Mechanical Harvesting of Sugarcane a potential source of significant infield loss

Transcription

1 Mechanical Harvesting of Sugarcane a potential source of significant infield loss November 5, 2011 JAST Conference by Charmaine Mendez Agronomist Appleton Estate

2 Introduction J. Wray and Nephew owns and operates both New Yarmouth Estate (NYE) and Appleton Estate In 2007 the Mechanical Harvesting Unit (MHU) was created; all units were owned and managed by the JWN In 2011 crop 3550 Ha sugarcane harvested

3 Why we went mechanical Reduction in cut to crush time Reduced dependency on unreliable seasonal labour Improved factory efficiency through consistent payload delivery

4 Mechanical Harvesting The Problem An increase in in-field loss was associated with mechanical harvesting The Approach Quantify the loss Fix if possible

5 Harvest Loss Surveys Purpose To capture an approximate the quantity of sugarcane left in the field due to harvesting activity Surveys covered at least 10 % in 2009 but increased to 30 % in 2011

6 Harvest Loss Survey - Fields were randomly selected Fields cut over 72 hours were not sampled Rows directly adjacent to drains and pivot tracks. Flooded or wet areas Standing cane within field and along periphery

7 Harvest Loss Survey - Protocol 5 m x 5 m plots: 3 rows or 5 m from field periphery 5 7 plots based on field size Record weight of billets, long canes and stumps Record adverse field conditions

8 Billets: Harvest Loss Survey - Protocol Generally cane that passes through the harvester and is cut into smaller pieces. Loss Due to Basket overload Inadequate alignment of basket and harvester Loss can be found Infield Loading bays (not recorded)

9 Spilled Billets

10 Spilled Billets

11 Harvest Loss Survey - Long Cane: Protocol Generally cane that is cut (at the base) by the harvester but not removed from the field (chicken wings) Also includes cane that is leveled by the harvester or tractor but not cut from field May be a reflection of unsuitable field layout Cane growth within furrows and alongside ridges

12 Whole Canes

13 Long Cane

14 Long cane (growing on ridge) pushed down but not picked up.

15 Whole Cane

16 Stumps: Harvest Loss Survey - Protocol Cane remaining that can be chopped off with a machete (sweetest part of the cane!) Usually caused by Insufficient lowering of basal blades Non-uniform ridge height Loss generally greatest in rows adjacent to pivot tracks and drains (not measured)

17 Uncut Cane Stumps

18 Stumps left in field

19 Harvest Loss Analysis Other Stool damage damages Unsuitable ridge height Harvester basal blades Harvester moving too fast for manual adjustment of blade height to the changing ridge height Implications Reduction in quality (extraneous matter) Reduction in future yield Cost of supplying

20 Root damage

21 Uprooted Cane Stools

22 Infield wet spot

23 Head row and drains

24 Stones in field

25 Standing Canes

26 Acceptable Loss

27 Estimated Average Harvest Loss TC/Ha NYE 9.81 AE 8.13 Average % total area was mechanically harvested Loss estimated at more than 26,000 TC Loss estimated at more than JA$134,000,000

28 Data Analysis The data was grouped in the following categories for each estate: Farm Shift: Night, day, night & day Variety Row spacing Ridge Height Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on the categories

29 Data Analysis ANOVA interpretation: P % (or greater) chance that the result is affected by the parameter 5 % (or less) probability that the result was due to chance

30 Data Analysis ANOVA carried out on data: P 0.05 None of the parameters had any clear effect on the infield loss at

31 Estimated Average Harvest Loss TC/Ha NYE 4.58 AE 9.10 Average 6.52 Loss estimated at approximately JA$94,000,000

32 Data Analysis ANOVA carried out on data: P 0.05 NYE P 0.05 AE Casa Maranta Farm was cut significantly better than the other 3 Loss was > 5 tc/ha

33 Harvest Loss 2010 Differences between both estates: NYE is generally dry, AE usually has moist soils NYE generally has flat lands, AE has more undulations Both estates were cut under the supervision of two different units

34 Plan B An incentive scheme was tried The incentive would be available once loss remained below 6 tc/ha. The amount of the incentive would be inversely proportional to the loss; min. earned at 6 tc/ha (zero above) and max. earned at 4 tc/ha and lower Review committee was established MHU team leaders met with farms managers to discuss potential obstacles

35 The Apparent Difference 2009 vs 2010 vs 2011 Crop stands were significantly lodged from the effects of tropical storm Nichole Field layout was distorted due to extensive flooding or water action

36 Estimated Average Harvest Loss TC/Ha NYE 3.84 AE 4.65 Average 4.23 Target achieved! Loss estimated at approximately JA$58,000,000

37 Data Analysis Appleton Estate ANOVA on the parameters revealed possible influence of one parameter Ridge heights less than 6 saw less loss

38 The Real Difference 2009 vs 2010 vs 2011 The MHU: Was encouraged and goal oriented Had a score to settle, a reputation to repair Wanted the incentive

39 Conclusion Infield yield loss associated with mechanical harvesting can be significant Losses can be minimized

40 Recommendations Invest in adequate training Senior harvester operators were sent to Brazil for hands on training Junior staff was paired with senior staff Ensure the unit has set targets Applaud good practices Address bad practices immediately Encourage / facilitate clear communication between field personnel and MHU

41 Field layout Recommendations Remove obstacles from fields; stones, vines etc Night shift fields should be carefully selected Maintain uniform ridge spacing and height where possible Reduce field undulations Remove unnecessary drains Define traffic routes Establish Loading bays and turning points

42 Recommendation Manually harvested fields should be surveyed for comparison

43 The End Thank You