*2.1. Chemical Composition*

The proximate chemical composition of beetroot plant parts is shown in (Table 1). There are no significant differences (*p* > 0.05) detected between peels and pomace regarding all the chemical parameters, this might be due to the difficulty of removing the thin peel from the pulp. Consequently, the juice also

showed no significant differences (*p* > 0.05) with peels and pomace concerning total lipids, total sugars, and ash content. Interestingly, the leaves had the highest amount of protein (5.64%), which comprised a promising good source of protein. The obtained results were higher than that previously reported by Biondo et al. [8] where protein content was 3.81%. Furthermore, there was a discrepancy between the protein content of pomace (1.13%) in the present study and the other previous studies; It was much less compared to 45.53% by Shyamala and Jamuna [21], and slightly fewer than 1.6% as noted by Neha et al. [22]. These differences reasonably attributed to the different nitrogen content that resulted from the variations in nitrogen fertilization, the properties of the soil and other environmental conditions. It is also worth mentioning that leaves and stems exhibited the highest total lipids content (0.43 and 0.41%), respectively. These findings disagreed with Biondo et al. [8] who reported 0.78%, with a high concentration of the essential fatty acid (linolenic acid). Whereas, pomace contain fewer lipids portion (0.15%) which was in agreement with the USDA value (0.17%) described by Neha et al. [22], but it was lower than 0.31% as evaluated by Shyamala and Jamuna [21]. The sugar content in pomace and peel was 8.79% and 8.4%, respectively, which was slightly less than 9.56% in beetroot plant as reported by Neha et al. [22]. The sugar content in leaves was 0.44% which was nearly twenty times less than the sugar content in the pomace. These results were much less than 3.98% evaluated by Biondo et al. [8]. On the other hand, the juice sugar content was 4.8% which was higher than Kazimierczak et al. [23], who reported that the sugar content was 3.33% in the juice. The crude fiber was 2.6, 1.97, 2, and 2.15 in peels, pomaces, stems, and leaves, respectively. The value in pomace was less than the expected value (2.8%) as in USDA nutritional data reported by Neha et al. [22], and 35.53% as reported by Shyamala and Jamuna [21]. It might be the filtration of pomace during preparation decreased its fiber content. The obtained results revealed that the beetroots plant is a promising nutritional source for macronutrients which make it a good source for supporting several kinds of food products.


**Table 1.** Proximate chemical composition and minerals content of beetroot plant parts.

Mean values in a raw having different superscript are significantly different at (*p* ≤ 0.05); ND \* (Not detected); \*\* Total sugars calculated by difference; (<sup>1</sup> ) proximate analysis parameters expressed in (g/100 g); (<sup>2</sup> ) minerals content expressed in (mg/100 g).
