Paper · 1985 · Transactions of the ASAE

Sugarcane or Sweet Sorghum Processing Techniques for Ethanol Production

V. G. Reidenbach; C. G. Coble

3
claims
8
verbatim quotes
19
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT THREE methods of processing sweet sorghum and sugarcane for ethanol production were evaluated. The methods were stalk chopping, juice extraction with a roller mill, and pulp extraction using the Tilby process. Chopping stalks 1 cm long and subsequent fermentation produced the highest yields of ethanol. Although juice extraction with subsequent fermentation resulted in lower ethanol yields, this process appeared to be the most feasible from a production system standpoint.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chopping stalks 1 cm long followed by fermentation gave the highest ethanol yields compared with juice extraction.

Taxon
sweet sorghum and sugarcanee0
Treatment
Chopping stalks 1 cm longe1
Outcome
yields of ethanole1
Direction
higheste1
Comparator
juice extraction with subsequent fermentatione2

Verbatim

e0

“THREE methods of processing sweet sorghum and sugarcane for ethanol production were evaluated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–102 · show in text ↑
e1

“Chopping stalks 1 cm long and subsequent fermentation produced the highest yields of ethanol”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 219–311 · show in text ↑
e2

“Although juice extraction with subsequent fermentation resulted in lower ethanol yields, this process appeared to be the most feasible from a production system standpoint”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–483 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Juice extraction with subsequent fermentation gave lower ethanol yields than stalk chopping.

Taxon
sweet sorghum and sugarcanee0
Treatment
juice extraction with subsequent fermentatione2
Outcome
ethanol yieldse2
Direction
lowere2
Comparator
Chopping stalks 1 cm long and subsequent fermentatione1

Verbatim

e0

“THREE methods of processing sweet sorghum and sugarcane for ethanol production were evaluated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–102 · show in text ↑
e1

“Chopping stalks 1 cm long and subsequent fermentation produced the highest yields of ethanol”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 219–311 · show in text ↑
e2

“Although juice extraction with subsequent fermentation resulted in lower ethanol yields, this process appeared to be the most feasible from a production system standpoint”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–483 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Juice extraction with subsequent fermentation appeared to be the most feasible processing method from a production system standpoint.

Taxon
sweet sorghum and sugarcanee0
Treatment
juice extraction with subsequent fermentatione2
Outcome
most feasible from a production system standpointe2

Verbatim

e0

“THREE methods of processing sweet sorghum and sugarcane for ethanol production were evaluated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–102 · show in text ↑
e2

“Although juice extraction with subsequent fermentation resulted in lower ethanol yields, this process appeared to be the most feasible from a production system standpoint”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–483 · show in text ↑

processing · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

processing · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results

12 papers: 8 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.