Understanding the Final Molasses Survey : More than TPD B.E. White and C.K. Verret Audubon Sugar Institute Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Annual Factory Seminar April 17, 2007

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

2006 ASI Final Molasses Survey

2006 Seasonal Average for Juice, Syrup and Final Molasses Target Purity= 33.9 - 13.4log[(F+G)/Ash]

Average Weekly Target Purity Differences 2003-2006

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 3.6 2006 8.5 3.3 15.5

Yearly Average Target Purity Differences 2000-2006

Yearly Average F/G Ratio 2000-2006

Fructose + Glucose vs. F/G Ratio

Target Purity vs. F/G Ratio

2006 Juice, Syrup and C-Molasses Ratios

Calculated Value of Decrease in TPD Brix % Cane Ground Juice True Purity Sugar Pol Price Molasses Non Molasses Loss Season Length % tons/day $/lb $/ton % Cane days 14.4 10000 87.3 98.5 $0.20 $120.00 12 90 Target Difference Final True Purity Sucrose Recovery Seasonal Value for each 1% drop in final Molasses Purity Sugar Loss to Final Seasonal Value for a 3% drop in final 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

Effect of Maillard Reaction on Target Purity Fructose Glucose F/G (F+G)/ Target T. P. F G Ratio Ash Purity Diff. % T.S. % 9.9 1.00 1.23 32.7 8.6 9.3 1.07 1.19 32.9 8.5 1.14 1.15 33.1 8.3 7.4 1.33 1.08 33.5 7.9 6.8 1.45 1.04 33.7 7.7 6.2 1.60 33.9 7.5 5.6 1.78 0.96 34.1 7.3 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

Effect of Inversion on Target Purity Fructose Glucose F+G (F+G)/ Target T. P. F G Ash Purity Diff. % T.S. % 9.7 7.3 17.0 1.06 33.6 7.8 10.3 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 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

True Purity of Juice and Sucrose Recovery Final Molasses True Purity Sucrose Recovery % 87 36 92.4 85 34 91.6

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

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

Acknowledgements Louisiana Sugar Mills Dr. Harold Birkett Dr. Donal Day Dr. Vadim Kochergin Lee Madsen II Jennifer Chatelain

Questions