Int. J. Agric. Appl. Sci. Vol. 3, No.

1, 2011
14
EVALUATION OF APPROVED SUGARCANE VARIETIES THROUGH HYDRAULIC PRESS METHOD
Muhammad Aleem Sarwar, Shafiq Ahmad, Naeem Fiaz, Faqir Hussain and Arshad Ali Chattha
Sugarcane Research Institute, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan
ABSTRACT
Six approved sugarcane varieties CPF-237, CPF-243, HSF-240, HSF-242, SPF-245 and SPF-213 were
evaluated for their juice quality, milling and processing parameters such as CCS% (commercial cane sugar),
juice extraction%, pol extraction%, BHR% (boiling house recovery), overall recovery% and sugar recovery%
using hydraulic press at 1400 bars pressure. Maximum sugar recovery (12.71 and 12.59%) was recorded in
varieties HSF-240 and CPF-243, respectively and was statistically at par whereas maximum juice extraction
78.40 and 78.24%, pol extraction 92.59 and 92.64% were observed in varieties CPF-243 and SPF-245 while
maximum boiling house recovery (BHR) 92.33 and 91.33% was noted in varieties HSF-240 and SPF-245,
respectively. Over all cane varieties SPF-245 and CPF-243 gave highest recovery (84.61 and 83.33%) and
were statistically at par. Reasonably, accurate sugar recovery can be estimated by this technique and was
considered an efficient approach for cane quality evaluation.
Key words: Hydraulic press, sugar recovery, sugarcane, varieties
INTRODUCTION
In variety selection program, the determination of
accurate pol%, fibre% and recoverable sugar% in
cane is of great interest for research workers. As low
cane fibre gives better milling recovery (Spancer and
Meade, 1963) while high fibre induces resistance to
lodging and cane pests (Dillewijin, 1952). Birkette
(1988) reported that hydraulic press was found to be
highly reproduce-able giving negligible co-efficient of
variation for brix%, pol% and fibre% cane. According
to Meade and Chen (1988), direct analysis of
fabricated cane is practiced in Re-unoin, Martinique,
Guadeloupe, South Africa and Mauritius. A sub
sample of prepared cane weighing 0.5-1 kg is
compressed in hydraulic press at 1400 bars for a
period of two minutes. The cake is then released,
weighed and juice is analyzed for pol%. In Brazil,
500 g sub sample of fibre is treated in hydraulic
press at 250 kg cm
-2
pressure for juice extraction
and equation has been derived for estimation of
fibre% cane and pol% of cane (Silva, 1989). Malik et
al. (1995) compared the efficiency of local made
hydraulic press with imported USA Carver hydraulic
press and found that local hydraulic press was more
efficient for the determination of fibre%, juice
extraction%, pol extraction%, BHR% and over-all
recovery%. Birkette (1988) reported that in
Louisiona all the factories used core sampling
system for cane quality evaluation. The prepared
1000 g sample is pressed in hydraulic press at 3000
pound per square inch gauge (psig) pressure for two
minutes and the juice extracted is analyzed for
brix%, pol%, purity% and recoverable sugar
percentage. At Sugarcane Research Institute
Faisalabad, sugarcane hydraulic press is being used
for the analysis of early final and the medium late
varietal trials. The juice extracted is analysed for
brix%, pol%, purity% and sugar recovery% by CCS
method whereas sugar mills of Pakistan use the
Pakistan Society of Sugar Technologists (PSST)
recommended sucrose purity, juice purity, molasses
purity (SJM) formula. So this study was planned to
determine important quality parameters, from milling
point of view, such as juice extraction%, pol
extraction%, BHR% and overall recovery% in
laboratory using the sugarcane hydraulic press.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The studies were undertaken at sugarcane
technology laboratory in Sugarcane Research
Institute, Faisalabad. Cane samples of promising
sugarcane varieties CPF-237, CPF-243, HSF-240,
HSF-242, SPF-245 and SPF-213 were collected
from early final and medium late final varietal trials.
The samples comprising of ten canes each was cut
into 6 to 8 cm pieces and shredded with Australian
type Jaffco cutter grinder. Jeffco grinder worked with
10 HP motor at a speed of 2800 rpm or more of less
three minutes to grind 10 canes into fibre. The
sample was rapidly homogenized and placed in air
tight plastic container. Five hundred grams of fibre
sample was weighed and put in cylinder of
sugarcane hydraulic press. The sample so prepared
was pressed at 1400 bars for two minutes and the
juice extracted through juice slots of filter cylinder
was collected in juice tray placed under the stand.
The fibre cake was removed from the instrument,
weighed on electronic balance and dried in air oven
at 100 to 105

C for moisture determination. The juice

M.A. Sarwar, S. Ahmad, N. Fiaz, F. Hussain and A.A. Chattha
15
was analysed for brix by hydrometer and pol by
polarimetric method (Lagendre, 1952).
Quality parameters such as juice extraction%, pol
extraction%, BHR%, over all recovery% and sugar
recovery% were calculated as mentioned by Malik et
al. (1995). The data so collected was analyzed
through analysis of variance technique (Steel et al.,
1997) and means were compared by using LSD at
probability level of 5%.
Weight of pol in juice
1. Mill (pol) extraction = ------------------------------
Weight of pol in cane
Weight of pol in cane
2. Percent pol % cane = ----------------------------------- 100
Weight of cane crushed
100S(J-M)
3. Boiling house recovery % (BHR) = SJM= ----------------
J (S-M)
4. Overall recovery % = pol extraction BHR
5. Sugar recovery % = pol % cane pol extraction%
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Varietal differences among various quality
characteristics
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for various quality
parameters (Table 1 and 2) revealed that varieties
showed significant differences for brix%, pol%,
purity%, fibre%, CCS%, extraction%, pol
extraction%, BHR% and sugar recovery%. However,
overall recovery% displayed at P<0.05. The quality
parameters such as extraction%, pol extraction
significant differences% and sugar recovery%
demonstrated significant environmental effects.
Table 3 demonstrated that all the varieties were
significantly different in brix%, pol%, purity%, CCS%
and sugar recovery%.
Juice extraction
Data given in Table 4 showed that juice extraction
(78.40%) was the higher in variety CPF-243 and the
lowest (72.0%) in HSF-240. Other varieties in
descending order were SPF-245, HSF-242, CPF-
237 and SPF-213 giving 78.24, 78.00, 77.32 and
77.00% juice, respectively. These results are in line
with Malik et al. (1995) who reported 76.10% to
80.09% juice extraction in three sugarcane varieties.
The variety HSF-240 consistently performed better
as compared to others. Ashraf et al. (2007) also
demonstrated the sugarcane varieties behaved
differently in terms of growth parameters.
Fibre % cane
A perusal of data given in Table 4 demonstrated that
all varieties varied significantly in their means.
Highest fibre % (13.75) was noted in variety HSF-
240 and statistically it was at par with SPF-245
(13.65%), SPF-213 (13.63%) and CPF-243
(13.34%). Fibre of varieties CPF-237 and HSF-242
was statistically at par in this quality parameter.
These results are in confidence with Dillewijin (1952)
who stated that high fibre induced resistance to
lodging and cane pests. So the fibre values of these
varieties are within the range of resistance to lodging
and cane pests.
Pol extraction
It is evident from the data that variety SPF-245 gave
significantly highest pol extraction (92.64%) and it
was at par with CPF-243 (92.59%). Statistically
minimum pol extraction (89.52%) was observed in
variety HSF-240. Varieties CPF-237, HSF-242 and
SPF-213 were statistically at par. These results were
in line with Malik et al. (1995) who reported highest
pol extraction of 91.21% in cane variety BF-162. The
pol extraction of Pakistan sugar mills is 92%
(Anonymous, 1992). This method gave results at par
with sugar mills.
Boiling house recovery (BHR)
Boiling house recovery is an indicator of efficiency in
processing section of sugar factory and is influenced
by the juice quality (brix, pol and purity) and
molasses purity. Variety HSF-240 gave the highest
BHR 92.33%, on an average parameter of sugar
purity 99.7% and molasses purity 35%. Statistically
lower BHR 89% and 88.33% was recorded in
varieties CPF-237 and SPF-213. The BHR of
Pakistan sugar mill is 85% (Anonymous, 1992).
Higher BHR of these varieties is due to better quality
of these varieties.
Overall recovery
Statistically highest overall recovery (84.61%) was
noted in variety SPF-245. Whereas lowest overall
recovery (81.13%) was noted in SPF-213 and it was
statistically at par with CPF-237 (81.36%). The
overall recovery is an interaction of both milling and
processing section in a factory. The overall recovery
of Pakistan sugar mills has been reported 77%
(Anonymous, 1992). The higher overall recovery
determined through this method might be due to
high quality of these varieties.
Sugar recovery
Data given in Table 4 advocates that significantly
highest sugar recovery (12.63%) was noted in
Int. J. Agric. Appl. Sci. Vol. 3, No.1, 2011
16
variety CPF-243. It was due to high quality
associated with highest juice extraction while
minimum in variety SPF-213 (10.45%). Table 3
showed that in CCS method, maximum recoverable
sugar (12.71%) was noted in variety HSF-240 and it
was statistically at par with CPF-243 (12.59%). Malik
et al. (1995) has stated that the effect of juice
quality, fibre contents, juice and pol extraction and
BHR were reflected on sugar recovery. Low working
efficiency during milling and processing operation
would reduce sugar recovery. They also reported
sugar recovery (10.50 to 12.02%) in three
sugarcane varieties using sugarcane hydraulic
press.
CONCLUSION
Our results suggested that CPF-243 emerged as
best variety from sugar recovery point of view. Data
collected by this technique could also be used by
factory managements to evaluate factory
performance as it is quite reliable for dry milling test.
The technique is capable of yielding results that
provide fair cane quality payment.
Table 1: ANOVA for juice quality of approved cane varieties
SOV Brix % Pol % Purity % CCS % Sugar recovery %
Replications 0.600
NS
0.236
NS
1.084
NS
0.075
NS
0.066
NS
Varieties 3.127** 2.924** 10.227** 2.128** 1.880**
Error 0.279 0.115 2.055 0.095 0.084
Where NS= Non significant; *=significant at 5%; **= significant at 1%
Table 2: ANOVA for milling and processing parameters of sugar recovery in approved sugar cane
varieties
Varieties Fibre % cane
Juice
extraction %
Pol
extraction %
BHR %
Overall
recovery %
Sugar
recovery %
Replications 0.032
NS
5.525** 2.188** 0.389
NS
0.811
NS
0.384*
Varieties 0.666** 17.652** 3.930** 6.622** 5.003* 1.678**
Error 0.080 0.021 0.060 1.189 1.017 0.081
Where NS= Non significant; *=significant at 5%; **= significant at 1%
Table 3: Juice quality of approved cane varieties
Varieties Brix % Pol % Purity % CCS % Sugar recovery%
CPF-237 20.85 a 17.46 bc 83.74 c 12.77 bc 11.99 bc
CPF-243 21.50 a 18.28 a 85.06 bc 13.40 a 12.59 a
HSF-240 20.65 a 18.15 a 87.91 a 13.53 a 12.71 a
HSF-242 21.26 a 18.00 ab 84.67 bc 13.25 ab 12.45 ab
SPF-245 19.50 b 16.90 c 86.68 ab 12.49 c 11.73 c
SPF-213 18.92 b 15.69 d 82.94 c 11.26 d 10.58 d
LSD at 5% 0.9609 0.6169 2.608 0.5607 0.5273
Means in a column not sharing the same letter differ significantly from each other at 5 % probability level as per LSD
Table 4: Milling and processing parameters of sugar recovery in approved sugar cane varieties (Aveg.
of the season)
Varieties
Juice extraction
%
Pol
extraction%
BHR % Overall
recovery %
Sugar
recovery %
Fibre % cane
CPF-237 77.32 c 91.42 b 89.00 c 81.36 c 11.77 c 12.69 b
CPF-243 78.40 a 92.59 a 90.00 bc 83.33 ab 12.63 a 13.34 a
HSF-240 72.00 e 89.52 c 92.33 a 82.65 bc 11.82 bc 13.75 a
HSF-242 78.00 b 91.85 b 89.66 bc 82.35 bc 12.33 ab 12.75 b
SPF-245 78.24 ab 92.64 a 91.33 ab 84.61 a 11.82 bc 13.65 a
SPF-213 77.00 d 91.85 b 88.33 c 81.13 c 10.45 d 13.63 a
LSD at % 0.2636 0.4602 1.984 1.835 0.5178 0.5146
Aveg 76.82 91.65 89.83 82.57 11.80 13.30
Means in a column not sharing the same letter differ significantly from each other at 5% probability level as per LSD
M.A. Sarwar, S. Ahmad, N. Fiaz, F. Hussain and A.A. Chattha
17
REFERENCES
Anonymous, 1992. Final synopsis of technical
results, Annual Report, 1991-92 General
Secretary, Pakistan Society of Sugar
Technologist, Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd., Mandi
Bahauddin.
Ashraf, M., Rahmatullah, S. Kanmal, A. Tahir, M.A.
Sarwar and L. Ali, 2007. Differential salt
tolerance of sugarcane genotypes. Pak. J. Agri.
Sci., 44: 85-89.
Birkett, H.S., 1988. Interpretation of cane sampling
results. American Society of Sugarcane
Technologists Annual meeting, Baten Rouge,
Louisiana.
Dillewijin, C.V., 1952. Botany and Sugarcane. The
Chronica Botanica Co, USA, PP-15.
Lagendre, B.L., 1952. The core/press methods for
predicting the sugar yield from cane for use of
cane payment. Sugar. J., 54: 2-7.
Malik, K.B., F. Hussain and K. Mahmood, 1995.
Standardizing the use of sugarcane hydraulic
press for the estimation of commercial
recoverable sugar. Bang. J. Sugar., 17: 41-50.
Meade, G.P. and J.C.P. Chen, 1988. Cane Sugar
Hand Book. 10
th
Ed. A wilay Inter Science
Publication. Johan Willey and sons. New York.
USA.
Silva, Jr. J.F., 1989. Sugarcane payment system in
Brazil. Symposia presentation. Proc. ISST, 20
Pages LXXXIV-XCVII.
Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie and D.A. Deekey, 1997.
Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A
Biometrical Approach. 3
rd
Edition. McGraw Hill
book Co., Inc., New York, USA.