understanding the final molasses survey : more than tpd b.e. white and c.k. verret audubon sugar...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Understanding theUnderstanding theFinal Molasses Survey :Final Molasses Survey :
More than TPDMore than TPD
B.E. White and C.K. Verret
Audubon Sugar InstituteLouisiana State University Agricultural Center
Annual Factory SeminarApril 17, 2007
![Page 2: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction• Presentation of final molasses survey results from
2006 season
• Comparison of results to previous seasons
• Discussion of Final Molasses Survey Report
• Effects of the Target Purity Difference (TPD) and the Fructose/Glucose Ratio
• Discussion
![Page 3: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2006 ASI Final Molasses Survey
F/G (F+G)/ Target T. P.Ratio Ash Purity Diff.
1.37 1.14 33.2 8.51.33 1.08 33.6 8.61.59 0.86 34.9 9.11.59 0.92 34.7 9.01.30 0.98 34.3 12.01.48 0.98 34.1 8.91.82 0.95 34.3 5.91.56 0.93 34.4 10.01.68 0.80 35.5 6.71.58 0.80 35.3 9.41.39 0.90 34.7 6.41.54 0.95 34.4 7.3
1.52 0.94 34.4 8.5
![Page 4: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Ref. App. Ratio pol True Fructose Glucose F/G Cond. (F+G)/ Target
Sample Brix Purity /sucrose Purity F G Ratio Ash Ash Purity
% mol. % % % T.S. % T.S. % T.S. %
Juice 13.8 84.3 0.97 87.3 2.38 2.41 1.00 4.5 1.06 33.7
Syrup 61.4 86.5 0.97 89.6 2.07 2.18 0.96 3.9 1.08 33.6
Mol 81.6 34.4 0.81 43.0 9.41 6.45 1.50 16.7 0.98 34.2
2006 Seasonal Average for Juice, Syrup and Final Molasses
Target Purity= 33.9 - 13.4log[(F+G)/Ash]
![Page 5: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Average Weekly Target Purity Differences2003-2006
![Page 6: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
TPD Data Summary for 2000-2006
Year TPD Average
TPD Minimum
TPD Maximum
2000 10.2 4.8 15.2
2001 10.5 6.3 23.8
2002 10.4 5.6 18.7
2003 8.9 4.4 18.3
2004 9.9 4.7 16.2
2005 8.9 3.6 18.3
2006 8.5 3.3 15.5
![Page 7: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Yearly Average Target Purity Differences2000-2006
![Page 8: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Yearly Average F/G Ratio2000-2006
![Page 9: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Fructose + Glucose vs. F/G Ratio
![Page 10: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Target Purity vs. F/G Ratio
![Page 11: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
2006 Juice, Syrup and C-Molasses Ratios
![Page 12: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Brix %Cane
CaneGround
Juice TruePurity
SugarPol
SugarPrice
MolassesPrice
Non MolassesLoss
SeasonLength
% tons/day % % $/lb $/ton % Cane days
14.4 10000 87.3 98.5 $0.20 $120.00 12 90
TargetPurity
Difference
FinalMolasses
True Purity
SucroseRecovery
Seasonal Value for each
1% drop in finalMolasses Purity
Sugar Loss to Final
Molasses
Seasonal Value for a3% drop in finalMolasses Purity
% % % % Lbs/ton of cane %
1 35.0 92.93 $75,802 0.68
2 36.0 92.61 $78,227 0.70
3 37.0 92.28 $80,771 0.73 $258,883
4 38.0 91.94 $83,442 0.75
5 39.0 91.59 $86,246 0.78
6 Low 40.0 91.23 $89,195 0.80 $286,870
7 41.0 90.85 $92,297 0.83
8 42.0 90.46 $95,565 0.86
9 Average 43.0 90.06 $99,008 0.89 $319,655
10 44.0 89.64 $102,642 0.92
11 45.0 89.21 $106,479 0.96
12 High 46.0 88.76 $110,535 1.00
Calculated Value of Decrease in TPD
![Page 13: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Effect of Maillard Reaction on Target PurityFructose Glucose F/G (F+G)/ Target T. P.
F G Ratio Ash Purity Diff.
% T.S. % T.S. %
9.9 9.9 1.00 1.23 32.7 8.6
9.9 9.3 1.07 1.19 32.9 8.5
9.9 8.6 1.14 1.15 33.1 8.3
9.9 7.4 1.33 1.08 33.5 7.9
9.9 6.8 1.45 1.04 33.7 7.7
9.9 6.2 1.60 1.00 33.9 7.5
9.9 5.6 1.78 0.96 34.1 7.3
9.9 4.9 2.00 0.92 34.4 7.0
True Purity maintained at the seasonal average of 41.4%Conductivity Ash maintained at the seasonal average of 16.1 % true solids
![Page 14: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Effect of Inversion on Target Purity
Fructose Glucose F+G (F+G)/ Target T. P.
F G Ash Purity Diff.
% T.S. % T.S. % T.S. %
9.7 7.3 17.0 1.06 33.6 7.8
10.3 7.8 18.0 1.12 33.2 8.1
10.9 8.2 19.0 1.18 32.9 8.5
11.5 8.6 20.0 1.25 32.6 8.8
12.0 9.0 21.0 1.30 32.4 9.0
12.5 9.4 22.0 1.36 32.1 9.3
True Purity maintained at the seasonal average of 41.4%Conductivity Ash maintained at the seasonal average of 16.1 % true solids
![Page 15: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
True Purity of Juice and Sucrose Recovery
JuiceTrue
Purity
FinalMolasses
True Purity
SucroseRecovery
% % %
87 36 92.4
85 34 91.6
![Page 16: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Discussion
• Seasonal average TPD decreased from previous season continuing an encouraging trend
• Fructose to glucose ratio decreased or remained constant from 2000 to 2005, but increased significantly in 2006
• The F/G ratio is a good indicator of Maillard Reaction which is a result of high C strike temperature
• High strike temperatures in C pans lower reducing sugar in C massecuites and increase sugar losses to molasses
![Page 17: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Discussion Continued
• The TPD has continued to decrease improving sugar recovery
• TPD is a good indicator of how well C-massecuite is exhausted.
• The occurrence of Maillard reaction and inversion does not necessarily have an effect on TPD, but does affect target purity
• A low purity on final molasses does not always equal to sugar in the warehouse
![Page 18: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Acknowledgements
Louisiana Sugar Mills Dr. Harold Birkett Dr. Donal Day Dr. Vadim Kochergin Lee Madsen II Jennifer Chatelain
![Page 19: Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022102622/56649e495503460f94b3d522/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Questions