1. 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

2. 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

3. 2006 ASI Final Molasses Survey

4. 2006 Seasonal Average for Juice, Syrup and Final Molasses
Target Purity= log[(F+G)/Ash]

5. Average Weekly Target Purity Differences 2003-2006

6. 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

7. Yearly Average Target Purity Differences 2000-2006

8. Yearly Average F/G Ratio 2000-2006

9. Fructose + Glucose vs. F/G Ratio

10. Target Purity vs. F/G Ratio

11. 2006 Juice, Syrup and C-Molasses Ratios

12. 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

13. 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 % true solids

14. 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 % true solids

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

16. 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

17. 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

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

19. Questions