For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/anthology.php#8

Grain sorghum is the staple food for more than 700 million people in the world. It is used primarily is an human food in various forms, such as roti or bhakari (unleavened bread), or is cooked like rice. Several local preparation are made from sorghum. It can be malted and popped also. As regard protein content, sorghum is similar to rice and wheat and mineral and in vitamin content, it is even better than them. Sorghum grain is normally made in two course grits and cooked and used for making a wide range of traditional dishes. Sorghum is regarded as a poor mans crop in the world due to various nutritional and processing problem. Maharashtra, produced 49.82 lakh tonnes of sorghum on 55.57 lakh hectares, out of which Vidarbha produces 14.08 lakh tonnes of sorghum (Directorate of economics and statistics, Govt. of Maharashtra, 1996). The production is largely to meet the internal consumption. Currently the net returns to the farmer from the crop is meager due to increase in cost of production. Therefore, there is need to intensify research on alternate, appropriate uses of sorghum. However, the sorghum utilization can be increased by popularizing various indigenous products such as Kharodya (wadi), Chakli, Papad, Ghari, Injera (Dhirda), Ambil, Thepla and Vichappum ambil and phal which would increase the crop value in the market. The process of preparation of such indigenous products is passed by observation from mother to daughter and hence has got limitation regarding its popularization. These processes needs to be specified and quantified in order to reduce the skill component and to popularize in large extent. Scope of work In India at present sorghum grain is mainly consumed in the form of unleavened pancake with some traditional dishes like Injera (Dhirda), Kharodya, Chakali and Papad etc. But the methods of preparation such indigenous products and their nutritional significance has not been fully studied. Present study is undertaken to identify and quantify the processes of sorghum products, popularizes the use of sorghum and to meet the nutritional requirement.

Dhore (2011) studied the nutritional contribution of sorghum towards meeting daily requirements rank next to wheat and rice. However, like other cereals, sorghum protein is deficient in lysine. To overcome this drawback blending of sorghum with legume like soybean would probably balance the amino acid composition. The cut chips prepared from sorghum and soybean blend at three different levels was palatable nutritious and low in cost. The sensory evaluation revealed that cut chips prepared with 30 per cent soybean flour scored highest rank.

Jambamma et al. (2011) investigated engineering properties of pearled sorghum grain (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) viz., moisture content (db), colour, water activity, bulk density, porosity, true density, sphericity, geometric mean diameter, hardness, angle of repose, coefficient of friction and thousand kernel weight. Some important physical properties of Ready-To-Cook Mix from sorghum (sorghum grits of three sizes Mix) such as bulk density, porosity, true density, angle of repose and coefficient of friction (using MS and SS sheet) was also evaluated. Biochemical analysis of sample was conducted to study the key properties such as carbohydrates, protein, fat, crude fibre and ash content to know nutritional constituencies of product and its suitability for human consumption.

Murekatete et al. (2011) revealed that sorghum, maize, soybean and wheat could be used to produce nutritious and ready-to-eat composite flours. The blends were extruded to provide pre-cooked foods that could be reconstituted at 60^oC to a porridge or gruel, eliminating prolonged cooking or degradation of heat labile nutrients. The use of these locally grown cereals and legumes could make a great contribution to food security in sub-Saharan region and other developing countries. However, certain aspects like the digestibility and bioavailability of the macronutrients in these composite flours need further investigation. On the other hand, the composite flours did not meet the recommended micronutrient (minerals) requirements for infants, children and adults therefore, fortification with appropriate micronutrients or micronutrient-dense foodstuffs will be necessary. Finally, the functional properties such as bulk density, water binding capacity, least gelation concentration and pasting properties analysis helped to consider an eventual incorporation of the extrudates in others foods formulation.

Nomusa Rhoda Ngwenya (2007) studied that antioxidant properties of sorghum are related to sorghum type and method of processing into foods. Tannin and non-tannin sorghums and their products were evaluated for total phenols, tannins and antioxidant activity. Total phenols were determined using the Folin Ciocalteu method, and tannins were determined by the vanillin-HCl method. Tannin sorghums and their products had higher total phenols, tannins and antioxidant activity than non-tannin sorghum grain and products. Fermentation, extrusion cooking and porridge making reduced measurable phenols, tannins and in vitro antioxidant activity. Reduction was probably due to phenols binding to the food components, thus reducing their solubility in the extracting solvents; 1% HCl in methanol and 70% aqueous acetone.

The variety of grain sorghum used for preparation of Thepla, Vichappum, Ambil and Phal was CSH-9. Sorghum, Bengal gram flour, rice and soybean were obtained from local market. Other ingredients such as salt, cumin seed, oil, chilli powder, turmeric powder, black pepper, sesamum, caraway, garlic, green chilli, leafy coriander, coconut chips and butter milk were purchased from local market. Size reduction/flour (425 micron) of the sorghum was done with the help of mini burr mill (2 H.P.). The soybean dal prepared in NATP soybean project was used. The processes for preparation of Thepla, Vichappum, Ambil and Phal from sorghum were identified and evaluated in the laboratory for quantification. The variables such as cooking time, quantity of water and preparation time were examined. Also the proportion /quantity of the other ingredient i.e. salts, cumin seed, oil, sesamum, caraway, black pepper, turmeric powder, chilli powder, garlic, green chilli, ginger, coriander leaves, coconut chips and butter milk were quantified for making a quality product. After preparation, Thepla and Vichappum were served to the judges for testing. The judges suggested that, Bengal gram flour and rice flour be added for better quality product. As suggested by the judges the Bengal gram flour @ 15% and rice flour @ 15per cent were added in sorghum flour where other ingredients were kept constant. Only percentage of soyflour was varied for preparation of Thepla and Vichappam .The recipe of sorghum products was then repeated and tested for its quality and output till the identical products were obtained. For making the products more nutritious soybean being a cheapest source of protein was incorporated in the mixture in various proportions . Product prepared from sorghum Thepla Thepla was prepared from sorghum flour, Bengal gram flour and rice flour in combination with soybean flour @ 0 %, 5 %, 10 % 15 % and 20 % level. All flours were sifted and mixed well. The ingredient such as salt ( 5 g ) , cumin seed (3 g), sesamum (5 g), Chilli powder (3 g) , turmeric powder (1g) and spinach (15 g) were added in 100 gms of flour . The paste (5 g) of garlic, ginger, green chilli and coriander leaves were also added to the mixture. The hot water (70ml) at 80 oC and 10 ml oil for shortening were added in a mixture for the preparation of dough. The Thepla of size 60 mm dia. and 3 mm thick were prepared with the help of rolling stand and rolling pin . The oil (750 ml) was poured in frying pan and heated upto 155 oC. One by one Thepla was placed in the oil and fried upto 3 minutes untill slightly brown colour appears . About 18-20 Theplas ( 120 g) could be prepared out of 100 g of flour each weighing about 6 g . After 2-3 hours the prepared theplas were packed in polyethylene bags and sealed. Then the Theplas were served to the judges for organoleptic testing. The process flow chart for preparation of theplas. Vichappum Vichappum were prepared from sorghum flour, Bengal gram flour(15%) and rice flour(15%) in combination with soyflour @ 0 %, 5 %, 10 %, 15 % and 20 % level. Firstly all the flours were sifted and mixed well. The ingredient such as salt (5 g) cumin seed (2 g) , sesamum (10 g) , caraway (2 g) ,black pepper powder (2 g) , turmeric powder ( 1g) were added to the mixture . The paste (5 g) of garlic, ginger, green chilli and coriander leaves were also added to the mixture. The water ( 180 ml) was added in the mixture for preparation of thick paste. The oil (750ml) was poured in a frying pan and heated up to 155 oC. The mould of vichappum (Fig. 2.2) was placed in a hot oil for about 2 minutes then the mould was dipped in to the paste and kept for 20-30 sec. If the mould was dipped fully in to the paste, the paste covered all the part of mould and it was difficult to separate from the mould. Therefore it was ensured that the mould was partially dipped (uptill ¾ height ) in to the paste , so that after dipping in to the heated oil the product was easily separated from the mould . After sticking the material to the mould, the mould was placed in a heated oil for frying. After 30-40 sec., the mould with paste was dipped in hot oil for 5-6 times so as to separate the product from the mould. After frying for 4 minutes the product was taken out when slightly brown colour was appeared. About 9-10 Vichappum were prepared (175 g) out of 100 g flour each weighing about 15-20 g . After 2-3 hours the products was packed in polyethylene bags and sealed. The prepared vichappum was served to the judges for organoleptic testing . The process flow chart for preparation of Vichappum. Ambil Ambil was prepared from sorghum flour in combination with soybean flour @ 0 %, 5 %, 10 % 15 % and 20 % level. Before grinding, the sorghum grains were soaked in water for 5 minutes and dried for 2 hrs. in shade . After conditioning in this manner flour was prepared by grinding in burr mill (2 hp). Sieving was carried out by 425 micron sieve for separation of flour and flour retained on sieve was used for Ambil preparation. The ingredients such as salt ( 10 g ) , black pepper (4 g), coconut chips((20 g), were added in 250 gms of flour . This mixture was kept for fermentation for 1 hour and this mixture was then added in 350 ml hot water (100 0 C) and was constantly stirred for 3 min for cooking. The cooking vessel was then covered with lead and the mixture was allowed to cook for 2 minutes till the bubble appears on the surface of the mixture. After cooling about 900 g Ambil could be prepared out of 250 g flour. Then this Ambil was served with milk and ghee to the judges for organoleptic testing. The process flow chart for preparation of Ambil. Phal Phal were prepared from sorghum flour, in combination with soyflour @ 0 %, 5 %, 10 %, 15 % and 20 % level. Firstly sorgum flour was prepared by grinding the grains in burr mill (2 hp) Sieving was carried out by 425 micron sieve . The flour retained on the sieve was removed and the flour passed through the sieve was used for Phal preparation. Salt (2g) was added in 100 g flour and 125 ml hot water was added to prepare dough (215 g). Phal of size 6 cm diameter and about 3mm thickness was prepared manually. For cooking on steam, these prepared Phalas were kept on the sieve , which was placed on the hot boiling water for 10 min. The weight of cooked Phala was about 22g, 15 Phalas could be prepared from 215 gm dough. The prepared Phalas were served to the judges for organoleptic testing with subji. . The process flow chart for preparation of Phal. The protein and carbohydrates of raw material and of the product was determined by using standard method.

The sorghum products Thepla, Vichappum, Ambil and Phal were organoleptically evaluated by a pannel of five judges and the scores awarded were computed. The means score values of the  products are given in Table 1 , Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4  for Thepla , Vichappum  Ambil and Phal respectively. The products were highly acceptable in all the sensory attributes, receiving score more than the minimum score of five. The results thus indicated that the Thepla ,Vichappum,  Ambil and Phal prepared from the sorghum were well acceptable. A separate analysis of variance was done for each characteristics viz.  Appearance, taste, crispiness and texture from every individual score of the taste panel. This analysis was done to find out the difference among the characteristics and  panelists for  Thepla ,Vichappum, Ambil and Phal prepared from the sorghum. The results obtained are presented in Table 5 , Table 6, Table 7 and 8 for Thepla ,Vichappum, Ambil and Phal respectively. The results show that the difference between  the treatments for all the characteristics   of Thepla ,Vichappum, Ambil and Phal  is significant at 5% level of  significance for all characteristics except taste for Phal .The disagreement  between the judges was not significant for all the characteristics  of all the products except texture for Ambil at 5% level of significance. Thus, the data revealed  that the source of variance among the products was only due to characteristics of product and variance due to judges does not exist. It was indicated  from the  Table 5 ,Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8  that, the Thepla,  Vichappum, Ambil and Phal of all combination have overall acceptability when sensory score was carried out by panel of Judges .

 The consumer index  of Thepla , Vichappum, Ambil and Phal  were calculated and presented in Table 9 and Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 respectively. It was observed from the data of consumer index that, the consumer index was increased  and then decreased  as the  percentage of soyflour increase in  all cases with some variation . Analysis of variance of all the products  were presented in Table 13 , Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16. In analysis of Thepla   (Table 13) the source of variance amongst the product was only due to characteristics  where as the choice of  judges do not differ significantly. Maximum consumer index (0.885) was obtained with the enrichment of sorghum flour with 10 % soyflour. At 5% level  the mean square of product (Thepla) prepared from sorghum flour + Bengal gram flour + rice flour with  10% soyflour is  significantly  superior than all other  remaining combinations. Hence, it revealed that  mixing of  10% soyflour in sorghum flour  + Bengal gram flour + rice flour is better for preparation  of Thepla as per consumer acceptance.

In case of Vichappum maximum consumer index  (0.890) was obtained with the enrichment of sorghum flour + Bengal gram flour + rice flour with 10% soyflour. At 5 % level, the mean square of product of 10% soyflour are significantly better than that  of the  products prepared with 0 %,  5 % , 15, % and 20 % soyflour. The study revealed  that the mixing of 10% soyflour with sorghum flour + Bengal gram flour + rice flour  is better for preparation  of Vichappum.

In analysis of Ambil (Table 15), the source of variance amongst the product was only due to characteristics where as the choice of  judges do not differ significantly. Maximum consumer index (0.867) was obtained with   product (Ambil ) prepared from sorghum flour with  0% soyflour and was at par with product prepared from sorghum flour with 5%soyaflour(0.847) at 5% level of significance and significantly  superior than all other  remaining combinations. Hence, it revealed that mixing of 5% soyflour in sorghum flour is better for preparation of Ambil  as per consumer acceptance.

In case of Phal, maximum consumer index  (0.880) was obtained with the product prepared with sorghum flour with 0% and soyflour which was at par with the product prepared from sorghum flour with 5% soyflour (0.860) at 1% level of significance and significantly better than that of the products prepared with 10 %, 15, % and 20 % soyflour. The study revealed  that the mixing of 5% soyflour with sorghum flour is better for preparation  of Phal.

The initial moisture content of sorghum , soyflour , Bengal gram flour and Rice flour was in the range of 10-11. It was observed from the data  recorded in Table 17 that during storage of one month there was narrow increase in protein in both the products . This may be due to denaturation of proteins and reduction in moisture content.

It was observed from the data recorded in Table 17 that there is slight increase in protein (%) in all products (Ambil and Phal). In respect of carbohydrates, it was decreased in both the products due to heating of the product during preparation. The protein percentage is increased due to decreased of carbohydrates and vice versa.   The equipments identified for 600kg capacity pilot palnt of value added products viz : Kharodya and Papad (120kg each), Sev, Chakali and Vichappam(60kg each), Ghari ,Injera ,Thepla, Ambil and Phal (36kg each) per annum are given in Table 16. The cost analysis of a pilot plant of value added product from sorghum is given in Appendix B. Table 18 indicates that the annual net profit of Rs 17989/- was achieved by running this pilot plant with BEP of 43 percent and pay back period of 0.52 year.The employment generation is 360 man-days per year.

Table 1 :  Mean score of sensory characteristics of Thepla

Characteristics	Thepla
	SF70%+ BF15%+ RF15%	SF65%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ SoyF 5%	SF60%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F 10%	SF55%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F 15%	SF50%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F20%
Appearance	7.0	6.6	9.2	7.8	7.2
Taste	7.8	7.6	8.8	7.6	7.4
Crispiness	7.2	7.2	8.6	7.6	7.2
Texture	7.0	7.2	8.6	8.2	7.6

SF = Sorghum Flour, BF = Bengal gram flour

RF=Rice Flour, Soy F= Soyflour

Table 2 : Mean score of sensory characteristics of Vichappum 

Characteristics	Vichappum
	SF70%+ BF15%+ RF15%	SF65%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ SoyF 5%	SF60%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F10%	SF55%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F 15%	SF50%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F20%
Appearance	7.6	7.8	8.8	7.4	7.2
Taste	7.8	8.0	9.0	7.4	7.2
Crispiness	7.2	7.4	8.8	7.2	7.0
Texture	7.4	8.0	8.8	7.4	7.0

Table 3 : Mean score of sensory characteristics of Ambil

Characteristics	Ambil
	SF100%	SF95%+ Soy F 5%	SF90%+ Soy F 10%	SF85%+ Soy F 15%	SF80%+ Soy F20%
Appearance	8.8	8.6	8.2	7.2	6.6
Taste	8.8	8.8	8.2	7.4	6.6
Texture	8.6	8.2	7.2	6.6	6.0

SF = Sorghum Flour, Soy F= Soyflour

 

Table 4 :  Mean score of sensory characteristics of Phal

Characteristics	Phal
	SF100%	SF95%+ Soy F 5%	SF90%+ Soy F 10%	SF85%+ Soy F 15%	SF80%+ Soy F20%
Appearance	8.8	8.6	8.4	7.4	6.6
Taste	8.8	8.6	8.2	7.2	6.6
Texture	8.8	8.6	8.2	7.8	6.8

 

Table 5 :  Analysis of variance of the test panel score for the characteristics ofThepla

Source of Variation	Mean sum of squares
	Degree of Freedom	Appearance	Taste	Crispiness	Texture
Judges	4	0.94**	0.14**	0.80**	0.86**
Products	4	5.14*	1.54*	2.40*	2.26*
Errors	16	0.99	0.415	0.325	0.41

*   Significant at 5% level of Significance
** Not significant
Table  6 : Analysis of variance of the test panel score for the  characteristics  of  Vichappum

Source of Variation	Mean sum of squares
	Degree of Freedom	Appearance	Taste	Crispiness	Texture
Judges	4	0.94**	0.66**	1.06**	1.06**
Products	4	1.94*	2.46**	2.66*	2.46*
Errors	16	0.315	0.260	0.585	0.435

*   Significant at 5% level of Significance
** Not significant

Table 7 :   Analysis of variance of the test panel score for the characteristics of  Ambil

Source of Variation	Mean sum of squares
	Degree of Freedom	Appearance	Taste	Texture
Judges	4	0.06**	0.44**	0.46*
Products	4	4.46*	4.54*	5.86*
Errors	16	0.285	0.19	0.135

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

*   Significant at 5% level of Significance
** Not significant

Table  8 : Analysis of variance of the test panel score for the  characteristics of Phal

Source of Variation	Mean sum of squares
	Degree of Freedom	Appearance	Taste	Texture
Judges	4	0.44**	0.16**	0.44**
Products	4	4.34*	4.46**	3.14*
Errors	16	0.24	0.26	0.165

*   Significant at 5% level of Significance

** Not significant 

Table 9 : Mean consumer index for Thepla 

Judges	Thepla					Total
	SF70%+ BF15% RF15%	SF65%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ SoyF 5%	SF60%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F10%	SF55%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F 15%	SF50%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F20%
1.	0.875	0.750	0.925	0.800	0.725	4.075
2.	0.650	0.675	0.875	0.775	0.775	3.750
3.	0.600	0.650	0.875	0.825	0.775	3.725
4.	0.750	0.750	0.900	0.750	0.700	3.850
5.	0.750	0.750	0.850	0.750	0.700	3.800
Total	3.625	3.575	4.425	3.900	3.675	19.200
Mean	0.725	0.715	0.885	0.785	0.735

 

Table  10 :  Mean consumer index for Vichappum 

Judges	Vichappum					Total
	SF70%+ BF15%+ RF15%	SF65%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ SoyF 5%	SF60%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F10%	SF55%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F 15%	SF50%+ BF15%+ RF15%+ Soy F20%
1.	0.750	0.750	0.900	0.800	0.675	3.875
2.	0.725	0.750	0.800	0.675	0.675	3.625
3.	0.725	0.850	1.000	0.750	0.700	4.025
4.	0.750	0.800	0.900	0.750	0.750	3.950
5.	0.775	0.800	0.850	0.725	0.725	3.875
Total	3.725	3.950	4.450	3.700	3.525	19.350
Mean	0.745	0.790	0.890	0.740	0.705

Table 11:  Mean consumer index for Ambil

Judges	Ambil					Total
	SF100%	SF95%+ SoyF5%	SF90%+ Soy F 10%	SF85%+ Soy F 15%	SF80%+ Soy F20%
1.	0.900	0.867	0.800	0.700	0.667	3.933
2.	0.900	0.900	0.800	0.700	0.633	3.933
3.	0.833	0.833	0.800	0.733	0.600	3.800
4.	0.867	0.800	0.767	0.700	0.667	3.800
5.	0.833	0.833	0.767	0.700	0.633	3.767
Total	4.333	4.233	3.933	3.533	3.200	19.233
Mean	0.867	0.847	0.787	0.707	0.640

 

Table 12 : Mean consumer index for Phal 

Judges	Phal					Total
	SF100%	SF95%+ Soy F 5%	SF90%+ Soy F 10%	SF85%+ Soy F 15%	SF80%+ Soy F20%
1.	0.900	0.900	0.830	0.770	0.700	4.100
2.	0.900	0.900	0.870	0.730	0.670	4.070
3.	0.870	0.870	0.800	0.800	0.630	3.970
4.	0.900	0.830	0.830	0.730	0.670	3.970
5.	0.830	0.800	0.800	0.700	0.670	3.800
Total	4.400	4.300	4.133	3.733	3.333	19.900
Mean	0.880	0.860	0.827	0.747	0.667

 Table 13:   Analysis  of variance  and multiple range test of consumer index for Thepla

Source of Variance	Degree of freedom	Sum of squares	Mean square (variance)	F value
				Calculated	Tabulated 5%
Total	24	0.165
Judges	4	0.015	0.003	1.202	3.01
Products	4	0.097	0.024	7.516	3.01
Error	16	0.052	0.003

Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT)

Shortest significance range

5 % level
			P =2			P = 3	P = 4			P = 5
QP			3.00			3.15	3.23			3.30
RP			0.034			0.036	0.036			0.037
Comparison
Products		C	D			E	A			B
Mean Consumer Index		0.885	0.780			0.735	0.725			0.715

 Table 14 :  Analysis  of variance  and multiple range test of consumer indexfor Vichappum

Source of Variance	Degree of freedom	Sum of squares	Mean square (variance)	F value
				Calculated	Tabulated 5%
Total	24	0.145
Judges	4	0.018	0.004	2.879	3.01
Products	4	0.102	0.025	16.278	3.01
Error	16	0.025	0.001

Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT)

Shortest significant range

5% level
		P =2	P = 3			P = 4	P = 5
QP		3.00	3.15			3.23	3.30
RP		0.023	0.025			0.025	0.026
Comparison
Products		C	B			A	D			E
Mean Consumer Index		0.890	0.790			0.745	0.740			0.705

Table 15 :  Analysis  of variance  and multiple range test of consumer index for Ambil

Source of Variance	Degree of freedom	Sum of squares	Mean square (variance)	F value
				Calculated	Tabulated 5%
Total	24	0.197
Judges	4	0.005	0.001	1.983	3.01
Products	4	0.182	0.045	70.016	3.01
Error	16	0.010	0.0006

Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) 

Shortest significance range

5 % level
	P =2		P = 3	P = 4			P = 5
QP	3.00		3.15	3.23			3.30
RP	0.015		0.016	0.016			0.016
Comparison
Products	A		B	C			D	E
Mean Consumer Index	0.867		0.847	0.787			0.707	0.640

 Table 16 :  Analysis  of variance  and multiple range test of consumer indexfor Phal

Source of Variance	Degree of freedom	Sum of squares	Mean square (variance)	F value
				Calculated	Tabulated 1%
Total	24	0.178
Judges	4	0.010	0.002	3.874	4.11
Products	4	0.156	0.039	55.370	4.11
Error	16	0.011	0.0007

Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) 

Shortest significant range

1% level
	P =2		P = 3	P = 4				P = 5
QP	4.13		4.34	4.45				4.45
RP	0.021		0.023	0.023				0.024
Comparison
Products	A		B	C				D	E
Mean Consumer Index	0.880		0.860	0.827				0.747	0.667

 Table 17 :  Protein  content  (%) of Thepla and Vichappum

Particulars	Thepla (SF60%+BF 15%+ RF15%+ Soy F 10%)	Vichappum (SF 60%+BF15%+ RF 15%+ Soy F 10%)
Initial	14.48	14.52
After one month	14.74	14.83

 Table 18 : Cost economics analysis of pilot plant

1	Cost of equipments, Rs	9770
2	Working capital, Rs	6722
3	Annual net profit, Rs	17989
4	Break even point, percent	43.00
5	Return on investment	95.22
6	Employment generation, mandays/year	360

1. Castor , L.L. and R.A.Fredriksen 1997.Seed molding of grain sorghum caused by Fusarium and curvularia species.Proc.Amer. Phytopath. Soc.4:151. 2. Dhore, K.R. 2011. Value Addition in Sorghum cut- chips using different levels of Soyabean flour. ISSN No-2031-5063Vol.1,Issue.V/Nov 2011pp.1- 4. 3. Gray, E., G.D.Lacefield and J.A.Lowe 2009. Head mold on grain sorghum. Plant Dis.Reptr. 55:337-339. 4. Jambamma, Imaya Kumari, A. and R. Kailappan 2011. Study of physico-chemical properties of food grain sorghum and product Ready-To-Cook Mix food from sorghum. International journal of recent scientific research. 5. Murekatete Nicole, Hua Yu Fei and Irakoze Pierre Claver 2010. Characterization of Ready-to-Eat Composite Porridge Flours Made by Soy-Maize-Sorghum-Wheat Extrusion Cooking Process. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 9 (2): 171-178, 2010. 6. Nomusa Rhoda Ngwenya 2007. Effect of sorghum type and processing on the antioxident properties of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] based foods.Proceedings of Nutrition Society of India, 39: 87-100. 7. Reichert, R.D.and Youngs C.G. 1997. Dehulling cereal grains and grain legumes for developing countries. II. Chemical composition of mechanically and traditionally dehulled sorghum and millet , Cereal Chemistry, 54:174-178. 8. Rooney , L.W. and Sullins , R.D.1999. A laboratory method for milling small samples of sorghum grains. Cereal Chemistry 46:486-490. Sahay, K.M. and A.P. Gandhi . 2005.Studies on pearling and milling of sorghum(Sorghum bicolor) J.Food. Technol.20:245-249.