Lynne Wong's PhD thesis

Table 2.13. Effect of increased addition of various types of EM on press juice and cane quality.
Average % increase/decrease in parameters relative to control
Level of EM P R E S S J U I C E C A N E
added to stalk (%) Volume HPIC HPIC HPIC Clerget Brix
Non
pol
extracted glucose fructose sucrose sucrose
sucrose
Pol (%) Fibre (%)
Top + stalk to reconstitute whole cane -8.0 221 212 -7.4 -7.7 -4.9 -8.8 31 -17 16 -13
5% green leaf -1.0 49 65 -2.9 -2.6 -1.8 -3.0 7.4 -4.6 5.4 -4.4
10% -2.9 79 125 -5.6 -5.6 -3.8 -6.6 14 -9.5 11 -9.6
20% -5.9 144 236 -12 -12 -8.2 -13 36 -19 18 -18
5% dry trash -5.1 64 62 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.2 12 -5.9 25 -4.3
10% -11 109 101 1.5 1.3 3.0 0.6 18 -8.7 46 -6.5
20% -25 209 194 2.6 2.6 5.3 2.5 38 -17 97 -14
5% dry trash (wetted) -1.3 61 51 -3.2 -2.9 -2.1 -3.0 7.7 -5.3 11 -4.9
10% -3.3 103 85 -6.0 -5.8 -4.3 -5.6 13 -10 22 -9.4
20% -7.2 176 154 -11 -12 -9.3 -12 17 -19 42 -18
5% dry trash (oven-dried) -6.9 57 48 1.0 1.1 2.2 1.1 17 -4.6 28 -3.4
10% -14 89 71 2.4 2.3 3.9 2.3 25 -9.1 58 -6.7
20% -26 134 112 4.2 4.5 7.6 4.3 47 -17 123 -15
5% air-dry bagasse -0.3 63 51 8.0 0.3 -0.1 0.4 -0.2 -7.5 29 -4.5
10% -1.5 91 80 5.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.7 -9.0 66 -8.4
20% -1.7 142 133 3.4 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.0 -19 132 -17
5% air-dry bagasse (wetted) -6.0 30 22 5.7 -4.9 -4.8 -4.7 -4.9 -8.1 12 -6.6
10% -14 16 14 1.1 -10 -10 -10 -11 -8.7 19 -13
20% -29 26 22 2.3 -18 -15 -19 -19 -19 25 -22
5% air-dry bagasse (oven-dried) -8.2 91 76 8.0 2.5 2.3 2.6 1.9 -6.4 35 -3.2
10% -12 86 67 11.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.4 -6.6 60 -6.1
20% -29 77 59 10.0 4.5 4.1 5.0 4.3 -21 147 -17
CCS