Shifts and Harvesting Systems on Quality of Impurities Samples in Sugarcane

Abstract

Semi-mechanical and mechanical harvesting methods may influence the content of impurities in harvested sugarcane. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of three mechanical methods of sugarcane harvesting: one semi-mechanical, and two mechanical ones -self-performed and outsourced, during three working shifts. As quality indicators, both mineral and vegetal impurities were accounted. About 50 random samples were collected in the studied area during 35 harvest days and in three working shifts, for each harvesting method. Mineral impurities showed similar behavior for both self-performed and outsourced mechanical harvesting, thus displaying a low variability. On the other hand, vegetal impurities showed to be unstable for all three shifts. Additionally, the statistical process control analysis showed that the semi-mechanical method had the greatest variability.

Influence of Operational Conditions of Mechanized Harvesting on Sugarcane Losses and Impurities

“…The absence of a floating cutting mechanism can increase the amount of mineral impurities in the harvested sugarcane, reducing the quality of the raw material supplied (Gray et al, 2009). Alcantara et al (2017) studied the harvesting methods for different work shifts and their influence on mineral impurities, and obtained higher values compared to the present study. The authors justified their results based Engenharia Agrícola, Jaboticabal, v.40, n.3, p.352-355, may/jun.…”

Does Moisture in Pods Interfere With Mechanized Harvesting of Peanuts?

“…In mechanized sugarcane harvesting, a positive correlation was found between the fan speed, wind speed, and pressure in the extractor chamber (Wang et al, 2018); although the feed rate had no effect on the impurity rate, it directly influenced sugarcane losses. A lower variability in IVs was also observed in a study of the quality of mechanized outsourced cane harvesting operations compared to the semi-mechanized and mechanized fronts using more technologically advanced machinery (Alcântara et al, 2017). From a technical perspective, the similarity in the harvest quality between sugarcane and peanut in terms of reducing IVs inside the bulk tank indicates the advantage of peanut harvesters, as sugarcane harvesters have more advanced embedded technology compared to current peanut harvesters.…”

Monitoring performance indicators of mechanized agricultural operations through a systemic method

“…Since OPC, VI, and TVL are in statistical control but are not capable, it is the responsibility of the manager and team to investigate the influence exerted over these indicators and to act in a way to improve them to meet the specifications, making the process predictable. For example, a better balance between harvester and sugarcane yield could improve the performance of OPC (Ramos et al, 2016) or an increment in the rotation of the primary extractor yield better VI performance (Alcantara et al, 2017;Martins et al, 2017), or an increment in the speed of operation that improves the OPC but worsens TVL (Martins et al, 2017;Santos et al, 2014). Regardless of the action taken, it is important that all six indicators are monitored so that the optimum operation is achieved and not the optimum of one indicator only.…”