Measurement of Losses in a Austoft Sugarcane Harvester Case 7000

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• V. Ebrahim Khanloo Sisi ¹
• N. Monjezi ²
• M. Soleymani ²

¹ MSc. Student of Agricultural Mechanization, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

² Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.2022.75517.1094

Abstract

Introduction
Sugarcane is one of the strategic products of Khuzestan province, which is cultivated in 10 active agro-industrial sites and covers an area of about 110,000 hectares of irrigated farms in the province. Sugarcane harvesting, like most crops, is done by special sugarcane harvesters. Due to the life of machines and also the amount of heavy machine operations in each season of sugarcane harvest, the loss is inevitable. On the other hand, in Khuzestan province, due to lack of studies, there is little information in this area. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the extent of losses during sugarcane harvesting operations, taking into account factors such as cultivars, age of sugarcane, and reaping speed of the Astaf 7000 model. The study will be conducted at the sugarcane agro-industrial site of Dehkhoda in 2021.
Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted as a factorial split-plot design based on randomized complete blocks (RCBD) with three replications. The first factor included four levels of cultivars (IRC-12, CP48-103, CP 73-21, and CP69-1062), the second factor included three levels of harvest age (plant, Ratoon 1, Ratoon 2), and the third factor included three levels of speed (3, 5, and 7 km h^-1). Sampling was carried out under the same and constant conditions with respect to soil moisture content, harvester operator, harvester characteristics, harvester settings, and crop density in each field.
Results and Discussion
The results of analysis of variance of the data obtained from measuring sugarcane losses showed that the effect of cultivar on yield, full-length sugarcane, chopped sugarcane and splinter sugarcane had a significant effect at a probability level of one percent. The effect of age had a significant effect on yield, full-length sugarcane, chopped sugarcane with a probability level of one percent, but had no significant effect on the amount of splinter sugarcane. The interaction between cultivar and age had a significant effect on yield, chopped sugarcane, and full-length sugarcane with a probability level of one percent and on splinter sugarcane with a probability level of five percent. The effect of machine speed had a significant effect on full-length sugarcane, chopped sugarcane and splinter sugarcane with a probability level of one percent, but had no significant effect on yield. The interaction of cultivar and machine speed had a significant effect on yield, full-length sugarcane, chopped sugarcane and splinter sugarcane with a probability level of one percent. The interaction effect of age and machine speed on yield had a significant effect on full-length sugarcane and splinter sugarcane with a probability level of one percent and on the amount of splinter sugarcane with a probability level of five but had no significant effect on yield. Also, the interaction of cultivar, age and machine speed had a significant effect on yield, full-length sugarcane and chopped sugarcane with a probability level of one percent, but had no significant effect on the amount of splinter sugarcane. The results showed that the highest yield in CP69-1062 variety was observed in the plant farm with average machine speed (144.33 tons per hectare). Also, the highest amount of sugarcane losses in cultivar CP48-103 in Raton II and with 7 km h^-1 machine speed (3.32 tons per hectare), the highest amount of chopped sugarcane losses in cultivar CP48-103 in plant farm and with average speed (1.78 tons per hectare) was observed. According to the results under the interaction of cultivar and device speed, the highest amount of sugarcane losses in CP69-1062 cultivar and high speed (0.314 tons per hectare) as well as IRC-12 cultivar and high speed (0.308 tons in Hectares), and under the interaction of farm age and speed of the harvester, the highest amount of sugarcane losses was observed in Ratoon farm and the high speed of the harvester (0.300 tons per hectare).
Conclusion
Therefore, in order to reduce the amount of losses in sugarcane fields, it is recommended to use resistant and somewhat later cultivars for cultivation, because early cultivars are more fragile during harvest due to stem fragility and the rate of losses increases. Also, Harvester speed optimization reduces the amount of losses, and due to the increase in the rate of losses in reclaimed farms, it is recommended to create more resistant stem tissue by proper plant nutrition and more care to reduce the rate of losses in ratoon farms.

Keywords

• Austoft 7000
• Harvester
• Losse
• Sugarecane

20.1001.1.22286829.1402.13.3.6.7

Main Subjects

• Agricultural waste management

©2022 The author(s). This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

1. Adibzadeh, A., & Zaki Dizaji, H. (2019). Reducing straw fall losses in machine harvesting of sugarcane by correcting sugarcane harvester alvator. 11^th National Congress of Mechanical Engineering, Biosystems and Mechanization of Iran, September 11-13, Hamedan, Iran. (in Persian).
2. Ahmadi, S., Asudar, M. A., Jamshidi, A. R., & Shamili, M. (2014). Design and construction of intelligent waste detection system in the initial license of sugarcane harvesters. The first national conference on new technologies of harvesting and post-harvest agricultural products. Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center. (in Persian).
3. Ashraf, M. T., Naik, R. K., & Roy, D. K. (2018). Performance Evaluation of Small Engine Operated Sugarcane Harvester. Trends in Biosciences, 11(4), 517-521.‏
4. Coats, W. E. (2001). Reduced tillage systems for irrigated cotton: Is soil compaction a concern? Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 17(3), 273-279. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.6207
5. Colwick, R. F., & Barker, G. L. (1975). Controlled traffic and reduced inputs for cotton production. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 75, 1051.
6. Hassan, M. A. (2019). Evaluation of Cutting Blades Impact on Productivity and Performance of Sugar Cane Harvesting Machine. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 10(9), 527-532.‏ https://doi.org/10.21608/jssae.2019.62567
7. Khawprateep, S. (2019). Understanding the impacts of pour rate on sugar losses from the chopper harvester. Thesis (PhD/Research). Institute for Advanced Engineering and Space Sciences- Centre for Agricultural Engineering. https://doi.org/10.26192/3xzs-af93
8. Meyer, E. (2005). Machinery systems for sugarcane production in South Africa. MSc Eng Seminar, South African Sugarcane Research Institute. 36 p.
9. Momin, M. A., Wempe, P. A., Grift, T. E., & Hansen, A. C. (2017). Effects of four base cutter blade designs on sugarcane stem cut quality. Transactions of the ASABE, 60(5), 1551-1560.‏ https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12345
10. Ma, S., Karkee, M., Scharf, P. A., & Zhang, Q. (2014). Sugarcane harvester technology: a critical overview. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 30(5): 727-739.‏ https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.30.10696
11. Mathanker, S. K., Gan, H., Buss, J. C., Lawson, B., Hansen, A. C., & Ting, K. C. (2015). Power requirements and field performance in harvesting energy cane and sugarcane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 75, 227-234.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.02.025
12. Moradi, R., Siadat, A., Siahpoosh, A., Bakhshandeh, A., & Moradi Talawat, M. R. (2020a). The effect of changing the harvest method on agronomic and physiological characteristics of sugarcane cultivars. Journal of Applied Biology, 8 (1): 19-32. (in Persian). https://doi.org/29252/ijae.8.1.19
13. Moradi, R., Siadat, A., Siahpoosh, A., Bakhshandeh, A., & Moradi Talawat, M. R. (2020b). Evaluation of syrup quality indicators in green and burnt sugarcane harvest. Journal of Crop Production, 12(1), 99-110. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22055/ppd.2019.25618.1595
14. Monjezi, N., Zaki Dizaji, H., Sheikh Davoodi, M. J., Marzban, A., & Shamili, M. (2018). Application of fuzzy Garrett method in scheduling sugarcane production operations. Journal of Agricultural Engineering (Scientific Journal of Agriculture), 40(1), 125-139. (in Persian).
15. Monjezi, N. (2019). Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and risk assessment in sugarcane workers using RULA method and provide a suitable solution. Journal of Researches in Mechanics of Agricultural Machinery, 8(1), 99-106. (in Persian).
16. Monjezi, N. (2021). Ergonomic Evaluation Posture of Sugarcane Workers using REBA Method. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 11(2), 477- 489. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.v11i2.78574
17. Qasem Nejad Maleki, H. M. (2000). Investigation of sugar wastes due to mechanical harvesting of sugarcane. MSc Thesis in Agricultural Mechanization, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran. (in Persian).
18. Ramos, C. R. G., Lanças, K. P., de Lyra, G. A., & Millani, T. M. (2014). Quality of sugar cane mechanized harvest as function of the forward speed and engine rotation of the harvester. Energia na Agricultura, 29(2), 87-94.‏ https://doi.org/10.17224/energagric.2014v29n2p87-94
19. Schroeder, B., Panitz, J., Linedale, T., Whiteing, C., Callow, B., Samson, P., & Allsopp, P. (2009). Smart Cane harvesting and ratoon management: TE09004 BSES Limited Technical Publication. BSES Limited, Brisbane.‏
20. Siritumajak, J., & Pramuanjaroenkij, A. (2020). The optimum speed investigation of the CASE harvester cleaning fan for KK3 sugarcane. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development, 10(1), 34-39.‏
21. Silva, J., Neves, L. O., Correa, M. H. F., & Souza, C. H. W. (2021). Quality Indexes and Performance in Mechanized Harvesting of Sugarcane at a Burnt Cane and Green Cane. Sugar Tech., 23, 499-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-00957-9
22. Shomeili, M. (2012). Evaluation of agricultural wastes produced during operation of sugarcane production. In CD Proceedings of the 7^th conference of Iranian sugar cane technologists. February: 21-23.‏
23. Viator, R. P., Richard, E. P., Viator, B. J., Jackson, W., Waguespack, H. L., & Birkett, H. S. (2007). Sugarcane chopper harvester extractor fan and ground speed effects on yield and quality. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 23(1), 31-34.‏ https://doi.org/13031/2013.22327
24. Volashjerdi, M. M., Hamzeh, S., Moghaddasi, M., & Shini Dashtgol, A. (2018). Modeling the yield of sugarcane using a hybrid model based on remote sensing data. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Research, 25(6), 141-158. (in Persian). https://doi.org/22069/jwsc.2019.12252.2676
25. Wiedenfeld, B. (2009). Effects of green harvesting vs burning on soil properties, growth and yield of sugarcane in South Texas. Effects of green harvesting vs burning on soil properties, growth and yield of sugarcane in South Texas, 29, 102-109.‏
26. Zaki Dizaji, H., & Monjezi, N. (2019). Evaluate the sources of waste generation during the sugarcane production process and provide solutions to reduce waste. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 8(1) 67-77. (in Persian). https://doi.org/22067/jam.v8i1.59027