Engineering Properties of Little Millet and Barnyard Millet based on Moisture Content

At five moisture levels of 8.70, 11.51, 15.76, 18.37, and 20.82% (dry basis), the physical qualities of little millet and barnyard millet were examined. Progressive absorption of moisture led to a steady increase in grain size and associated characteristics. The length, width, and thickness rose from 1.70 to 2.03 mm, 1.07 to 1.90 mm, and 1.06 to 1.28 mm, respectively. Similarly, arithmetic mean diameter (0.65–1.68 mm), geometric mean diameter (1.24–1.71 mm), surface area (7.52–7.76 mm²), sphericity (77.57–79.49%), thousand grain mass (1.43–2.36 g) and angle of repose (27.00°–34.33°) rose along with moisture content. Similar trends were seen in barnyard millet, where grain length rose from 1.91 to 1.98 mm, thickness from 1.75 to 1.87 mm, and thickness from 1.09 to 1.46 mm. As moisture content rose, increases were also noted in geometric mean diameter (1.54–1.75 mm), arithmetic mean diameter (1.22–1.82 mm), surface area (12.53–15.42 mm²), sphericity (77.70–85.03%), thousand grain mass (2.06–4.80 g), and angle of repose (25.66°– 42.33%). By contrast, porosity, bulk density, and true density showed a diminishing trend with increasing moisture levels for both millet kinds, showing lower density from grain swelling.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.261412

Pages

46 - 53

Creative Commons

Copyright

© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Madras Agricultural Students' Union in Madras Agricultural Journal (MAJ). This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited by the user.

Keywords

Barnyard millet Grain morphology Little millet Physical properties Storage

Introduction

Belonging to the family Poaceae (Gramineae), millets are little-seeded edible grains categorized as coarse grains. They span ten genera and around twenty species. Collectively, millets refer to a collection of yearly grass crops grown mostly for grain, particularly in arid and semi-arid areas across temperature, subtropical and tropical regions. These plants thrive in poor settings with little inputs (Singh et al., 2012). Millets were long overlooked and often called "lost crops" because of little attention in agriculture and dietary practices, even though they are suitable as climate-resilient alternative crops. Millets have better nutritional qualities than do big cereals, including significant levels of zinc, calcium, and iron, proteins of good biological quality (Hassan et al., 2021), great dietary fibre, and necessary macronutrients. Their nutritional content is said to be up to five times that of commonly eaten grains like rice and wheat. Though millets account for almost 10% of India’s total grain production, totaling roughly 18 million tonnes yearly,, their intake remains far below that of wheat and rice (Rizwana et al., 2023).

Efficient design and optimization of post-harvest activities including cleaning, grading, handling, processing, and storage, requires the evaluation of physical, mechanical and aerodynamic characteristics of grains. The form and size of grains are absolutely vital for impurity separation and are major influences in the creation of grading and sorting machinery. Additionally important for the design of appropriate bulk handling systems and storage buildings are properties such as porosity, bulk density, and true density (Singh et al., 2010).

Panicum sumatrense, commonly referred to as little millet, is a minor cereal crop recognized for its diverse therapeutic and nutritional benefits, which are largely driven by its rich profile of bioactive nutraceutical constituents. (Kashim et al., 2025). Little millet (Panicum sumatrense) is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent and is presumed to have originated from the wild species Panicum psilopodium (Patel et al., 2025). Historically considered a "cooling food," little millet is frequently consumed during the summer months for its reputed ability to lower body temperature. It’s a great repository of natural antioxidants, phenolic chemicals, and resistant starch. Through antioxidant action (Neelayathatchi et al., 2023), phytates retained in little millet have been shown to help prevent metabolic diseases, including diabetes and cancer. Nutritional profiling further shows that small millet is characterized by high protein and carbohydrate content, thereby increasing its potential as a functional cereal (Srilekha et al., 2019).

Mostly grown in Asian nations, including China, India, Korea, and Japan, barnyard millet (Echinochloa spp.) is a classic grain crop cultivated in moderate and warm agro-climatic zones. The crop is distinguished by a brief development cycle and the capacity to flourish in a range of environmental settings, even when water is scarce, while remaining tolerant of a broad spectrum of biological and ecological stresses. Apart from its agricultural benefits, barnyard millet is prized for its excellent nutritional value and low production costs compared with major cereals like rice, wheat, and maize. It offers a rich supply of carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and protein; it is especially rich in essential micronutrients, including zinc (Zn) and iron (Fe) (Renganathan et al., 2020).

An experiment was carried out to assess how the moisture contents of 8.70, 11.51, 15.76, 18.37, and 20.82% (dry basis) affected the physical and geometric characteristics of little millet and barnyard millet. The main aim of the research was to evaluate moisture-dependent changes in selected physical properties, including arithmetic and geometric mean diameters, sphericity, surface area, thousand-grain mass, angle of repose, porosity, bulk density, and true density, of both millet types. For the effective design and optimization of millet processing machinery, including dehullers, storage bins, milling units, grain separators, and drying systems, knowledge of how these characteristics vary with different moisture levels is critical.

Methodology

Moisture Content

The standard hot-air oven method was used to measure millet grain moisture content. The samples were dried for twenty-four hours at 105 °C till a constant weight was attained. Millet samples were conditioned to achieve the desired moisture levels by adding a fixed amount of distilled water. Using the following formula, the volume of water needed for moisture correction was calculated (Singh et al., 2025) (eq. 1).

(eq. 1)

Where, is the weight of water that needs to be added (g); is the initial weight of the sample (g); is the initial moisture content of the sample (%, d.b.) and is the final moisture content of the sample (%, d.b.).

The equilibrated moisture contents of both little millet and barnyard millet were found to be 8.70, 11.51, 15.76, 18.37, and 20.82% d.b. Five moisture content levels, ranging from 8.70% to 20.82% (dry basis), were used to evaluate all physical properties; each level was tested five times.

Arithmetic and Geometric Mean Diameter

Three main dimensions were length ( ) as the longest axis, width ( ) as the intermediate axis, then thickness ( The shortest axis was determined for thirty representative grains. Using both arithmetic ( and geometric ( the following eq. 2 and eq computed mean diameter, equivalent diameter. 3 (Khatoniar et al., 2020).

(eq. 2)

(eq. 3)

Sphericity

Sphericity (Ф) is defined as the ratio of the surface area of the sphere having the same volume as that of the grain to the surface area of the grain which had been calculated using the following expression (Sabar et al., 2020) (eq. 4).

(eq. 4)

Surface Area

Using Eq. 5 (Singh et al., 2010), the surface area (mm²) of small millet and barnyard millet was computed.

(eq. 5)

Thousand Grain Weight

For analysis, ten evenly split portions of a 1 kg millet sample were taken. From every portion, 1,000 grains were randomly chosen and weighed with a digital balance. Five times the procedure was performed, and the average value was computed and noted.

Bulk Density

Bulk density (ρ_b) is calculated by grain mass per unit volume (kg/m³) using a 500 ml container with a height of 15 cm, which was filled with millets (Sabar et al., 2020) (eq. 6).

Where, is the weight of the sample (g); is the volume of the sample occupied by the grain in ml³.

True Density

The mass of millet grains relative to their true volume produced the true density (ρ_t). Millet grains hardly absorb any toluene (C₇H₈); the toluene displacement approach was utilized. 50g grains ware delicately introduced into a graduated measuring cylinder with 100 ml of toluene, and the rise in liquid level was documented to calculate the volume of liquid displaced by the grains (Sabar et al., 2020) (eq. 7).

(eq. 7)

Where, is the mass of the millet grain (g) and is the volume of toluene displaced by grains (ml³).

Porosity

The proportion of the total grain volume taken up by air spaces rather than the grain material itself is expressed as Porosity ( ) using Eq. 8, it was calculated considering actual density and bulk density readings (Rajendran et al., 2023).

(eq. 8)

Angle of Repose

The height and base diameter of a spontaneously formed conical pile of grains were measured to estimate the angle of repose, which was evaluated using eq. 9.

(eq. 9)

Where θ is the angle of repose in degrees; is the height of the cone formed on the circular plate and is the diameter of the circular plate.

Statistical Test:

Statistical evaluation of the experimental values was performed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the Duncan test, performed in SPSS version 20.0.

Results Discussion

Grain Dimension

Tables 1 and 2, respectively, show the average values of the three main dimensions of tiny millet and barnyard millet measured at five different moisture levels. The findings suggest that as humidity levels rose from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis), the axial dimensions of both millet grains grew gradually. With rising moisture content, the average grain length, breadth, and thickness in little millet increased from 1.70 to 2.03 mm (P<0.05) and from 1.07 to 1.90 mm (P<0.001), respectively. Similarly, in barnyard millet, the comparable dimensions grew from 1.91 to 1.98 mm (P<0.01), 1.75 to 1.87 mm (P<0.001), and 1.09 to 1.46 mm (P>0.05) as the water content climbed from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis).

Table 1. Engineering properties of little millet at various moisture contents

Moisture content (% d.b.)	Axial dimensions (mm)			Average diameters (mm)
Moisture content (% d.b.)	Length, L	Width, W	Thickness, T	Arithmetic mean, Da	Geometric mean, Dg
8.70	1.7±0.1^a	1.07±0.03^a	1.06±0.33^a	0.65±0.05^a	1.24±0.34^a
11.51	1.73±0.12^ab	1.7±0.1^b	1.13±0.33^ab	1.12±0.13^b	1.49±0.054^b
15.76	1.93±0.03^abc	1.7±0.1^b	1.13±0.06^ab	1.25±0.12^b	1.55±0.05^bc
18.37	1.97±0.33^bc	2±0.45^c	1.21±0.11^ab	1.49±0.15^cd	1.64±0.55^cd
20.82	2.03±0.33^c	1.9±0.33^c	1.28±0.04^c	1.68±0.05^d	1.71±0.016^d

*Different lowercase letters represent significant differences between the interaction of moisture content and the grain dimension of little millet.

With increasing moisture content, the arithmetic and geometric mean diameters of little millet rose dramatically, ranging from 0.65 to 1.68 mm (P<0.001) and 1.24 to 1.71 mm (P< 0.001), respectively, as moisture levels rose from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis). Barnyard millet showed a similar trend; its arithmetic mean diameter rose from 1.22 mm (P<0.05) to 1.82 mm, and the geometric mean diameter from 1.54 mm (P < 0.05) over the same moisture range. Grain expansion due to moisture absorption can explain the observed increase in mean diameters. Improved paddy rice cultivars have shown similar results, with all three main characteristics growing with moisture level from 10 to 30% (dry basis) (Adebowale et al., 2011). Similar arithmetic and geometric mean diameters expansion in Detarium microcarpum Seeds was noted by Aviara et al., 2015 with increase in moisture content from 8.2 to 28.5% (dry basis).

Table 2. Engineering properties of barnyard millet at various moisture contents

Moisture content (% d.b.)	Axial dimensions (mm)			Average diameters (mm)
Moisture content (% d.b.)	Length, L	Width, W	Thickness, T	Arithmetic mean, Da	Geometric mean, Dg
8.70	1.91±0.01^a	1.75±0.01^a	1.09±0.01^a	1.22±0.01^a	1.54±0.01^a
11.51	1.93±0.01^ab	1.77±0.01^a	1.13±0.33^a	1.29±0.03^a	1.57±0.02^a
15.76	1.94±0.01^b	1.81±0.01^b	1.18±0.02^ab	1.39±0.02^a	1.61±0.01^a
18.37	1.95±0.01^b	1.82±0.01^b	1.16±0.02^ab	1.39±0.03^a	1.61±0.01^a
20.82	1.98±0.01^c	1.87±0.01^b	1.46±0.21^b	1.82±0.25^b	1.75±0.07^b

*Different lowercase letters represent significant differences between the interaction of moisture content and grain dimension of barnyard millet.

Sphericity

Figure 1 shows the change in sphericity as a function of water content. For both millet types, sphericity steadily rose as humidity content grew from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis). Over the same moisture range, sphericity values increased from 77.57 to 79.49% (P<0.01) in little millet, while barnyard millet showed a more notable rise from 77.70 to 85.03% (P<0.001). These results indicate that the sphericity of barnyard millet was more affected by moisture content than that of little millet. The observed trend is

consistent with prior studies that reported an increase in sphericity with rising moisture levels, as in cowpea, where sphericity rose from 0.783 to 0.803 as moisture content grew from 5 to 22.5% (dry basis) (Baryeh et al., 2002)

Figure 1: Effect of moisture content on sphericity of little millet and barnyard millet

Surface Area

Figure 2 depicts the variation in surface area of millet grains as a function of moisture content. The results demonstrate an increasing trend in surface area with rising moisture levels for both millet varieties. As moisture content increased from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis), the surface area of little millet increased marginally from 7.52 to 7.76 mm² (P > 0.05), whereas a statistically significant increase was observed in barnyard millet, where surface area increased from 12.53 to 15.42 mm² (P < 0.001). The relatively greater change in barnyard millet suggests a stronger response of grain morphology to moisture absorption. Similar trends have been reported by Deshpande et al. (1993) for soybean and Tekin et al. (2006) for bombay bean

Figure 2: Effect of moisture content on surface area of ittle millet and barnyard millet

Thousand Grain Weight

Figure 3 shows how both tiny millet and barnyard millet grew dramatically in their thousand-grain weight with rising moisture content. As moisture content rose from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis), the thousand-grain mass of little millet increased from 1.43 to 2.36 g (P<0.01), while barnyard millet exhibited a more pronounced increase from 2.06 to 4.80 g (P<0.001). Kernels absorbing moisture is thought to be responsible for the seen rise in grain mass. Other cereal crops have seen a comparable moisture-dependent rise in reported thousand-grain weight. Maize (PMH-1) also described with supporting data that thousand grain weight increased from 258.1 to 287.9 g when moisture content was increased from 10–18% wet basis (w.b.). (Bhise at al., 2014)

Figure 3: Effect of moisture content on thousand-grain mass of little millet and barnyard millet

Bulk Density

Figure 4 depicts the fluctuation in the bulk density of little millet and barnyard millet with moisture content. The data clearly show that for both millet types, bulk density decreases as moisture levels rise. Little millet's bulk density decreased from 764.33 to 721.00 kg m⁻³ (P<0.001) as moisture content rose from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis), but barnyard millet showed a more dramatic decrease from 682.66 to 566.33 kg m⁻³ (P<0.001). The cause of this fall might be that the increase in bulk volume due to moisture-induced grain swelling exceeded the equivalent increase in mass (Pradhan et al., 2008). Baryeh and Mangope (2003) have recorded comparable decreases in bulk density with rising moisture level for pigeon pea (variety QP38). Kingsly et al. (2006), by contrast, found an upward trend in bulk density in dried pomegranate seeds, therefore implying that the impact of moisture content on bulk density may differ among crop types. The disproportional association between moisture-related weight increase and grain volumetric expansion (Kenghe et al., 2013) can explain the drop in bulk density at greater moisture levels. Hayford et al. (2019) found that Opeaburoo and Abontemma maize cultivars exhibited a nonlinear rise in bulk density with diminishing moisture content.

Figure 4: Effect of moisture content and bulk density of little millet and barnyard millet

True Density

Figure 5 shows how the actual densities of little millet and barnyard millet vary across various moisture levels. For both millet types, as moisture content increased, actual density declined. In small millet, true density fell considerably from 1133.66 to 970.66 kg m⁻³ (P<0.01), but barnyard millet showed a reduction from 1177.33 to 1130.66 kg m⁻³ (P<0.001) as moisture content rose. This decline implies that the volumetric expansion of the grains resulting from moisture absorption exceeded the equivalent increase in weight (Balasubramanian et al., 2010). Mollazade et al. (2009) reported an increase in true density in cumin seeds, where true density grew from 917.8 to 1030.64 kg m⁻³ as moisture content increased from 7.24 to 21.38% (dry basis), contrasting the current findings, indicating that moisture effects on true density may vary depending on grain structure and composition.

Figure 5: Effect of moisture content on true density of little millet and barnyard millet

Porosity

Porosity is a derived property that is directly dependent on bulk density and true density. As shown in Figure 6, porosity decreased with increasing moisture content for both millet varieties. In little millet, porosity decreased significantly from 41.48 to 24.74% (P < 0.001), whereas barnyard millet showed a reduction from 63.60 to 32.62% (P < 0.001) as moisture content increased from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis). The observed decline in porosity may be attributed to moisture-induced alterations in grain structure, including changes in grain mass, volume, and internal packing. Similar reductions in porosity with increasing moisture content have been reported for soybeans, and chickpeas by Shirkole et al. (2011), and Eissa et al. (2010), respectively.

Figure 6: Effect of moisture content on porosity of little millet and barnyard millet

Angle of Repose

The angle of repose is defined as the inclination angle formed between the sloping surface of a freely accumulated heap of granular material and the underlying horizontal plane (Peng et al., 2022). Figure 7 shows how the angle of repose of small millet and barnyard millet changes with moisture level. For little millet, the angle of repose rose dramatically from 27.00 to 34.33° (P<0.001); for barnyard millet, it increased from 25.66 to 42.33° (P <0.001) as moisture content rose from 8.70 to 20.82% (dry basis). Surface moisture enhances interparticle cohesion, thereby increasing adhesive forces via surface tension (Pradhan et al., 2008), thereby explaining the increase in angle of repose with escalating moisture levels.

Figure 7: Effect of moisture content on the angle of repose of little millet and barnyard millet

Conclusion

In this work, vital engineering features of little millet and barnyard millet—namely length, width, thickness, arithmetic mean diameter, sphericity, surface area, thousand-grain mass, porosity, bulk density, true density, and angle of repose—were examined. Designing and optimizing postharvest processing equipment requires knowledge of these physical characteristics under different conditions, as it increases the efficiency of operations such as threshing, drying, and sorting while reducing mechanical damage and postharvest losses. The data showed that arithmetic and geometric mean diameters, sphericity, surface area, thousand-grain mass, and angle of repose of both millet cultivars increased directly with moisture content (dry basis), which increased from 8.70 to 20.82%. Conversely, porosity, bulk density, and true density fell as moisture content rose.

References

Adebowale, A. R. A., Sanni, L. O., Owo, H. O. and O. R. Karim. 2011. Effect of variety and moisture content on some engineering properties of paddy rice. Journal of Food Science and Technology., 48: 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0173-3

Aviara, N. A., Onaji, M. E., and A. A. Lawal. 2015. Moisture-dependent Physical Properties of Detarium microcarpum Seeds. Journal of Biosystems Engineering., 40(3): 212–223. https://doi.org/10.5307/jbe.2015.40.3.212

Balasubramanian, S. and R. Viswanathan. 2010. Influence of moisture content on physical properties of minor millets. Journal of Food Science and Technology., 47: 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0043-z

Baryeh, E. A. 2002. Physical properties of millet. Journal of Food Engineering., 51(1): 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-8774(01)00035-8

Baryeh, E. A. and B. K. Mangope. 2003. Some physical properties of QP-38 variety pigeon pea. Journal of Food Engineering., 56(1): 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-8774(02)00148-6

Bhise, S., Kaur, A., and M. Manikantan. 2014. Moisture dependent physical properties of maize (PMH-1). Acta Alimentaria., 43(3): 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1556/aalim.43.2014.3.5

Deshpande, S., Bal, S. and T. Ojha. 1993. Physical properties of soybean. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research., 56(2): 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1993.1063

Eissa, A. H. A., Mohamed, M. A., Moustafa, H. and A. R. O. Alghannam. 2010. Moisture dependent physical and mechanical properties of chickpea seeds. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering., 3(4): 80–93. https://doi.org/10.25165/ijabe.v3i4.207

Eşref, I. Ş. I. K. and Ü. N. A. L. Halil. 2007. Moisture-dependent physical properties of white speckled red kidney bean grains. Journal of food Engineering., 82(2): 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.02.012

Hassan, Z. M., Sebola, N. A. and M. Mabelebele. 2021. The nutritional use of millet grain for food and feed: A review. Agriculture & Food Security., 10: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00282-6

Hayford, O., Francis, A., Isaac, A. K., Albert, A. I. and O. T. Nathan. 2019. Moisture-dependent physical properties of Opeaburoo and Abontem maize varieties during drying. African Journal of Food Science., 13(8): 152–162. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJFS2019.1791

Kashim, C. M., and N. Gautam. 2025. Structural and Chemical Properties of Minor Millets: Little Millet (Panicum sumatrense) and Barnyard Millet (Echinochloa frumentacea). European Journal of Nutrition and Food Safety., 17(12): 130-140. https://doi.org/10.9734/ejnfs/2025/v17i121919

Kenghe, R. N., Nimkar, P. M. and S. S. Shirkole. 2013. Moisture dependent physical properties of lathyrus. Journal of Food Science and Technology., 50: 856–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0428-7.

Khatoniar, S. and P. Das. 2020. Physical and functional properties of some millet varieties of Assam. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences., 9(5): 1508–1515. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.905.171

Kingsly, A. R. P., Singh, D. B., Manikantan, M. R. and R. K. Jain. 2006. Moisture dependent physical properties of dried pomegranate seeds (Anardana). Journal of Food Engineering., 75(4): 492–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.04.033

Mollazade, K., Ahmadi, H., Khorshidi, J., Rajabipour, A. and S. S. Mohtasebi. 2009. Moisture-dependent physical and mechanical properties of cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) seed. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering., 2(2): 49–56. https://doi.org/10.3965/j.issn.1934-6344.2009.02.049-056

Neelayathatchi, P., Neasri, T. M. and C. S. Sanwal. 2023. Ayurvedic perspective and clinical significance of millets. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrated Medical Sciences., 8(12): 161–174. https://doi.org/10.21760/jaims.8.12.25

Patel, K., Das, A., Dalsaniya, D., Kalola, A. D., Patil, G. B., Patel, R., Patel, D. A., and H. E. Patil. 2023. Study on character association and path analysis in little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.). Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding., 14(1): 343–348. https://doi.org/10.37992/2023.1401.005

Peng, F., Fang, F., Xiang, R., and D. Liu. 2022. Engineering properties of Cassia tora L. seeds and meal as a function of moisture content. Scientific Reports., 12(1): 8651. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1329582/v1

Pradhan, R. C., Naik, S. N., Bhatnagar, N. and S. K. Swain. 2008. Moisture-dependent physical properties of Karanja (Pongamia pinnata) kernel. Industrial Crops and Products., 28(2): 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.02.006

Renganathan, V. G., Vanniarajan, C., Karthikeyan, A. and J. Ramalingam. 2020. Barnyard millet for food and nutritional security: Current status and future research direction. Frontiers in Genetics., 11: 500. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00500

Rizwana, M., Singh, P., Ahalya, N. and T. Mohanasundaram. 2023. Assessing the awareness of nutritional benefits of millets amongst women in Bangalore. British Food Journal., 125(6): 2002–2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0593

Sabar, S. S., Swain, S. K., Behera, D., Rayaguru, K., Mohapatra, A. K., and A. K. Dash. 2020. Moisture dependent physical and engineering properties of sorghum grains. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences., 9(8): 2365-2375. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.908.271

Shirkole, S. S., Kenghe, R. N. and P.M. Nimkar. 2011. Moisture dependent physical properties of soybean. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology., 3(5): https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0428-7

Singh, K. P., Mishra, H. N. and S. Saha. 2010. Moisture-dependent properties of barnyard millet grain and kernel. Journal of Food Engineering., 96(4): 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.09.007

Singh, V. K., Verma, S., Chaudhary, V., Singh, V. K., Shivam, S. K. S., Shukla, A., & Yadav, A. 2025. Moisture-Dependent Some Physical Properties of Selected Food Grains. Environment and Ecology., 43(1A): 282-288. https://doi.org/10.60151/envec/NMFI3237

Tekin, Y., Esref Isik, Halil Unal, and Rasim Okursoy. 2006. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Turkish Goynuk Bombay Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences., 9(12): 2229–2235. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2006.2229.2235

Cite This Article

APA Style

Sindhu G, Esther Magdalene Sharon M, Nithyalakshmi V, & Geetha P. (2026). Engineering properties of little millet and barnyard millet based on moisture content. Madras Agricultural Journal, 113(7–9), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.261412

ACS Style

Sindhu G; Esther Magdalene Sharon M; Nithyalakshmi V; Geetha P. Engineering Properties of Little Millet and Barnyard Millet Based on Moisture Content. Madras Agric. J. 2026, 113 (7–9), 46–53. DOI: 10.29321/MAJ.10.261412.

AMA Style

Sindhu G, Esther Magdalene Sharon M, Nithyalakshmi V, Geetha P. Engineering properties of little millet and barnyard millet based on moisture content. Madras Agric J. 2026;113(7-9):46-53. doi:10.29321/MAJ.10.261412

Author Information

Esther Magdalene Sharon M

emsharon.m@tanuvas.ac.in