The clarification of sugarcane juice and the use of CA-11 yeast produces better quality cachaça

Mutton, Márcia Justino Rossini; Garcia, Graciany; Teixeira, Vitor; Silva, Aline Ferreira; Costa, Gustavo Henrique Gravatim; Ferreira, Osania Emerenciano

doi:10.5935/1806-6690.20200067

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Ciência Agronômica

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scientific Article • Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 51 (4) • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.5935/1806-6690.20200067 copy

The clarification of sugarcane juice and the use of CA-11 yeast produces better quality cachaça¹ 1 Parte de Dissertação do segundo autor, apresentado ao curso de Pós-Graduação em Microbiologia Agropecuária - FCAV/UNESP Jaboticabal

Clarificação do caldo de cana e o uso do fermento CA-11 produz cachaça de melhor qualidade

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Cachaça is the second most consumed alcoholic beverage in Brazil, obtained by distilling wine from fermented sugarcane must, and has an alcohol content of 38 to 48% (v/v) at 20 ºC. The quality of the drink is affected by the raw material used, the treatment of the juice, the type of yeast and the distillation process. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of two types of yeast (selected and pressed) and the prior physical and chemical treatment of the sugarcane juice on the quality of the cachaça. The experimental design was completely randomised with 9 replications. The primary treatment was represented by the must (obtained from clarified and non-clarified juice) and the secondary treatment by the types of yeast (CA-11 and pressed biological). The microbiological behaviour of the yeast during fermentation was evaluated together with the chemical composition of the wine and cachaça. The use of selected strains and the prior treatment of the juice resulted in better performance of the fermenting yeasts, producing distillates of suitable physical and chemical standards and quality.

Key words:
Quality beverage; Liming; Selected yeast; Saccharomyces cerevisiae ; Fermentation process

Must	Brix (º)	TRS (%)	pH	TA (g/L H₂SO₄)	TPC (mg/L)	Nitrogen (%)
Non-Clarified	16.0	12.59	4.5 B	1.59 A	363 A	21.46 A
Clarified	16.3	12.83	6.0 A	1.00 B	251 B	20.88 B
F-test	2.94^ns ns Not significant;	0.32^ns ns Not significant;	475.37^ Significant at a level of 0.01. MSD - Minimum Significant Difference. CV - Coefficient of Variation	5.64^* * Significant at a level of 0.05;	29.49 ^ Significant at a level of 0.01. MSD - Minimum Significant Difference. CV - Coefficient of Variation	7.53^ Significant at a level of 0.01. MSD - Minimum Significant Difference. CV - Coefficient of Variation
MSD	0.41	0.89	0.14^ns ns Not significant;	0.52	43.78	2.98
CV	2.55	7.07	2.68	40.43	14.25	11.26

	Budding (%)		Bud Viability (%)		Cell Viability (%)
	Start	End	Start	End	Start	End
Must (M)
Clarified	8.16	20.83	91.62	93.98 A	86.21	80.87
Non-Clarified	13.08	24.85	91.42	88.38 B	84.78	80.18
F-test (M)	1.51^ns ns Not significant;	0.93^ns ns Not significant;	0.01^ns ns Not significant;	3.51^ Significant at a level of 0.01. MSD - Minimum Significant Difference. CV - Coefficient of Variation. M x Y - Interaction between musts and yeasts	0.14^ns ns Not significant;	0.02^ns ns Not significant;
MSD	8.16	8.46	12.32	6.09	7.78	9.17
CV	113.06	54.54	19.82	9.84	13.40	16.77
Yeast (Y)
Fleischmann	9.58	22.04	89.69	84.54 B	83.12	79.68
CA-11	11.66	23.64	93.35	97.82 A	87.87	81.37
F-test (Y)	0.26^ns ns Not significant;	0.14^ns ns Not significant;	0.36^ns ns Not significant;	19.74^ Significant at a level of 0.01. MSD - Minimum Significant Difference. CV - Coefficient of Variation. M x Y - Interaction between musts and yeasts	1.54^ns ns Not significant;	0.14^ns ns Not significant;
MSD	8.16	8.46	12.32	6.09	7.78	9.17
CV	113.06	54.54	19.82	9.84	13.40	16.77
M x Y	0.36^ns ns Not significant;	0.01^ns ns Not significant;	4.97^ns ns Not significant;	4.16^* * Significant at a level of 0.05;	1.05^ns ns Not significant;	4.77^ns ns Not significant;

	AT (g/L H₂SO₄)	pH	Brix (º)	TRRS (%)	Alcohol Content (% v/v)	Glycerol (%)
Must (M)
Clarified	2.63 B	3.7 A	0.7	0.11	7.09	0.59
Non-Clarified	3.00 A	3.5 B	0.7	0.07	6.61	0.74
F-test (M)	4.80^* * Significant at a level of 0.05;	5.03^* * Significant at a level of 0.05;	0.01^ns ns Not significant;	4.19^ns ns Not significant;	1.57^ns ns Not significant;	3.30^ns ns Not significant;
MSD	0.34	0.15	0.38	0.04	0.81	0.17
CV	17.84	6.18	74.66	65.66	16.84	38.66
Yeast (Y)
Fleischmann	3.08 A	3.5 B	0.7	0.06	6.58 B	0.79 A
CA-11	2.54 B	3.7 A	0.8	0.11	7.13 A	0.54 B
F-test (Y)	10.27^ Significant at a level of 0.01. MSD - Minimum Significant Difference. CV - Coefficient of Variation. M x Y - Interaction between musts and yeasts	5.72^* * Significant at a level of 0.05;	0.25^ns ns Not significant;	3.03^ns ns Not significant;	5.14^* * Significant at a level of 0.05;	8.11^ Significant at a level of 0.01. MSD - Minimum Significant Difference. CV - Coefficient of Variation. M x Y - Interaction between musts and yeasts
MSD	0.34	0.15	0.38	0.05	0.51	1.17
CV	17.84	6.18	74.66	88.52	10.55	38.66
M x Y	0.01^ns ns Not significant;	0.85^ns ns Not significant;	0.25^ns ns Not significant;	0.86^ns ns Not significant;	0.20^ns ns Not significant;	1.66^ns ns Not significant;

	Legislation		Fleischman		CA-11
Components Analysed	Min.	Max.	Clarified	Non-Clarified	Clarified	Non-Clarified
Alcoholic Content¹ 1 ºGL V/V;	38	48	42.32	39.77	40.30	42.11
Total Aldehydes² 2 mg/100mL anhydrous alcohol;		30	14.44	25.77	14.11	43.50
Total Esters² 2 mg/100mL anhydrous alcohol;		200	12.47	16.19	9.15	20.23
Methanol² 2 mg/100mL anhydrous alcohol;		20	1.00	3.49	0.97	1.86
Acrolein² 2 mg/100mL anhydrous alcohol;		5	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.	n.d.
Ethyl Carbamate³ 3 µg/L;		210	9.01	29.39	25.67	25.47
Volatile Acidity² 2 mg/100mL anhydrous alcohol;		150	34.0	36.20	44.7	34.2
Congener coefficient	200	650	346.28	410.82	278.85	364.97
Electrical Conductivity⁴ 4 µs at 2 ºC;			15.0	17.00	20.0	17.0
Turbidity⁵ 5 NTU; n.d. - not detected			0.48	0.33	0.60	0.26
pH			4.8	4.9	4.8	4.7
Higher alcohols² 2 mg/100mL anhydrous alcohol;
Sec-Butyl Alcohol		10	n.d.	3.87	0.76	0.87
N-propanol			40.50	50.38	72.80	57.65
Isobutanol			72.44	79.18	42.49	55.39
n-butanol		3	2.92	1.54	2.11	3.01
Isoamyls			194.65	229.75	125.36	141.88
Sum of Higher Alcohols		360	307.60	359.31	240.64	254.91

Universidade Federal do Ceará Av. Mister Hull, 2977 - Bloco 487, Campus do Pici, 60356-000 - Fortaleza - CE - Brasil, Tel.: (55 85) 3366-9702 / 3366-9732, Fax: (55 85) 3366-9417 - Fortaleza - CE - Brazil
E-mail: ccarev@ufc.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Author for correspondence

Brasil

Brasil

The clarification of sugarcane juice and the use of CA-11 yeast produces better quality cachaça1 1 Parte de Dissertação do segundo autor, apresentado ao curso de Pós-Graduação em Microbiologia Agropecuária - FCAV/UNESP Jaboticabal

Clarificação do caldo de cana e o uso do fermento CA-11 produz cachaça de melhor qualidade

ABSTRACT

The clarification of sugarcane juice and the use of CA-11 yeast produces better quality cachaça¹ 1 Parte de Dissertação do segundo autor, apresentado ao curso de Pós-Graduação em Microbiologia Agropecuária - FCAV/UNESP Jaboticabal