.42 ± 0.4 b 334.07 ± 0.11 a Values are the mean of three measurements plus or minus the standard deviation (SD). Means with the same letters in a row are not statistically different at p > 0.05 Similarly, the study reveals significant differences (p < 0.05) in phytate content among sorghum flour varieties, making it crucial to select the most suitable variety. The phytate content ranges from 320.3 to 334.07 mg/100g, highlighting the need for careful consideration when choosing the most appropriate variety. The highest level of phytate was observed in the Tilahun variety at 334.07 mg/100g, while the Melkam variety had a considerably lower content of 320.30 mg/100g. This difference can have implications for dietary preferences and potential health considerations. The study reveals that phytate content in sorghum can impact dietary preferences and health. It suggests that low phytate content is ideal for reducing anti-nutrient effects and meeting specific dietary needs, while high phytate content may be beneficial for antioxidant properties and longer shelf life. The study suggests that the optimal phytate content should be based on the target population's nutritional goals and habits (Badigannavar et al., 2016 ). 4. CONCLUSION In conclusion, this study has provided valuable insights into the physicochemical properties and anti-nutritional content of three sorghum varieties (Argity, Tilahun, and Melkam) grown in Ethiopia. The results indicate that there are differences in the composition of the sorghum varieties, with the Melkam variety displaying favorable physical and chemical characteristics. This variety exhibited high levels of protein, fat, fiber, minerals and low level of tannin and phytate content, making it a suitable candidate for developing protein-rich food products. Although all three sorghum varieties were found to be safe for human consumption, anti-nutritional factors like phytate and tannins were present in the samples. Overall, sorghum is a nutritious and safe crop that can contribute to food security and nutrition in Ethiopia. Further research is needed to investigate methods for reducing anti-nutritional factors in sorghum and promoting its consumption as a healthy food option. Declarations Author Contribution Getenet Bogale: Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; laboratory, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafted the work. Eskinder Getachew: Contributed for conception or design of the work;revised it critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published.Habtamu Admassu: Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; analysis, or interpretation of data; revised it critically for important intellectual content, approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Data availability The main data are presented in the manuscript. Data details could be obtained upon request to [email protected] . References Abah, C., Ishiwu, C., Obiegbuna, J., & Oladejo, A. (2020a). Sorghum grains: nutritional composition, functional properties and its food applications. European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety , 12 (5), 101-111. Abah, C., Ishiwu, C., Obiegbuna, J., & Oladejo, A. (2020b). Sorghum grains: nutritional composition, functional properties and its food applications. European Journal of Nutrition and Food Safety , 12 (5), 101-111. Abdelhalim, T. S., Kamal, N. M., & Hassan, A. B. (2019). Nutritional potential of wild sorghum: Grain quality of Sudanese wild sorghum genotypes (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Food Science & Nutrition , 7 (4), 1529-1539. Adebo, J. A., & Kesa, H. (2023). Evaluation of nutritional and functional properties of anatomical parts of two sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) varieties. Heliyon . AOAC, G. (2016). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Rockville, MD: AOAC International, ISBN: 978-0-935584-87-5. In. Badigannavar, A., Girish, G., Ramachandran, V., & Ganapathi, T. (2016). Genotypic variation for seed protein and mineral content among post-rainy season-grown sorghum genotypes. The Crop Journal , 4 (1), 61-67. Barbosa-Cánovas, G. V., Fontana Jr, A. J., Schmidt, S. J., & Labuza, T. P. (2020). Water activity in foods: fundamentals and applications . John Wiley & Sons. Bejiga, T., Abate, B., & Tadesse, T. (2020). Evaluation of Ethiopian Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] Landraces for Malting Quality and Investigating the Correlation of Malt Quality Related Traits. International Journal of Plant Breeding , 7 (1), 635-644. Bezabih, G., Wale, M., Satheesh, N., Fanta, S. W., & Atlabachew, M. (2023). Forecasting cereal crops production using time series analysis in Ethiopia. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences . Chavan, U., Jagtap, Y., Shinde, M., & Patil, J. (2016). Preparation and nutritional quality of sorghum chakali. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research , 7 (1), 8404-8411. Curti, M. I., Cora Jofre, F., Azcarate, S. M., Camiña, J. M., Ribotta, P. D., & Savio, M. (2021). Greening Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction for Sorghum Flour Multielemental Determination by Microwave-Induced Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry. Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry , 2021 . Desta, K. T., Choi, Y.-M., Shin, M.-J., Yoon, H., Wang, X., Lee, Y., Yi, J., Jeon, Y.-a., & Lee, S. (2023). Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional components, bioactive metabolites, and antioxidant activities in diverse sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) landraces. Food Research International , 173 , 113390. Ebere, R. A. (2019). Glycemic Indices of Foods in Association With Diabetes Among Rural Women of Kenya-Case of Amagoro in Busia County University of Nairobi]. Espitia-Hernández, P., Chavez Gonzalez, M. L., Ascacio-Valdés, J. A., Dávila-Medina, D., Flores-Naveda, A., Silva, T., Ruelas Chacon, X., & Sepúlveda, L. (2022). Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) as a potential source of bioactive substances and their biological properties. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition , 62 (8), 2269-2280. Gursoy, S., & Guzel, E. (2010). Determination of physical properties of some agricultural grains. Research journal of applied sciences, engineering and technology , 2 (5), 492-498. Habyarimana, E., Gorthy, S., Baloch, F. S., Ercisli, S., & Chung, G. (2022). Whole-genome resequencing of Sorghum bicolor and S. bicolor× S. halepense lines provides new insights for improving plant agroecological characteristics. Scientific Reports , 12 (1), 1-14. Hawa, A., Satheesh, N., & Kumela, D. (2018). Nutritional and anti-nutritional evaluation of cookies prepared from okara, red teff and wheat flours. International Food Research Journal , 25 (5). Hegde, S. R., Thangalakshmi, S., & Singh, R. (2023). A review of gluten and sorghum as a gluten free substitute. Trends in Horticulture . Kaijage, J., Mutayoba, S., & Katule, A. (2014). Chemical composition and nutritive value of Tanzanian grain sorghum varieties. Livestock Research for Rural Development , 26 (10). Khoddami, A., Messina, V., Vadabalija Venkata, K., Farahnaky, A., Blanchard, C. L., & Roberts, T. H. (2023). Sorghum in foods: Functionality and potential in innovative products. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition , 63 (9), 1170-1186. Kudos, S., Gupta, R., & Mridula, D. (2016). Moisture dependent physical properties of buckwheat. Journal of Agricultural Engineering , 53 (1), 41-52. Lindsay, J. (2010). Sorghum: An ancient, healthy and nutritious old world cereal. Liu, L., Herald, T. J., Wang, D., Wilson, J. D., Bean, S. R., & Aramouni, F. M. (2012). Characterization of sorghum grain and evaluation of sorghum flour in a Chinese egg noodle system. Journal of Cereal Science , 55 (1), 31-36. Patekar, S., & Hashmi, S. (2017). Studies on physico-chemical properties and minerals content from different sorghum genotypes. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry , 6 (5), 600-604. Rashwan, A. K., Yones, H. A., Karim, N., Taha, E. M., & Chen, W. (2021). Potential processing technologies for developing sorghum-based food products: An update and comprehensive review. Trends in Food Science & Technology , 110 , 168-182. Shinda, C. A., Nthakanio, P. N., Gitari, J. N., Runo, S., Mukono, S., & Maina, S. (2022). Nutrient content of sorghum hybrid lines between Gadam and hard coat tannin sorghum cultivars. Food Science & Nutrition , 10 (7), 2202-2212. Tanwar, R., Panghal, A., Chaudhary, G., Kumari, A., & Chhikara, N. (2023). Nutritional, Phytochemical and Functional Potential of Sorghum: A Review. Food Chemistry Advances , 100501. Tasie, M. M., & Gebreyes, B. G. (2019). Physico-Chemical, Nutritional and Anti-Nutritional Composition of Sorghum Varieties. Food Science and Nutrition Completed Research , 153. Tasie, M. M., & Gebreyes, B. G. (2020). Characterization of nutritional, antinutritional, and mineral contents of thirty-five sorghum varieties grown in Ethiopia. International journal of food science , 2020 . Taylor, J. R., & Anyango, J. O. (2011). Sorghum flour and flour products: production, nutritional quality, and fortification. In Flour and breads and their fortification in health and disease prevention (pp. 127-139). Elsevier. Xiong, Y., Zhang, P., Warner, R. D., & Fang, Z. (2019). Sorghum grain: From genotype, nutrition, and phenolic profile to its health benefits and food applications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety , 18 (6), 2025-2046. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-3893611","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":274132902,"identity":"d1d2692a-a7b0-4667-a09a-1e2d088e0d28","order_by":0,"name":"Getenet Bogale","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Addis Ababa Science and Technology University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Getenet","middleName":"","lastName":"Bogale","suffix":""},{"id":274132903,"identity":"ad10054c-bc7a-4546-ba3c-d32409ecddae","order_by":1,"name":"Eskinder Getachew","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Addis Ababa Science and Technology University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eskinder","middleName":"","lastName":"Getachew","suffix":""},{"id":274132904,"identity":"f565366d-96c9-4070-ae0d-67ace3b471f4","order_by":2,"name":"Habtamu Admassu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Addis Ababa Science and Technology University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Habtamu","middleName":"","lastName":"Admassu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-24 09:29:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3893611/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3893611/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":51530766,"identity":"3d325e46-d554-471c-a4e2-62ecb3741140","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-23 07:27:01","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":391563,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSorghum varieties used in this study:\u003cem\u003e Argity \u003c/em\u003e(A),\u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e (B) and \u003cem\u003eMelkam \u003c/em\u003e(C)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3893611/v1/9f35fa161163e8f2a4f0fbed.jpeg"},{"id":58924948,"identity":"4bb2dbca-5622-480a-9600-c232a0f505c1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-06-24 08:01:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1211019,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3893611/v1/12b47e44-8182-43f4-92e8-c9072592efc3.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Investigation on Physicochemical Properties and Anti-nutritional content of the three sorghum Varieties Grown in Ethiopia","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eSorghum (\u003cem\u003eSorghum bicolor\u003c/em\u003e L. \u003cem\u003eMoench\u003c/em\u003e) is the fifth most important cereal crop globally, is crucial for food security in Sub-Saharan Africa, supporting around 300\u0026nbsp;million people (Rashwan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). It is a versatile ingredient in African and Asian diets and is a staple food for around 500\u0026nbsp;million people in 30 countries across Africa and Asia (Khoddami et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In Ethiopia, it is the primary source of stable food, ranking second in overall production and third in terms of production per hectare and cultivated land area (Habyarimana et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). From 2000/01 to 2020/21, Ethiopia produced an average total of 69,979,742 tons of sorghum (Bezabih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Over 52 sorghum varieties have been released, with various colors and yields ranging from 15 to 80 quintals per hectare. The Melkam variety yields 37\u0026ndash;78 quintals per hectare, the Argity variety yields 37.82 quintals per hectare, and the Tilahun variety, released in 2009, yields 26\u0026ndash;60 quintals per hectare (Bezabih et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum is a gluten-free cereal with a high nutritional content, including carbohydrates (55.7\u0026ndash;65.2%), protein (4.4\u0026ndash;21.1%), fat (2.1\u0026ndash;7.6%), fiber (1-3.4%), and ash (1.3\u0026ndash;3.3%) (Abah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020a\u003c/span\u003e; Hegde et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It is rich in essential minerals like phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, vitamins D, E, and K, and B-complex vitamins (thiamine, riboflavin, and pyridoxine). The nutritional quality of sorghum is influenced by its chemical composition, which includes anti-nutritional factors like phytate and tannin. Sorghum is a cost-effective source of food and nutrition security, with an energy value ranging from 296.1 kcal to 356.0 kcal per 100g (Lindsay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum-based food products are rich in essential vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, making them beneficial for overall health (Tanwar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). They are naturally gluten-free, making them suitable for those with gluten intolerance or celiac disease (Hegde et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Sorghum also contains phytochemicals like antioxidants and phenolic compounds that reduce the risk of heart diseases (Xiong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It is a good source of dietary fiber, promoting better digestion and a healthy digestive system (Espitia-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Its low glycemic index makes it suitable for those managing blood sugar levels (Ebere, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). However, the consumption of sorghum grains, particularly pigmented ones, as human food presents challenges due to the presence of various anti-nutritional components, such as tannins, Phytic acid, trypsin inhibitor, and protein cross-linker. These components can have negative effects on health. Technological processing approaches can help reduce these components and improve the quality of sorghum grains and derived products like bread, cake, porridges, and starch (Rashwan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, to design proper processing methods, understanding of detailed physical properties and chemical compositions and identifying better varieties have pertinent importance in product development. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the nutritional quality of three distinct sorghum grain verities by analyzing their physicochemical properties, mineral content, and phytochemicals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. MATERIALS AND METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Material\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum (\u003cem\u003esorghum bicolor\u003c/em\u003e L. \u003cem\u003emoench\u003c/em\u003e) varieties like \u003cem\u003eArgity, Tilahun\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e were collected from Ethiopian Sorghum Improvement Program at Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre, Ethiopia, with fulfilling the national sample collection guideline system. The collected sample was the harvest of 2022 harvesting season. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides a visual representation of the sorghum varieties used in this study. Chemicals and regents used in this study were analytical grade. Glassware and equipment required were found and available in Addis Ababa Science and Technology University food process engineering laboratory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Sorghum flour preparation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sorghum varieties underwent a thorough cleaning process to eliminate any foreign substances before being finely ground into flour. The flour was then sifted to remove any remaining impurities, and the cleanliness of the grains was verified through visual inspection. Finally, the flour was packed in plastic bags and stored at room temperature for further analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Physical properties of sorghum grain varieties\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe physical properties of three sorghum grain varieties (\u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e) were analyzed. The properties that were examined included the geometric mean diameter, thousand kernel weight, bulk density, angle of repose and flour extraction yield. The results of these properties measurements were used for selection of sorghum varieties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Geometric mean diameter\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe length, thickness, and breadth of sorghum seeds were measured to determine their dimensions. The calculation of the geometric mean diameter of the seeds was performed using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(2.1) as stated in the study by Gursoy and Guzel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\text{G}\\text{M}\\text{D}= \\sqrt[3]{\\text{L} \\times \\text{W}\\times \\text{T}} (\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e2. 1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere: GMD is geometric mean diameter (mm), L is length (mm), W is width (mm) And T is thickness (mm).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2 Thousand kernel weight and volume\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe thousand kernel weights of neat, clean, and sorted 1000 sorghum grains were measured by an electronic balance, and the average weight was calculated. Similarly, volume of 1000 sorted sorghum grain was measured by water displacement in milliliters using graduated cylinder.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3 Bulk density\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe AOAC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) method was used to measure the bulk density of the grain. This involved weighing a representative sample (W1) and recording its initial (V1) and final (V2) volume in a 1000 mL graduated cylinder to calculate the bulk density (BD) using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(2.2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(BD = \\left(\\frac{W1}{\\left(V2 - V1\\right)}\\right)\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e (2. 2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere: BD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;bulk density (g/mL) W\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;weight of the sample (g), V\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;initial volume of the sample (mL), V2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;final volume of the sample (mL).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.4 Hectoliter weight\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hectoliter weight analysis, a standard practice in the grain industry, offers crucial insights into grain density, quality, and commercial value, providing information about bulkiness, seed size, and potential yield. A hectoliter weight apparatus was used to measure the volume of the grain. The apparatus consisted of a container with a known volume and a funnel for filling the container. The hectoliter weight was calculated by dividing the net weight by the volume of the container. The result is expressed in kilograms per hectoliter (kg/hl).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.5 Angle of repose\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe slop of a grain mass\u0026rsquo;s cone formed during free fall was measured by angle of repose, determined through the height (h) and radius (r) of circular pile, with calculation using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(2.3), as described by Patekar and Hashmi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(A\\text{n}\\text{g}\\text{l}\\text{e} \\text{o}\\text{f} \\text{R}\\text{e}\\text{p}\\text{o}\\text{s}\\text{e} \\left({\\theta }\\right)= \\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{n} \\left(\\frac{\\text{h}}{\\text{r}}\\right) (\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e2. 3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.6 Flour extraction yield\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sorghum flour extraction yield was determined by grinding sorghum into flour, then weighing 50 grams of the flour, rinsing it with distilled water, and subsequently drying it at a low temperature (around 50 \u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003eC) to attain a constant weight. The final yield percentage was calculated by multiplying the weight of the extracted flour by 100 and dividing it by the initial weight of the flour.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Proximate analysis of sorghum varieties\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eProximate compositions are the chemical characteristics of sorghum varieties that provide useful information for nutritional value of sorghum grain. Sorghum varieties (\u003cem\u003eMelkam, Tilahun\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e) flour were analyzed for moisture content, ash, fat, fiber, protein and total carbohydrate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.1 Determination of moisture content\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe moisture content of whole sorghum grain was measured by Draminski GMM mini grain moisture meter (v: 10\u0026ndash;860, Olsztyn, Poland). The moisture content of flour was determined using moisture analyzers (DSH-50-5 model.).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.2 Determination of total ash\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ash content was determined according to AOAC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) method using muffle furnace (Gallenkamp, model FSL 340\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0100, UK) at 550\u0026deg;C for 5 h. The percentage of total ash was calculated using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(3.4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(Ash\\left(\\text{%}\\right)=\\left[\\frac{W3-W1}{W2-W1}\\right]\\times 100\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e (2. 4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere; W\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: the weight of an empty crucible, W\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: a sample with a crucible, and W\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: a crucible with ash are all measured in grams.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.3 Determination of crude fat\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe crude fat content was determined according to the AOAC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) method using Soxhlet apparatus with petroleum ether solvent. The percentage of crude fat content was calculated using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(3.5).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(Fat \\left(\\text{%}\\right)=\\frac{Mf}{Ms}\\times 100\\text{%} (\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e2. 5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere; Mf: weight of fat (g) is the difference of weight of extraction flask after extraction and weight of extraction flask before extraction, M\u003csub\u003es\u003c/sub\u003e: weight of sample (g)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.4 Determination of crude fiber\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrude fiber content was determined according to AOAC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) method. The percentage of crude fiber content was calculated using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(2.6).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(Crude fiber=\\frac{\\left(M1 -M2\\right)}{M3}\\times 100\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e (2. 6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere: M\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, Crucible weight after drying, M2 is crucible weight after ashing, and M\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e is sample dry weight (g)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.5 Determination of crude protein\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrude protein content was determined according to AOAC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) method. Percentage of nitrogen and protein calculated by using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(2.7) and (2.8) respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\text{N}\\text{i}\\text{t}\\text{r}\\text{o}\\text{g}\\text{e}\\text{n}\\left(\\text{%}\\right) =\\frac{(\\text{V}2-\\text{V}1)\\times \\text{N}\\times 14\\times 100}{\\text{W}}\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e (2. 7 )\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(Protein content \\left(\\text{%},\\frac{w}{w}\\right)=\\text{%} Nitrogen \\times 6.25\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e (2. 8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere: W is weight of the sample (g) ,V2 is volume of the standard sulfuric acid solution used in the titration of the sample (mL), V1 is volume of the standard Sulfuric acid solution used in the titration of the blank (mL), and N is normality of standard sulfuric acid.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.6 Determination of carbohydrate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe carbohydrate content of the samples were determine by subtracting the percentages of moisture, protein, fat, ash, and crude fiber from 100%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.7 Determination of total caloric value\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe energy content of a food sample was calculated by multiplying the mean values of crude protein, fat, and total carbohydrate by factors of 4, 9, and 4, and then results expressed (kcal/100g).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Determination of minerals content\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mineral content of sorghum varieties (Melkam, Tilahun, and Argity) were analyzed following AOAC (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) guidelines using atomic absorption spectrophotometry method 999.10. The concentrations of calcium, iron, potassium, and magnesium were measured using the Flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (model 200 series AA) instrument at specific wavelengths of 422.7 nm, 248.3 nm, 766.5 nm, and 285.2 nm, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Determination of anti-nutritional factor\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6.1 Determination of tannin content\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine the tannin content, a modified method from (Hawa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) was used. Approximately 0.5g of flour and extruded snacks were extracted with 10mL of 1% HCl in methanol for 24h at room temperature using mechanical shaking. The resulting mixture was centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 5min, and 5 mL of vanillin-HCl reagent was added to aliquots. The absorbance was measured at 500 nm, and a standard curve was created using a stock catechins solution. Test tubes were employed in the preparation of the standard calibration curve, and the tannin content value was expressed in mg of D-catechins equivalent 100g using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(2.9).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(Tannin\\left(\\frac{mg}{100g}\\right) = \\frac{ \\left[\\left(AS-AB\\right)- b\\right]*100 }{m* ƿ*W}\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e (2. 9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere, AS is absorbance of sample, AB absorbance of blank p is density of solution (0.791g/mL) W is weight of sample (g)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6.2 Determination of Phytic acid\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA modified method from Hawa et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) was used to determine the Phytic acid content, with Phytic acid as the standard solution. Standard solutions with varying Phytic acid concentrations (4\u0026ndash;40 ppm) were prepared in 0.2N HCI to create a standard curve. The Phytic acid content in the sample was determined by extracting 0.5 g of sample with 10 mL of 0.2 N HCl and then centrifuging the mixture. The clear supernatant was collected and mixed with wade reagent before measuring the absorbance at 500 nm using a UV-VIS spectrophotometer (CE1021, England). The amount of Phytic acid (mg/100g) dry weight was calculated using Eq.\u0026nbsp;(3\u0026ndash;22).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(Phytic acid \\left(\\frac{mg}{100g}\\right)= \\left[\\frac{\\left[\\left(AS-AB\\right)- b\\right]\\text{*}10}{Mx W x 3}\\right]\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e (2. 10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere, AB represents the absorbance of the blank, AS represents the absorbance of the sample, W denotes the fresh sample weight, M indicates the slope of the calibration curve, b signifies the intercept of the calibration curve.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7 Statistical data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinitab statistical software (Minitab \u0026reg; 21.2, Inc. USA) was utilized to analyze the results of the measurement of physicochemical properties, mineral analysis, and phytochemical content analysis of sorghum grain. One-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there were statistically significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) or not statistically significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in the means of two or more groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Physical properties of sorghum grain varieties\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe physical properties of the three sorghum grain varieties, including geometric mean diameter, thousand kernel weight, thousand kernel volumes, bulk density, and angle of repose were analyzed. The results for physical properties of the three-sorghum grain varieties are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.The thousand kernel weight and volume of the samples ranged from 40.26g to 45.46g and 28.2mL to 37.6mL, respectively. Analysis revealed that the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e sorghum variety had the highest thousand kernel weight (45.46g) and thousand kernel volume (37.60mL), while the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety had the lowest weight (40.26g) and volume (28.2mL).The differences in thousand kernel weight and volume among the varieties were found to be statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). These variations may be attributed to genotypic differences, environmental factors, and farming methods (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Shinda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the analysis of bulk density revealed that the sorghum grain varieties exhibited a range of bulk densities, ranging from 0.77 g/mL to 0.86 g/mL. The \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e sorghum variety had the highest bulk density, measuring 0.86 g/mL, while \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e exhibited the lowest bulk density (0.77 g/mL). Statistical analysis demonstrated a significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in bulk density between the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety and both the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e varieties. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in bulk density observed between the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e varieties. Additionally, the sorghum grain varieties were analyzed for their hectoliter weight, which is a crucial physical property that measures the weight of a fixed volume of grain, providing insights into its density and overall quality (Bejiga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The results showed that the hectoliter weight of the sorghum grain varieties ranged from 78 kg/hl to 82.67 kg/hl, as presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety had the highest hectoliter weight, measuring 82.67 kg/hl, followed by \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e with a hectoliter weight of 81.33 kg/hl. In contrast, the \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e variety had the lowest hectoliter weight at 78.0 kg/hl. The higher hectoliter weight observed for the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety suggests that these grains are more compact and dense compared to the \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e varieties. This characteristic advantageous for producing flour-based snacks and for processing purposes, resulting a higher extraction yield of flour. The differences in hectoliter weight among the varieties were statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). These findings suggested that \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e had a higher bulk density and better hectoliter weight compared to the other two varieties, which could be advantageous for storage and transportation efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysical properties for three sorghum grain varieties\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\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\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysical properties\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum Varieties\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThousand Kernel Weight(g)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.46\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40.26\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.57\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThousand kernel volume (mL)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.20\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.20\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBulk density (g/mL)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.77\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAngle of repose (Degrees)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.07\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.15\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.60\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.1\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.50\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.15\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHectoliter weight(kg/hl)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKernel size G.M.D (mm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoisture content (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.73\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.12\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlour extraction yield (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73.53\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e79.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.80\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eValues are mean of three determinations plus or minus the standard deviation. Mean with the same superscript letters within the row are not significantly different (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Remark: The same graduated cylinder for both the initial and final volume measurements was used in bulk density measurement.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe measurement of kernel size as geometric mean diameter (GMD) conducted on the sorghum grains and the results were 3.60, 3.24, and 3.44 mm for \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e, respectively, at moisture content (Wb) of 11.73%, 11.32%, and 12.45%, respectively. The range of kernel size values was between 3.24 mm to 3.60 mm, with the highest value of kernel size recorded for \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e (3.6mm) and the lowest value observed in \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e (3.24 mm). The differences in GMD among the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e varieties were found to be statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Their moisture content variation may contributed for this difference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe angle of Repose (Degrees) was determined using a method described by Patekar and Hashmi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The angle of repose of the sorghum varieties for \u003cem\u003eArgity, Melkam\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e, respectively, at a moisture content (wb) of 11.73%, 11.32%, and 12.45%, was 30.07\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e, 28.60\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e and 29.57\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e, respectively. The sorghum varieties shown significant statistical differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in angle of Repose. The \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety exhibited the lowest angle of repose (28.60\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e), indicating better flow-ability and ease of movement of the grains. The \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e variety had the highest angle of repose (29.57\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e), suggesting relatively poorer flow-ability. The \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e variety fell in between with an angle of repose of (29.57\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e). The obtained values for physical properties recorded in the present study were in good agreement with the values reported by (Chavan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Gursoy \u0026amp; Guzel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe moisture content of three sorghum varieties was determined using a Draminski GMM mini grain moisture meter. The three sorghum grain varieties' mean moisture content was varied from 11.32 to 12.45 percent as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.The highest moisture content was found in \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e (12.45%), followed by \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e (11.32%). All sorghum varieties had statistically significant differences in moisture content (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).The moisture content of sorghum grain significantly affects its physical properties, shelf life, storage conditions, and overall quality. Thus, variety of sorghum with higher moisture content may possess a shorter shelf life and storage conditions to maintain its quality. This information can help farmers to determine appropriate harvesting and storage practices for each variety as moisture content plays a crucial role in sorghum grain quality (Kudos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the flour extraction yield of the sorghum grain varieties was analyzed (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The results showed variations in the percentage of flour extracted yield. Among the three varieties, Melkam has shown the highest yield (79.40%). The \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e variety had a slightly lower yield of 74.80%, while the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e variety had the lowest yield of 73.53%. The \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety had a significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in flour extraction yield, suggesting it is more suitable for flour production (Taylor \u0026amp; Anyango, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The lower yields in the Argity and Tilahun varieties has price concerns for the consumers, as the yield is low. The differences in yield may attributed to variations in grain morphology, such as kernel size, density, hectoliter weight, moisture content, and hardness. The composition and structure of the endosperm also influence flour yield during the milling process (Curti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, these findings have implications for the selection and utilization of sorghum varieties in flour-based products and food processing industries. The \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety, with higher flour extraction yield may preferred for applications requiring higher yields. The study provides valuable insights for developing efficient milling processes and selecting sorghum varieties for flour production. However, further nutritional analysis is needed to determine the suitability of these properties for food product development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Proximate composition of sorghum flour verities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proximate composition (biochemical parameters) of three sorghum varieties, \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eMelakam\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e flour, were determined, including carbohydrates, protein, fiber, fat, and ash content, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. These parameters are crucial in determining the nutritional value and suitability of these sorghum flour varieties for food product development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProximate analysis of three sorghum variety flour (g /100 g)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\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\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProximate Composition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum variety flour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoisture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.30\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.30\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.27\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrud Fat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.07\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrud fiber\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.74\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.97\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrud Protein\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.73\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.81\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarbohydrate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.97\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67.36\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.11\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.22\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy (Kcal.)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e350.22\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.44\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e348.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.23\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e348.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.38\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eValues are the mean of three measurements plus or minus the standard deviation (SD). Means with the same letters in a row are not statistically different at (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is a statistically significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in moisture content among the sorghum flour varieties. The moisture content ranged from 12.30\u0026ndash;13.30%. Specifically, the \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e flour variety had the highest moisture content at 13.30%, potentially resulting in a shorter shelf life compared to the other two varieties. The moisture content for the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e variety was 12.72%, slightly lower than \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e, while the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety had the lowest moisture content at 12.30%. Higher moisture levels can promote microbial growth and spoilage, thus impacting the quality and shelf life of food products (Barbosa-C\u0026aacute;novas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e flour may require more careful storage and handling to maintain its quality and prolong its shelf life compared to the other two flour varieties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study also, the sorghum flour varieties were examined for their ash content, which determines the total mineral content of the flour. A significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) was observed in the \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e flour variety, which had the highest ash content ranging from 1.27\u0026ndash;1.45%. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in ash content between the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e flour varieties. This suggests that \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e may be advantageous for providing essential minerals in extrudates. Additionally, the crude fat content of the sorghum varieties was analyzed, ranging from 3.01\u0026ndash;3.07%. Among the varieties, \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e had the highest crude fat content at 3.05%, followed by \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e at 3.07% and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e at 3.01%. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in the crude fat content between the sorghum flour varieties. On the other hand, a statistically significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in crude fiber content was observed among the flour varieties. The dietary fiber content of the sorghum varieties was significantly influenced by their crude fiber content. \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e had the highest crude fiber content at 2.74%, suggesting its potential contribution to extrudates. \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e had crude fiber contents of 2.25% and 1.97% respectively. These results are consistent with previous studies conducted by Adebo and Kesa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), who reported ash, crude fat, and crude fiber content of white sorghum ranging from 0.59 to 13.71%, 1.28 to 5.71%, and 0.57 to 8.25%, respectively, and Tasie and Gebreyes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) reported similar ash, crude fat, and crude fiber content in white sorghum ranging from 1.12 to 2.29%, 2.48 to 4.60%, and 2.17 to 8.59% respectively .\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe crude protein content of three sorghum varieties played a crucial role in determining their overall protein content. Significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) were observed in the crude protein content among the flour varieties. \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e exhibited the highest crude protein content among the tested varieties, measuring (12.81%), followed by \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e (11.17%), and \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e (10.73%). These results suggest that \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e could be an excellent option for producing food products that are rich in protein. These results are consistent with previous studies conducted by Adebo and Kesa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), who reported crude protein content ranging from 9.01\u0026ndash;13.71%. Additionally, Desta et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) found protein content in white sorghum varieties to range from 9.92\u0026ndash;14.72%, further supporting the suitability of \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e for producing protein-rich food products. Environmental and genetic factors may account for the observed differences in protein content (Shinda et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The higher protein content of \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e flour suggests that they should be considered for food product development to address protein energy malnutrition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarbohydrates serve as a primary source of energy in most people's diets and are highly valued for their readily available energy for our body's metabolic processes. The study observed a statistically significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in carbohydrate values among the flour varieties. The recorded carbohydrate values ranged from 67.36\u0026ndash;69.97%. \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e flour variety displayed the highest carbohydrate content (69.97%), followed by \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e (69.10%), and \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e (67.36%). The significantly higher carbohydrate content of \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e flour has a notable impact on its energy content. Furthermore, the energy content of the sorghum varieties, measured in kcal, played a crucial role in determining their caloric value. Among the varieties, \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e had the highest energy content (352.22 Kcal), followed by \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e (348.17 Kcal) and \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e (348.19 Kcal). This suggests that \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e may provide a higher caloric value in food product. These findings agreement with previous studies conducted by Tasie and Gebreyes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), who reported carbohydrate content ranging from 67.56 to 76.41%, and the food energy value varied from 329.05 to 364.24kcal. The proximate composition of the present study is consistent with previous findings by Abah et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020b\u003c/span\u003e),who reported a range of crude fat, protein, carbohydrates, crude fiber, and ash in sorghum flour as 2.10\u0026ndash;7.60%, 55.60\u0026ndash;75.20%, 1.00-3.40%, and 1.30\u0026ndash;3.30% respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall significance difference were observed in nutrient content among three sorghum varieties \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e had the highest level of protein, fat, and fiber ,while Argity had the highest carbohydrate and energy content. Due to its significance level of crude protein, \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e was found to be the most suitable option for producing protein-rich food products.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Mineral composition of sorghum verities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mineral composition analysis of three types of sorghum flour in the study is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. The calcium content of sorghum flour varieties showed significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The calcium content ranged from 12.34 to 24.44 mg/100g, with \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e flour exhibiting the highest level of calcium content (24.44 mg/100 g) and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e flour showing the lowest level (12.34 mg/100g). These results are consistent with those found by Tasie and Gebreyes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), whose values ranged from 9.594 mg/100 g to 67.158 mg/100.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Phosphorus content also showed significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) between the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e varieties, however, there was no significant difference (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) between the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e varieties. Phosphorus content in sorghum grain varieties ranged from 255.57 to 266.12 mg/100g, with \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e sorghum flour having a higher level of phosphorus content (266.12 mg/100g), whereas the lowest level of phosphorus content was found in \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e (255.57mg/100g). This result is consistent with the findings of Tasie and Gebreyes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), whose values ranged from 112.55 to 367.97mg/100g. The iron content in \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e flour varieties was significantly different (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e flour varieties, with a range of 4.00 to 4.16 mg/g. \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e flour had the highest level of iron content at 14.16 mg/g. The obtained iron content values recorded in the present study were in good agreement with the values reported by Tasie and Gebreyes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), which ranged between 2.262 and 14.08 mg/100 g of iron content. Additionally, the current study findings are also in line with this research report in Kaijage et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e),the iron concentration study on 12 varieties of sorghum from Tanzania showed iron content in the range of 5.50 mg/100 g to 182 mg/100.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMineral content and anti-nutritional factors of three sorghum flour varieties\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\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\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMineral content (mg/100gm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum flour varieties\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCalcium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.03\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.34\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhosphorous\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e266.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.69\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e256.36\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.29\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.55.57\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.41\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIron\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.15\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMagnesium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e130.89\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.25\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e151.77\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.28\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e131.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.90\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eValues are the mean of three measurements plus or minus the standard deviation (SD). Means with the same letters in a row are not statistically different at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) were observed in magnesium content between the flour varieties. The magnesium content of the three different varieties of sorghum grain ranged from 130.89 to 151.77mg/g, with the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e variety showing the highest level (151.77mg/100g) and the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety showing the lowest level (130.89mg/100g). This result is fully in agreement with Tasie and Gebreyes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and Badigannavar et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e),who found a concentration of magnesium ranging from 65.00-375.26 mg/100g and 59.9-210.54 mg/100g respectively. The observed differences in mineral content among the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e sorghum varieties may be attributed to variations in genotype, soil mineral concentration, environmental factors, and plant development. According to Tasie and Gebreyes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), Ethiopian sorghum cultivars had a total content of P, Ca, Mg, and Fe ranging from 112.554 to 367.965, 79.85 to 319.6, 59.9 to 210.54, and 2.262 to 14.08 (mg/100 g), respectively. In contrast, Abdelhalim et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) reported that Sudanese wild sorghum genotypes had a total content of Ca, P, Fe, and Zn ranging from 0.5 to 2.7 (mg/g), 1.13 to 1.98 (mg/g), 1.18 to 1.91 (mg/100g), and 0.45 to 0.87 (mg/100g), respectively. These findings suggest that the mineral composition of sorghum varies significantly depending on the variety and origin of the plant material.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Phytochemical content of sorghum varieties\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the anti-nutritional composition of three sorghum grain varieties are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, indicating significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in tannin content among the flour varieties. The tannin concentration in the sorghum flour varieties ranged from 0.21 to 1.20 mg/100g, with the highest tannin concentration recorded in the \u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e flour variety at 1.21 mg/100g, while the lowest tannin concentration was observed in the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e flour variety. High tannin content in food crops can have negative effects on nutrient availability and digestibility, as well as result in bitterness, which can affect the sensory attributes of food products. Therefore, the \u003cem\u003eMelkam flour\u003c/em\u003e variety, with its low tannin content, may be the best choice for producing high-quality food products with favorable sensory attributes and improved mineral-protein bioavailability. The lower tannin concentration of the grain flour is preferred for selection, and the tannin concentration values obtained in this study are consistent with those reported in a previous study (Tasie \u0026amp; Gebreyes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhytochemicals (anti-nutritional factors) of three sorghum flour varieties\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\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\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnti-nutritional factors (mg/100gm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum flour varieties\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArgity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTannin\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.21\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.11\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhytate\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e320.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e324.42\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e334.07\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.11\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eValues are the mean of three measurements plus or minus the standard deviation (SD). Means with the same letters in a row are not statistically different at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the study reveals significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in phytate content among sorghum flour varieties, making it crucial to select the most suitable variety. The phytate content ranges from 320.3 to 334.07 mg/100g, highlighting the need for careful consideration when choosing the most appropriate variety. The highest level of phytate was observed in the \u003cem\u003eTilahun\u003c/em\u003e variety at 334.07 mg/100g, while the \u003cem\u003eMelkam\u003c/em\u003e variety had a considerably lower content of 320.30 mg/100g. This difference can have implications for dietary preferences and potential health considerations. The study reveals that phytate content in sorghum can impact dietary preferences and health. It suggests that low phytate content is ideal for reducing anti-nutrient effects and meeting specific dietary needs, while high phytate content may be beneficial for antioxidant properties and longer shelf life. The study suggests that the optimal phytate content should be based on the target population's nutritional goals and habits (Badigannavar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this study has provided valuable insights into the physicochemical properties and anti-nutritional content of three sorghum varieties (Argity, Tilahun, and Melkam) grown in Ethiopia. The results indicate that there are differences in the composition of the sorghum varieties, with the Melkam variety displaying favorable physical and chemical characteristics. This variety exhibited high levels of protein, fat, fiber, minerals and low level of tannin and phytate content, making it a suitable candidate for developing protein-rich food products. Although all three sorghum varieties were found to be safe for human consumption, anti-nutritional factors like phytate and tannins were present in the samples. Overall, sorghum is a nutritious and safe crop that can contribute to food security and nutrition in Ethiopia. Further research is needed to investigate methods for reducing anti-nutritional factors in sorghum and promoting its consumption as a healthy food option.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eGetenet Bogale: Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; laboratory, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafted the work. Eskinder Getachew: Contributed for conception or design of the work;revised it critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published.Habtamu Admassu: Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; analysis, or interpretation of data; revised it critically for important intellectual content, approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData availability\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main data are presented in the manuscript. Data details could be obtained upon request to [email protected].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbah, C., Ishiwu, C., Obiegbuna, J., \u0026amp; Oladejo, A. (2020a). Sorghum grains: nutritional composition, functional properties and its food applications. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Nutrition \u0026amp; Food Safety\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e(5), 101-111. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbah, C., Ishiwu, C., Obiegbuna, J., \u0026amp; Oladejo, A. (2020b). Sorghum grains: nutritional composition, functional properties and its food applications. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Nutrition and Food Safety\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e(5), 101-111. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdelhalim, T. S., Kamal, N. M., \u0026amp; Hassan, A. B. (2019). Nutritional potential of wild sorghum: Grain quality of Sudanese wild sorghum genotypes (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). \u003cem\u003eFood Science \u0026amp; Nutrition\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1529-1539. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdebo, J. A., \u0026amp; Kesa, H. (2023). Evaluation of nutritional and functional properties of anatomical parts of two sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) varieties. \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAOAC, G. (2016). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Rockville, MD: AOAC International, ISBN: 978-0-935584-87-5. In.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBadigannavar, A., Girish, G., Ramachandran, V., \u0026amp; Ganapathi, T. (2016). Genotypic variation for seed protein and mineral content among post-rainy season-grown sorghum genotypes. \u003cem\u003eThe Crop Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 61-67. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbosa-C\u0026aacute;novas, G. V., Fontana Jr, A. J., Schmidt, S. J., \u0026amp; Labuza, T. P. (2020). \u003cem\u003eWater activity in foods: fundamentals and applications\u003c/em\u003e. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBejiga, T., Abate, B., \u0026amp; Tadesse, T. (2020). Evaluation of Ethiopian Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] Landraces for Malting Quality and Investigating the Correlation of Malt Quality Related Traits. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Plant Breeding\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 635-644. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBezabih, G., Wale, M., Satheesh, N., Fanta, S. W., \u0026amp; Atlabachew, M. (2023). Forecasting cereal crops production using time series analysis in Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChavan, U., Jagtap, Y., Shinde, M., \u0026amp; Patil, J. (2016). Preparation and nutritional quality of sorghum chakali. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Recent Scientific Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 8404-8411. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCurti, M. I., Cora Jofre, F., Azcarate, S. M., Cami\u0026ntilde;a, J. M., Ribotta, P. D., \u0026amp; Savio, M. (2021). Greening Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction for Sorghum Flour Multielemental Determination by Microwave-Induced Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 2021\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDesta, K. T., Choi, Y.-M., Shin, M.-J., Yoon, H., Wang, X., Lee, Y., Yi, J., Jeon, Y.-a., \u0026amp; Lee, S. (2023). Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional components, bioactive metabolites, and antioxidant activities in diverse sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) landraces. \u003cem\u003eFood Research International\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 173\u003c/em\u003e, 113390. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEbere, R. A. (2019). \u003cem\u003eGlycemic Indices of Foods in Association With Diabetes Among Rural Women of Kenya-Case of Amagoro in Busia County\u003c/em\u003e University of Nairobi]. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEspitia-Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, P., Chavez Gonzalez, M. L., Ascacio-Vald\u0026eacute;s, J. A., D\u0026aacute;vila-Medina, D., Flores-Naveda, A., Silva, T., Ruelas Chacon, X., \u0026amp; Sep\u0026uacute;lveda, L. (2022). Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) as a potential source of bioactive substances and their biological properties. \u003cem\u003eCritical reviews in food science and nutrition\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 62\u003c/em\u003e(8), 2269-2280. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGursoy, S., \u0026amp; Guzel, E. (2010). Determination of physical properties of some agricultural grains. \u003cem\u003eResearch journal of applied sciences, engineering and technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 2\u003c/em\u003e(5), 492-498. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHabyarimana, E., Gorthy, S., Baloch, F. S., Ercisli, S., \u0026amp; Chung, G. (2022). Whole-genome resequencing of Sorghum bicolor and S. bicolor\u0026times; S. halepense lines provides new insights for improving plant agroecological characteristics. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-14. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHawa, A., Satheesh, N., \u0026amp; Kumela, D. (2018). Nutritional and anti-nutritional evaluation of cookies prepared from okara, red teff and wheat flours. \u003cem\u003eInternational Food Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 25\u003c/em\u003e(5). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHegde, S. R., Thangalakshmi, S., \u0026amp; Singh, R. (2023). A review of gluten and sorghum as a gluten free substitute. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Horticulture\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaijage, J., Mutayoba, S., \u0026amp; Katule, A. (2014). Chemical composition and nutritive value of Tanzanian grain sorghum varieties. \u003cem\u003eLivestock Research for Rural Development\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 26\u003c/em\u003e(10). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhoddami, A., Messina, V., Vadabalija Venkata, K., Farahnaky, A., Blanchard, C. L., \u0026amp; Roberts, T. H. (2023). Sorghum in foods: Functionality and potential in innovative products. \u003cem\u003eCritical reviews in food science and nutrition\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 63\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1170-1186. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKudos, S., Gupta, R., \u0026amp; Mridula, D. (2016). Moisture dependent physical properties of buckwheat. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Agricultural Engineering\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 53\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41-52. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindsay, J. (2010). Sorghum: An ancient, healthy and nutritious old world cereal. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, L., Herald, T. J., Wang, D., Wilson, J. D., Bean, S. R., \u0026amp; Aramouni, F. M. (2012). Characterization of sorghum grain and evaluation of sorghum flour in a Chinese egg noodle system. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cereal Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 31-36. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatekar, S., \u0026amp; Hashmi, S. (2017). Studies on physico-chemical properties and minerals content from different sorghum genotypes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 6\u003c/em\u003e(5), 600-604. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRashwan, A. K., Yones, H. A., Karim, N., Taha, E. M., \u0026amp; Chen, W. (2021). Potential processing technologies for developing sorghum-based food products: An update and comprehensive review. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Food Science \u0026amp; Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 110\u003c/em\u003e, 168-182. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShinda, C. A., Nthakanio, P. N., Gitari, J. N., Runo, S., Mukono, S., \u0026amp; Maina, S. (2022). Nutrient content of sorghum hybrid lines between Gadam and hard coat tannin sorghum cultivars. \u003cem\u003eFood Science \u0026amp; Nutrition\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 10\u003c/em\u003e(7), 2202-2212. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTanwar, R., Panghal, A., Chaudhary, G., Kumari, A., \u0026amp; Chhikara, N. (2023). Nutritional, Phytochemical and Functional Potential of Sorghum: A Review. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry Advances\u003c/em\u003e, 100501. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTasie, M. M., \u0026amp; Gebreyes, B. G. (2019). Physico-Chemical, Nutritional and Anti-Nutritional Composition of Sorghum Varieties. \u003cem\u003eFood Science and Nutrition Completed Research\u003c/em\u003e, 153. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTasie, M. M., \u0026amp; Gebreyes, B. G. (2020). Characterization of nutritional, antinutritional, and mineral contents of thirty-five sorghum varieties grown in Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of food science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 2020\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, J. R., \u0026amp; Anyango, J. O. (2011). Sorghum flour and flour products: production, nutritional quality, and fortification. In \u003cem\u003eFlour and breads and their fortification in health and disease prevention\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 127-139). Elsevier. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiong, Y., Zhang, P., Warner, R. D., \u0026amp; Fang, Z. (2019). Sorghum grain: From genotype, nutrition, and phenolic profile to its health benefits and food applications. \u003cem\u003eComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 18\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2025-2046. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Mineral content, physicochemical properties, sorghum variety","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3893611/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3893611/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe physicochemical properties of grains play very important role to determine the quality of grains. An investigation was conducted to evaluate the physicochemical properties and phytochemical content of three sorghum varieties: Tilahun, Melkam, and Argity. Results demonstrated that Melkam exhibited the highest values in bulk density (0.86 g/mL), hectoliter weight (82.67 kg/hl), and flour extraction yield (79.4%). Argity, on the other hand, displayed higher values in thousand kernel weight (45.46g), size (3.6 mm), volume (37.6 mL), and angle of repose (30.07\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003e). Additionally, Melkam presented significantly higher levels of crude protein (12.81%), crude fiber (2.74%), and crude fat (3.07%), coupled with lower moisture (12.30%) and ash content (1.27%). Furthermore, Melkam exhibited lower levels of anti-nutritional factors such as tannin (0.21 mg/100g) and phytate content (320.3 mg/100g), while Tilahun demonstrated higher levels of ash, moisture, and phytate (334.07 mg/100g). In terms of mineral content, Melkam demonstrated the highest levels of calcium (24 mg/100g), phosphorus (266.12 mg/100g), and iron (4.16 mg/100g), with Tilahun displaying lower levels of calcium (12.34 mg/100g), phosphorus (255.57 mg/100g), and iron (4.0 mg/100g). Magnesium content was found to be highest in Argity (155.77 mg/100g) and lowest in Melkam (130.89 mg/100g). Based on the physicochemical properties observed, Melkam was selected as a favorable candidate for further food product development due to its nutritional qualities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Investigation on Physicochemical Properties and Anti-nutritional content of the three sorghum Varieties Grown in Ethiopia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-23 07:26:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3893611/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"dccc7607-8074-4efc-9ee7-7e2bdc0b4d23","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 23rd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-06-24T07:53:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-23 07:26:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3893611","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3893611","identity":"rs-3893611","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}