• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Purpose
 Review of literature
 Florida field research
 Summary and conclusions
 Literature cited






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 794
Title: A harvest comparison of green and burned sugarcane
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027499/00001
 Material Information
Title: A harvest comparison of green and burned sugarcane
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 30 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Orsenigo, J. R
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1978
 Subjects
Subject: Sugarcane -- Harvesting   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 29-30.
Statement of Responsibility: J.R. Orsenigo.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027499
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929881
oclc - 16318282
notis - AEP0689

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Purpose
        Page 2
    Review of literature
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Florida field research
        Page 5
        Methods
            Page 6
            Page 7
        Research results
            Page 8
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
        Research summary
            Page 24
            Page 25
        Implications of Florida research
            Page 26
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Literature cited
        Page 29
        Page 30
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




Bulletin 794 (technical)


A Harvest Comparison
of Green and Burned
Sugarcane
J. R. Orsenigo


Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
F. A. Wood, Dean for Research


4z*


April 1978






CONTENTS


Page
Introduction ............................................ 1
Purpose ................................................ 2
Review of Literature ...................................... 2
Florida Field Research .............................. ... ... 5
Methods ............................................ 6
Research results ...................................... 8
Research summary .............................. .. ... 24
Implications of Florida research ...................... 26
Summary and Conclusions .................................. 27
Literature Cited ............................................ 29


Acknowledgments: The assistance of all cooperators in the con-
duct of this comparison is appreciated: Florida Sugar Corp.;
Glades County Sugar Growers Cooperative Assn.: Hicpochee
Farms; Okeelanta Division, Gulf & Western Food Products,
Inc.; Osceola Farms Co.: Florida Atlantic Farms Co., Hatton
Brothers, Inc., Okeechobee Farms Co., Sugar Cane Farms Co.;
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida: A. Duda & Sons,
Inc., South Bay Growers, Inc., Wedgworth Farms, Inc.; and,
United States Sugar Corp.
Thanks also to Mr. C. E. Freeman and Dr. G. J. Gascho who
collected field data at Florida Sugar Corp. and Hicopchee
Farms, and to the late Mr. Jack Little, ARS, USDA, who helped
collect field data at Wedgworth Farms, Inc.
Cover photograph by Grant Averill.


This public document was promulgated at an annual cost of
$1,495.28 or a cost of 74/I4 per copy to present information
from a study comparing harvesting aspects for non-burned
and burned sugarcane.


Univesity f Floida






A HARVEST COMPARISON OF GREEN
AND BURNED SUGARCANE1

J. R. ORSENIGO2

INTRODUCTION
Preharvest burning to facilitate manual cutting by eliminat-
ing plant foliage and ground "trash" has been a relatively recent
development in sugarcane culture. It was not an early practice
in Florida's sugarcane industry. Bester (5) stated that workers
cut the stalks close to the ground and strip the cane of tops and
leaves. Photographs accompanying this 1941 article illustrate
the harvest of leafy, trashy, unburned cane. In 1956, Bourne (8)
mentioned that fields are burned before cutting to destroy the
bulk of the trash and dead leaves.
The usefulness of preharvest burning is related to canefield
size, daily milling capacity, and hand labor type and cost, at
specific locations. In many areas abundant, low-salaried labor is
accustomed to working in unburned or green cane, and mills
have only a modest daily grinding capacity. These factors have
delayed the introduction of preharvest burning. As a result,
much of the world's sugarcane, especially in the less-developed
countries, is not burned before harvest. Fully mechanized har-
vesting of sugarcane has not been achieved in some locales even
when sugarcane is burned before harvest. Mechanized operations
in unburned cane are much more difficult.
The operational role of preharvest burning is not fully ap-
preciated. Other than removing vegetation, the fires provide
some control of sugarcane pests, including insects and rodents,
weeds, and possibly, foliar diseases. Cultural systems and field
layouts for preharvest burning must include adequate fire lanes
to confine fires to individual fields. The cane acreage burned
daily must not exceed cutting, loading, hauling, and milling
capacities since deStefano (12) reports that sugar losses from
burned cane are accelerated.
Without burning, it may be reasoned that "trash" could have
an effect on all harvest processes-cutting, loading, transporting,
and milling, and on the succeeding ratoon crops. The 1969 report

1 A grant from the Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc., provided partial
financial support for this study.
2 Professor/Plant Physiologist, University of Florida, Institute of Food
and Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Research and Education Center,
Belle Glade, Florida 33430.





(24) of The Joint Task Force for a National Sugar Research
Program acknowledged that burning would be affected by air
pollution regulations. Field burning, however, was not ac-
corded a priority in research approaches toward the mechaniza-
tion objectives: "Develop principles for mechanized harvesting,
cleaning, and handling of recumbent, unburned cane that will
minimize sugar loss and yield a product acceptable for milling
without soil destruction and field damage."
The per acre per year logistical demands of sugarcane in
tonnages harvested, transported, and processed undoubtedly ex-
ceed those of all other agricultural and forestry crops and are
influential in the evolution of operational practices. The final
phase, sugarcane milling or grinding capacity, determines the
level of all prior harvesting inputs.

PURPOSE
Research in this harvest aspect of sugar production was
suggested by the Florida industry in October 1968, when it be-
came apparent that burgeoning public awareness and concern
for environmental matters and governmental regulations would
focus on highly visible open-field preharvest burning of sugar-
cane. A University research program was requested to provide
an unbiased comparison of non-burned (referred to herein as
green cane) with conventional preharvest burned sugarcane at
the field level to obtain information on harvesting aspects and
complementary responses, hopefully, over a several-year period
on the same crop fields. The data are intended to be an evalu-
ation of conventional systems and an information and prediction
base for constructive change.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Sugarcane literature prior to about 1970 contains few com-
parisons of green and preharvested burned systems in relation to
harvestability and harvest economics. Control of pests through
burning received occasional attention. Most of the literature
pertaining to burning has been concerned with trash removal in
the field, the effects of trash on mill operations and sugar re-
covery, and the relationships between burning and cane de-
terioration. The role of trash in sugarcane agronomy has been
studied carefully in certain areas of the world where trash from
green cane conserved soil moisture and improved sugar pro-
duction (22). These benefits were not apparent in extended
trash conservation trials in the Bundaberg area of Australia





(24) of The Joint Task Force for a National Sugar Research
Program acknowledged that burning would be affected by air
pollution regulations. Field burning, however, was not ac-
corded a priority in research approaches toward the mechaniza-
tion objectives: "Develop principles for mechanized harvesting,
cleaning, and handling of recumbent, unburned cane that will
minimize sugar loss and yield a product acceptable for milling
without soil destruction and field damage."
The per acre per year logistical demands of sugarcane in
tonnages harvested, transported, and processed undoubtedly ex-
ceed those of all other agricultural and forestry crops and are
influential in the evolution of operational practices. The final
phase, sugarcane milling or grinding capacity, determines the
level of all prior harvesting inputs.

PURPOSE
Research in this harvest aspect of sugar production was
suggested by the Florida industry in October 1968, when it be-
came apparent that burgeoning public awareness and concern
for environmental matters and governmental regulations would
focus on highly visible open-field preharvest burning of sugar-
cane. A University research program was requested to provide
an unbiased comparison of non-burned (referred to herein as
green cane) with conventional preharvest burned sugarcane at
the field level to obtain information on harvesting aspects and
complementary responses, hopefully, over a several-year period
on the same crop fields. The data are intended to be an evalu-
ation of conventional systems and an information and prediction
base for constructive change.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Sugarcane literature prior to about 1970 contains few com-
parisons of green and preharvested burned systems in relation to
harvestability and harvest economics. Control of pests through
burning received occasional attention. Most of the literature
pertaining to burning has been concerned with trash removal in
the field, the effects of trash on mill operations and sugar re-
covery, and the relationships between burning and cane de-
terioration. The role of trash in sugarcane agronomy has been
studied carefully in certain areas of the world where trash from
green cane conserved soil moisture and improved sugar pro-
duction (22). These benefits were not apparent in extended
trash conservation trials in the Bundaberg area of Australia





(1). This role has little relevance to sugarcane culture on the
organic soils of Florida's Everglades Agricultural Area.
The value of preharvest burning in control of sugarcane field
rodents may not be as great as apparent, especially for burrow-
ing populations (13). Burning can be important in the control
of sugarcane borer larvae (19).
The influence of large quantities of sugarcane leaf trash and
tops on disease, insect, nematode, rodent, and weed problems in
subsequent crops has not been evaluated.
Local experience in cutting green cane as seed for planting
purposes suggests that the productivity of manual cutters is
reduced about 50% as compared with burned cane intended for
milling. A Caribbean producing area has had similar observa-
tions: ". .. our estimate is that a cane cutter can cut at least
twice as much burnt cane as he can green cane."3 In Puerto Rico,
the output per manhour was greater in burned than in non-
burned cane; the cane tonnage and the experience of the cutter
had insignificant effect on labor efficiency (15).
Reportedly in Cuba (14), field burning in the traditional
system increases the cane cutter's productivity by about 39%,
transport utilization is increased by about 28%, and the mill
receives about 60% less extraneous matter. A similar report
(2) indicates that preharvest burning reduced sugarcane field
losses in machine harvesting and more than doubled harvester
capacity per hour.
The total trash content of a field of Cl. 41-223 sugarcane in
Florida ranged from 30.4 to 19.9% as the crop season progressed
from fall to spring; during this period, preharvest burning re-
duced the total trash content by 8 to 10% (9).
The trash content of cane delivered to mills in Hawaii was
increased markedly under green harvest conditions, and sugar
recoveries were lowered by 0.4 to 3.5 tons sugar/A depending
on insular location and usual area burning characteristics (18).
In a recent Hawaiian comparison (20), the tons 960 sugar/A
value was slightly but significantly greater from unburned cane
even though processing rates and sugar refinability were affected
adversely by the unburned cane. Harvesting unburned cane
required average increases of 54% in man-hours/A and 46% in
equipment-hours/A. Field-to-mill transport loads were increased
by 43% for unburned cane, and there was a commensurate in-
crease in fibrous trash delivered to the mills.

3 Personal communication-T. Chinloy, Director of Research, The Sugar
Manufacturers' Association (of Jamaica) Limited.






The literature on the relationship of burning to trash, mill-
ing, and sugar recovery is more extensive than the literature
relating burning to crop production and harvesting.
The first milling response to trash is during grinding when
unburned cane introduces a higher net amount and proportion of
fibrous cane material into the milling process. Keller and Schaffer
(16) reported a 1.0% increase in trash content of cane in-
creased fiber percent cane by 0.43 units and increased mill
power/T cane by 0.16 KWH with a substantial decrease in
grinding rate. Evaluations by Bianchi and Keller (6) demon-
strated that increased trash percent cane was accompanied gen-
erally by increased bagasse percent cane, increased fiber percent
cane, increased mill power/T fiber or per ton of pol, decreased
grinding rate, and decreased pol extraction.
A second effect is that trash, particularly dry material, con-
tains no sugar but can, and apparently does, imbibe the freshly
expressed juice during grinding (7). This trash then becomes
bagasse carrying with it non-recoverable sucrose. Keller and
Seip (17) analyzed trash and bagasse data from seven mills and
determined a linear relationship: for each 1% increase in trash
there was a corresponding 0.46% loss of 960 sugar in the
bagasse. According to Arceneaux and Davidson (3), dry trash
had a pronounced effect on loss of sucrose in the bagasse while
green trash introduced a greater quantity of impurities in the
juice.
The constituents of millable cane stalks, dry trash, and green
trash differ, and impurities from the latter two are not equal.
Arceneaux and Davidson (3) concluded that green trash was
more detrimental than dry trash. Balch and Broeg (4) noted
that trash increased the non-sugar content of mill juice and that
dry-leaf trash was more objectionable than green-leaf trash in
clarification. Juice from trashy cane increased insoluble matter
and required increased lime for clarification (10).
Sucrose recovery and sugar quality are influenced greatly by
trash. Keller and Seip (17) determined that 1.0% trash on gross
cane was associated with a yield loss of 7.88 lb 960 sugar/T cane.
Similar formulae have been developed in other sugarcane pro-
ducing areas. In a recent burning vs non-burning comparison in
Hawaii, the quality of the cane juice and syrup from burned cane
was superior to that of unburned cane and the difference in
quality was related to impurities in the juice of the unburned
cane (23).
Daubert (11) summed up major adverse effects of trash in






the sugar factory in an article in 1949 as follows: trash sam-
pling, loss of sucrose in the bagasse, decrease in grinding rate
due to trash per se and due to lower clarification rate, loss of
sucrose in added mud, loss of sucrose in final molasses, cost of
transportation and grinding of added trash, and increased wear
on milling machinery.

FLORIDA FIELD RESEARCH
The research program prepared for and presented to the
Florida Sugar Cane League and the Florida Department of Air
and Water Pollution Control was designed to obtain comparative
data for green and burned sugarcane related to harvesting oper-
ations, milling, and agronomic responses. It was not possible
to obtain adequate data on all factors outlined, especially those
related to milling and agronomic responses.4 Costs per se were
not obtained for each operation; rather, actual or percentage
values based on burned cane for man and equipment hours per
ton of cane were recorded and reported so that a user of the data
in this report could estimate his cost relationships for each phase
of harvesting.
As originally conceived, each sample was to be either a whole
20 or 40A field unit or half of a field unit. Handling of large
fields generated problems ranging from maintenance of cane
flow from field-to-mill to severe loss of milling capacity when
large quantities of green cane were introduced into the milling
sequence. Sample unit size was decreased in the second and third
years as noted in the methods section which follows.
The latter part of the 1968-69 crop year presented opera-
tional problems, and it was difficult to initiate and program this
research project as the cooperating mills raced to complete
harvest of cane damaged by the mid-December 1968 freeze be-
fore excessive deterioration occurred. The telescoped harvesting
season terminated almost one month earlier than usual. Green
cane foliage was needed to compare the effects of non-burning
under the customary local harvest conditions. When the industry
completed harvest of the most seriously freeze-damaged cane,
it was possible to sample test areas near Lake Okeechobee and
in other relatively protected locations. Comparisons were es-
tablished in February 1969 at five sites to test the proposed
sample methods. Relatively complete harvest data were obtained
from four locations.

4 Copies of the research protocol and the forms used for recording field
data may be obtained on request from the author.





Eight samples, from seven producers and six mills, were ob-
tained in the 1969-70 crop year. Field sample operations started
at mid-crop and all locations had received at least one light frost
which influenced both green and burned samples.
Data were collected at twelve locations, from December
through March, during the 1970-71 harvest season. Preharvest
frost injury was minimal for most samples.

Methods
Test fields were selected with the cooperators; all were lo-
cated on organic soil in the Everglades Agricultural Area around
the southern shore of Lake Okeechobee. The recumbent sugar-
cane variety Cl. 41-223 was uniform throughout the compari-
sons; plant, first ratoon, and second ratoon fields were used. An
attempt was made to choose fields which were to be retained
for several additional crops so that successive annual samples
could be taken. It was virtually impossible to obtain small paired
fields for comparison since most fields in the Everglades pro-
ducing area are large. The most common field is 40A divided into
two 20A units by a fire lane. In these large fields, 32 to 40 sugar-
cane rows (approximately one quarter mile long) on one side
of the test field, adjacent to a field lateral ditch or roadway, were
cut as the green (unburned) sample. Then, the standing sugar-
cane in the remainder of the field was burned, and the 32 or 40
rows immediately adjacent to the green cane were used as the
burned cane sample. Samples ranged from 6.80 to 17.90A in the
1968-69 crop season; samples in subsequent years ranged from
4.27 to 8.10A. Sample acreages are reported in Table 1.
Observations taken on the amount of pre- and post-burn
sugarcane foliage and on burning conditions are not reported
here.
The time to hand cut each sample was obtained by keeping
record of each cane cutter's starting and ending times. Field
accidents, knife cuts, cutters' opinions and other problems were
noted. Usually, on the day after cutting, the windows of piled
sugarcane stalks were picked up by "continuous loaders" and
discharged into side-dump field wagons pulled by field tractors.
The number of loaders and wagons serving each test area and
the total wagon loads were recorded. Time records kept on the
loading operations noted beginning and ending times and inter-
ruptions longer than five minutes. Reasons for inoperation, or
"downtime," were noted. Time-to-load data were taken on sever-
al random pilerows in most test plots. Qualitative observations






TAI
COOPERATOR
1968-69
A
B
C
D#
E


1969-70
1 P
2R
3
4 BS
5 H
6
7#
8 DH


1970-71
I
II H
III BS
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII DH
IX #
X P
XI R
XII


3LE 1.--ACRES PER TEST SAMPLE.
BURNED GREEN


8.50
17.00
8.67
8.10
17.90
Average 12.03


5.40
5.72
4.96
5.35
6.08
7.13
8.10
6.62
Average 6.17


5.43
5.48
5.35
5.84
5.85
5.50
4.53
6.62
8.10
5.44
5.72
5.80
Average 5.81


Overall
Average


8.94
16.90
8.67
6.80
17.90
11.84


5.40
5.72
4.96
5.35
6.08
6.54
6.80
6.79
5.96


5.43
6.08
5.35
5.72
5.85
5.50
4.27
6.79
6.80
5.44
5.72
5.80
5.73


7.17


7.02


were made on the amount of millable cane not picked up in load-
ing and of the "quality" of cutting operation. Again, accidents,
opinions, and loading and hauling problems were noted.
Cooperator equipment and test site location determined the
field-to-mill transport system. Field wagons were used for sever-





al samples, and non-articulated trucks were used also for several
samples. Truck-tractor/trailer combinations with side-dump
trailers rated nominally at 20-tons capacity were used generally.
One corporation uses railroad transportation of cane with rail-
cars of 23-28 ton capacities. The sugarcane from each sample
was transloaded from the field wagons into the road, or rail,
transport unit. The total number of transport trips and the cane
tonnage transported were recorded. Accidents, opinions, and
problems with transfer station operation and/or transport were
noted.
Numerical data were analyzed by analysis of variance with a
single-degree-of-freedom comparison. The terms "significant"
and "highly significant" indicate difference at the P<0.05 and
P<0.01 levels respectively.
It was not possible to obtain meaningful data on mill opera-
tions without the commitment to cut, deliver, and grind thou-
sands of tons of green cane for continuous protracted milling.
Observations on sugarcane growth responses, cultural prac-
tices, and pest incidence were obtained through periodic field
visits.

Research Results
Results and observations are reported in normal harvest
sequence in terms of man-hours, acres, gross tons, net tons,
elapsed hours, and operating hours. Net ton values are equal
to gross tonnage less trash content. Blanks (denoted by -) in
data tables indicate missing data associated with: the failure
of cooperators to determine or record specific values-particular-
ly analyses of cane trash and juice; the use of field wagons for
direct cane transport to the mill; confused reporting; and "lost"
values. "Unpaired" values were not included in the statistical
analyses and are not included in the tabular averages. Compari-
son values for burned and green cane mentioned in the following
text pertain to the overall, or three-crop, averages. Averages
of each year's data are presented in the tables.
Acres per test sample ranged from 4.53 to 17.90 for burned,
and from 4.27 to 17.90 for green cane. The average burned acre-
age was 7.17 and the average green cane acreage was 7.02
(Table 1).
Hand cutting: Overall man-hours/A required were 25.12 for
burned cane and 40.36 for cane harvested green; the difference
was highly significant (Table 2). Green cane was cut at the rate
of 1.00 man-hours/gross ton while the burned cane rate was 0.66






TABLE 2. HAND CUTTING TIME Man hours per acre.
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN
1968-69
A 19.1 20.2
B 22.1 10.5
C 25.0 37.7
D# 41.0 57.1
E 30.2 64.4
Average 27.48 37.98
1969-70
1 P 26.8 43.9
2 R 34.5 112.2
3 14.1 16.5
4 BS 20.2 24.7
5 H 11.9 20.6
6 31.0 37.4
7# 17.8 39.9
8 DH 28.5 38.6
Average 23.10 41.72
1970-71
I 22.7 22.5
II H 16.3 24.1
III BS 24.6 34.1
IV 15.0 20.1
V 20.2 24.8
VI 21.7 30.9
VII 33.1 36.6
VIII DH 38.5 51.0
IX # 15.8 19.9
X P 30.8 102.0
XI R 35.1 55.1
XII 32.1 59.3
Average 25.49 40.03

Overall
Average 25.12 40.36**


man-hours/gross ton; the difference was highly significant
(Table 3). Man-hours/net ton cane values were 0.67 for burned
cane and 1.17 for green cane (Table 3). In one case, green cane
was cut with fewer man-hours per acre, per gross ton, and per
net ton of cane than burned cane; the cane cutters were given
additional incentive on the last day of harvest.






TABLE 3. HAND CUTTING TIME Man hours per gross and
per net ton of cane.


COOPERATE
1968-69
A
B
C
D#
E



1969-70
1P
2R
3
4 BS
5 H
6
7#
8 DH


1970-71
I
II H
III BS
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII DH
IX #
X P
XI R
XII


MAN HOURS PER
GROSS TON CANE
BURNED GREEN


0.79 0.49
0.86 0.97
0.79 1.08
0.70 1.47


Average 0.78 1.00

0.76 1.03
0.52 1.77
0.60 0.62
0.50 0.57
0.41 0.64
0.80 1.25
0.50 1.01
0.70 0.88


Average 0.60 0.97

1.03 0.83
0.54 0.88
0.80 0.90
0.42 0.57
0.37 0.60
0.44 0.63
0.63 0.66
1.03 1.19
0.57 0.83
0.85 3.03
0.65 1.08
0.61 1.13


Average 0.66 1.03


MAN HOURS PER
NET TON CANE
BURNED GREEN


0.83 0.55
0.87 1.17

0.74 1.75


0.81 1.16


0.80
0.55
0.63
0.52
0.43
0.82
0.52
0.73


0.62

1.07
0.56
0.81
0.46
0.39
0.46
0.65
1.08

0.90
0.69
0.67


0.70


1.18
1.91
0.69
0.68
0.74
1.37
1.15
0.97


1.10

1.06
1.65
1.05
0.68
0.66
0.68
0.72


3.24
1.39
1.25


1.24



1.17**


Overall
Average 0.66


1.00** 0.67






It was not possible to obtain quantitative data on hand cut-
ting quality. Generally, green sugarcane was inferior to burned
cane in cutting height and missed stalks. Undoubtedly, cutter
proficiency and attitude played a role in cutting, but the re-
moval of lower leaf and ground trash in burned cane permitted
the cutters to sever the cane stalks closer to ground level and to
cut all stalks in a stool.
Among other hand cutting observations, only minor acci-
dental cuts were reported during harvesting. Many cutters ob-
jected to cutting green cane, and occasional cutters refused to
work. In all cases, incentives were offered cutters for green cane
harvesting.
Loading: Total elapsed hours and total operating hours in
loading field wagons with continuous loaders differed widely
among the test locations in accordance with field acreages, tons/
A, and the age and condition of the machine. Usually, the same
operators and the same machines loaded both green and burned
samples. The total elapsed hours/A difference between 3.13 hours
for burned and 8.28 hours for green cane was highly significant
(Table 4). Total operating hours/A for loading averaged 2.27
hours for burned and 5.80 for green cane, a highly significant
difference (Table 4). Much of the downtime, or difference be-
tween elapsed and operating hours, was attributable to inter-
ruptions in loading when green cane choked the loaders and
cleaning was required. Some downtime, particularly for the
burned cane samples, was apportioned to insufficient field wagons
for continuous cyclical transportation from field to transfer
stations.
Continuous loaders averaged 2.63 A/elapsed hour in burned
and 1.11A in green cane; 3.96 A/operating hour in burned and
1.66A in green cane. Both differences were highly significant
(Table 5).
Loader capacity, in gross tons cane loaded/elapsed hour, was
98.09 in burned and 41.93 in green cane (Table 6). Capacity, in
terms of gross tons cane loaded/operating hour, was 149.88 and
61.96 for burned and green cane, respectively (Table 7). The
differences between burned and green cane were highly signifi-
cant.
Loader capacity as net tons cane loaded/elapsed hour was
94.70 for burned and 37.96 for green cane, while values for net
tons cane loaded/operating hour were 145.54 for burned and
55.97 for green cane; both differences were highly significant
(Table 6 and Table 7).






TABLE 4. -CONTINUOUS LOADERS-LOADING TIME-Total
elapsed and total operating hours per sample.
TOTAL TOTAL
ELAPSED HOURS OPERATING HOURS
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN


Averag


1968-69
A
B
C
D#
E



1969-70
1P
2R
3
4 BS
5 H
6
7#
8 DH



1970-71
I
II H
III BS
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII DH
IX #
XP
XI R
XII


Average


5.38 10.07
2.23 10.50
4.42 10.20
9.75 29.17


e 5.45 14.99

1.83 6.75
2.67 15.00
0.95 2.90
2.33 3.08
1.62 5.53

2.52 3.97
3.95 7.65

S2.27 6.41

1.77 4.90
2.83 10.23
4.13 6.58
2.47 4.58
3.42 9.13
6.58 15.05
2.20 2.77
3.12 7.48
2.57 6.38
1.33 1.67
1.87 12.60
2.00 4.27


2.86 7.14


5.12
2.07
2.95
9.75


4.97

1.83
1.67
0.95
1.18
1.28

1.27
1.70


1.41

1.30
2.00
1.52
1.28
1.77
6.58
0.70
1.12
1.60
1.33
1.87
1.42


1.87


8.67
8.27
7.28
24.17


12.10

5.92
8.58
1.97
2.08
3.93

3.02
3.02


4.07

4.57
7.20
4.20
2.45
4.53
9.87
1.85
2.72
4.18
1.25
10.60
3.05


4.71


Overall
Average 3.13


8.28** 2.27 5.80**


Average


8.28** 2.27


5.80**






TABLE 5.- CONTINUOUS LOADERS, ACRES CANE LOADED-
Per elapsed hour and per operating hour.
ACRES PER ACRES PER
ELAPSED HOUR OPERATING HOUR
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN


Average 2.68


2.95
2.14
5.22
2.30
3.75

3.21
1.68


Average 3.04


3.07
1.94
1.30
2.36
1.71
0.84
2.06
2.12
3.15
4.09
3.06
2.90


Average 2.38


Overall
Average 2.63**


1968-69
A
B
C
D#
E


1.68
0.82
0.67
0.61


0.95


0.80
0.38
1.71
1.74
1.10

1.71
0.89


1.19


1.11
0.59
0.81
1.25
0.64
0.37
1.54
0.91
1.07
3.26
0.45
1.36


1.11


3.32
4.19
2.75
1.84


3.03


2.95
3.42
5.33
4.53
4.75

6.38
3.89


4.45


4.18
2.74
3.52
4.56
3.31
0.84
6.47
5.91
5.06
4.09
3.06
4.08


3.99



3.96**


1.95
1.05
0.93
0.73


1.17


0.91
0.67
2.52
2.57
1.55

2.25
2.25


1.82


1.19
0.84
1.27
2.33
1.29
0.56
2.31
2.50
1.63
4.35
0.54
1.90


1.73


1969-70
1 P
2R
3
4 BS
5H
6
7#
8 DH


1970-71
I
II H
III BS
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII DH
IX #
X P
XI R
XII






TABLE 6. -CONTINUOUS LOADERS, TONS CANE LOADED
PER ELAPSED HOUR. Gross tons and net tons.
GROSS TONS NET TONS
LOADED LOADED
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN


1968-69
A
B
C
D#
E


88.6
112.9
95.2
78.9


Average 93.90


103.8
142.6
123.4
92.6
109.4

114.5
68.0


Average 107.76


67.4
59.0
39.9
84.6
93.6
41.0
107.6
79.5
87.1
148.7
166.0
151.5


Average 93.83


Overall
Average 98.09**


-
36.3
32.0
35.1
26.6


32.50


34.1
24.1
45.9
74.6
35.5

67.9
38.8


45.84


30.0
9.8
30.7
44.0
26.4
18.0
86.0
38.9
25.5
109.7
23.1
71.5


42.80



41.93


84.2
111.1

74.8


90.03


98.9
135.7
116.7
88.7
103.8

109.6
65.3


102.67


64.7
56.0
39.5
77.7
88.9
39.0
104.1
75.5

139.4
156.7
139.2


89.15


94.70** 37.96


32.3
26.7

22.3


27.10


27.5
22.4
40.7
62.5
30.8

59.6
35.3


39.83


23.5
8.6
26.3
36.9
24.1
16.6
78.2


102.5
18.0
64.3


39.90


1969-70
1P
2R
3
4 BS
5H
6
7#
8 DH



1970-71
I
II H
III BS
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII DH
IX #
X P
XI R
XII






TABLE 7.- CONTINUOUS LOADERS, TONS CANE LOADED
PER OPERATING HOUR. Gross tons and net tons.
GROSS TONS NET TONS
LOADED LOADED
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN


93.1
121.6
95.2
78.9


Average 97.20


103.8
228.0
123.4
182.9
138.5

227.2
158.1


Average 165.99


91.8
83.6
108.5
163.2
180.8
41.0
338.1
221.6
139.9
148.7
166.0
213.3


Average 158.04


Overall
Average 149.88**


1968-69
A
B
C
D#
E


-
42.1
40.6
35.1
32.1


37.48


38.9
42.1
59.5
110.5
30.8

89.3
98.2


67.04


32.1
14.0
48.1
82.2
53.3
27.4
128.8
106.9
38.9
146.6
27.5
100.1


67.16


88.5
119.7

74.8


94.33


98.9
216.9
116.7
175.2
131.4

217.6
151.8


158.36


88.1
79.2
107.2
149.9
171.8
39.0
327.3
210.2

139.4
156.7
196.0


151.35


145.54** 55.97


37.5
33.8

26.9


32.73


31.3
39.1
60.0
92.6
43.3

78.3
89.5


62.01


25.3
12.4
41.2
68.9
48.5
25.3
117.1


136.9
21.4
90.0


58.70


1969-70
1P
2R
3
4 BS
5 H
6
7#
8 DH



1970-71
I
II H
III BS
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII DH
IX #
X P
XI R
XII


61.96





Scrapping after loading, representing cane not picked up by
the continuous loader and potentially or actually lost or requir-
ing additional labor for recovery, was greater in green cane
fields. This condition resulted from missed stalks, those not cut
by the cutters, and from poorly defined pilerows in green cane.
Field wagon transport: The capacity of most field wagons
used to transport cane from the continuous loader in the field to
the transfer or transload stations is rated nominally at four tons.
In a few cases, larger six-ton wagons were used and were
equated at 1.5 four-ton wagons. The difference between gross
tons cane per wagon load for burned and green cane was highly
significant; the values were 3.95 and 2.62 tons, respectively
(Table 8). The capacities for net tons cane per wagon load also
differed highly significantly; 3.78 for burned and 2.36 tons for
green cane (Table 8).
Transload station: Leaf trash in the green cane tended to
bind the field wagon loads into bundles that did not dump or
unload easily and smoothly from the wagons. The green cane
did not spread as evenly and uniformly on the transload con-
veyor and occasional bundles caused chokes when they contacted
conveyor structural supports. The tangled, bundled green cane
did not flow easily from the conveyor into the mill transport
units and sometimes spilled onto the ground. The rapid accumu-
lation of leaf trash around the transload stations during green
cane loading appeared to be a potential fire hazard. The exces-
sive spillage of green cane and trash induced losses of undeter-
mined quantities of cane and required additional hand labor to
clean up the transload station area.
Mill transport: The average mill transport capacities of
mixed trailer and railcar units recorded for gross tons cane/load
were: burned, 21.60 and green, 15.15 tons. In the same category,
trailer loads averaged 19.87 for burned and 12.62 tons for green
cane, while railcar average loads were 24.77 for burned and
19.80 tons for green cane. The differences between burned and
green cane were highly significant (Table 9).
On a net tons of cane/load basis, burned cane averaged 20.85
and green cane averaged 13.69 tons. Capacities were 19.18 tons
for burned and 11.04 tons for green cane transported per trailer;
23.33 tons for burned and 17.23 tons for green cane per railcar
unit. Differences between burned and green cane were highly
significant (Table 9).






TABLE 8.--FIELD TRANSPORT, TONS CANE PER WAGON
LOAD. Gross tons and net tons.
GROSS TONS NET TONS
PER LOAD PER LOAD
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN

1968-69
A
B 3.84 2.17 3.65 1.94
C 2.62 2.54 2.58 2.12
D# 3.66 2.24 -
E 4.00 2.86 3.80 2.39


Average 3.53 2.45 3.34 2.15
1969-70
1 P 3.96 2.74 3.77 2.21
2 R 4.33 3.44 4.12 3.19
3 4.51 2.61 4.26 2.32
4 BS 4.07 3.02 3.90 2.53
5 H 3.28 2.11 3.11 1.83
6 ---
7# 3.80 2.45 3.63 2.15
8 DH 3.73 2.47 3.58 2.25

Average 3.95 2.69 3.77 2.35
1970-71
I 4.97 2.88 4.77 2.26
II H 3.56 2.12 3.37 1.88
III BS 4.23 2.93 4.18 2.51
IV 3.73 2.40 3.43 2.01
V 4.00 2.16 3.80 1.96
VI 3.96 2.42 3.77 2.23
VII 3.82 2.98 3.70 2.71
VIII DH 4.00 1.94 3.80 -
IX # 3.55 1.89 -
X P 4.30 3.46 4.03 3.23
XI R 4.20 3.10 3.96 2.42
XII 4.66 3.32 4.28 2.98


Average 4.08 2.63 3.92 2.42

Overall
Average 3.95** 2.62 3.78** 2.36






TABLE 9. -MILL TRANSPORT, TONS CANE PER UNIT LOAD.
Gross tons and net tons.
GROSS TONS NET TONS
PER LOAD PER LOAD
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN


1968-69
A
B
C
D#
E


1969-70
1 P
2R
3
4 BS
5 H
6
7#
8 DH


19.4
19.1
24.0 R
Average 20.83


23.7 R
25.4 R

24.0
19.7

20.6
19.2
Average 22.10


1970-71
I
II H
III BS
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII DH
IX #
X P
XI R
XII

Average
Overall Average
per load
Average per truck
trailer load
Average per rail-
car load (R)


20.9

14.9


21.5
20.7
18.6
24.7 R
24.8 R
26.0 R
21.51

21.60**

19.87

24.77 R


12.9
13.8
17.3 R
14.67


16.4 R
21.3 R

14.4
10.9

12.2
12.9
14.68



12.5

11.8


14.0
12.6
10.8
22.9 R
18.6 R
22.3 R
15.69

15.15

12.62


19.0

22.8 R
20.90


22.6 R
24.1 R

23.0
18.7

19.7
18.4
21.08



19.8

13.7


20.8
19.6

23.2 R
23.4 R
23.9 R
20.63


10.8

14.5 R
12.65


13.2 R
19.7 R

12.0
9.5

10.7
11.7
12.80



11.0

9.9


12.7


21.4 R
14.5 R
20.1 R
14.93


20.85** 13.69


19.18


11.04


19.80 R 23.33 R 17.23 R






TABLE 10.-PERCENT TRASH IN CANE DELIVERED TO MILL.

COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN

1968-69
A 5.41 16.97
B 4.90 10.89
C 1.62 16.70
D# -
E 5.13 16.16

Average 4.27 15.18
1969-70
1 P 4.67 19.47
2 R 4.87 7.25
3 5.42 11.18
4 BS 4.18 16.22
5 H 5.10 13.20
6 2.73 9.31
7# 4.24 12.26
8 DH 3.99 8.92

Average 4.40 12.23
1970-71
I 4.10 21.45
II H 5.20 11.75
III BS 1.20 14.40
IV 8.13 16.18
V 5.00 8.99
VI 4.88 7.80
VII 3.19 9.09
VIII DH 5.14
IX # -
X P 6.28 6.62
XI R 5.65 21.94
XII 8.10 10.05


Average 5.17 12.83

Overall
Average 4.74 13.04**









TABLE 11. -DEGREES BRIX, PERCENT SUCROSE, AND PERCENT THEORETICAL YIELD 960 SUGAR.
DEGREES BRIX PERCENT SUCROSE % YIELD 960 SUGAR
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN

1968-69
A
B 16.38 13.94 14.02 10.23 9.64 6.42
C 17.64 17.41 15.99 15.65 9.72 9.25
D# 17.91 17.94 15.10 15.20 10.84 10.91
E 11.76 11.51
Average 17.31 16.43 15.04 13.69 10.49 9.52
1969-70
1 P 17.81 18.23 15.26 15.37 10.52 10.25
2 R 18.00 18.85 15.88 16.41 11.17 11.44

4 BS 17.28 17.86 15.93 16.07 10.75 10.71
5 H 16.80 17.56 14.63 15.61 -
6 14.50 14.47 11.62 11.32 8.00 7.75
7# 16.00 16.73 13.12 13.80 -
8 DH 16.01 16.96 13.05 13.87 -
Average 16.63 17.24 14.21 14.64 10.11 10.04


f V




1^


TABLE 11. (Cont.)-DEGREES BRIX, PERCENT SUCROSE, AND PERCENT THEORETICAL YIELD 960 SUGAR.
DEGREES BRIX PERCENT SUCROSE % YIELD 960 SUGAR
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN

1970-71
I 17.18 17.98 14.37 14.55 -
II H
III BS 19.44 21.71 18.21 20.56 11.91 12.38
IV 18.74 18.99 16.49 16.51 10.92 10.87
V 16.42 16.90 13.18 13.47 9.15 9.74
VI 18.30 18.75 15.52 15.79 11.08 11.37
VII 18.45 18.70 15.85 15.83 -
VIII DH 19.68 19.76 16.56 16.52 -
IX # 17.64 18.38 14.37 15.09 -
X P 19.04 20.06 16.06 17.47 11.79 12.85
XI R 19.60 17.73 16.82 14.51 11.57 9.69
XII 17.86 18.72 15.29 15.99 10.16 10.63
Average 18.40 18.88 15.70 16.03 10.94 11.08
Overall
Average 17.65 17.98 15.11 15.23 10.60 10.38





Percent trash in cane at the mills averaged 4.73 for burned
and 13.04 for green cane; the difference was highly significant
(Table 10).
Juice quality: Cane juice from the test fields was character-
ized by mill sampling to determine oBrix, percent sucrose and
percent theoretical yield of 960 sugar. These values are likely
to vary among the mills in accordance with sampling procedures,
methodology, and mill factors used in calculation. These measures
did not differ significantly between burned and green cane.
Degrees Brix recorded for burned cane and green cane were
17.65 and 17.98, respectively (Table 11).
Percent sucrose was calculated at 15.11 and 15.23 for burned
and green cane, respectively (Table 11).
Percent theoretical yield of 96* sugar values were 10.60 for
burned and 10.38 for green cane (Table 11).
Tonnages and acreages of test samples: Gross tons cane/A
for the test samples ranged from 22.0 to 66.6 for burned and
21.6 to 63.2 for green cane. The averages were 39.38 for burned
and 39.83 for green cane; the difference was not significant
(Table 12).
Net tons cane/A ranges were 21.1 to 63.3 for burned samples
and 19.3 to 58.6 for green samples. The average net tonnages
were 37.45 for burned and 34.77 for green cane; the difference
was not significant (Table 12).
It was not possible to obtain a direct comparison of the effects
of green and burned cane on mill operations without protracted
grinding of green cane to compare with the "normal" mill-runs
of pre-harvest burned cane. Major problems at the mills associ-
ated with green cane included: unloading field transport units,
chokes and stoppages in the conveyors, leaf-trash particles in
flumes, reduced grinding rate, and high-moisture bagasse fuel.
Differential effects were limited in the ratoon crops. Usually
ratoon regrowth was retarded to some degree in the green fields
soon after harvest. Green and burned cane developed uniformly
as the season advanced. The great amount of leaf trash in the
green cane fields, particularly those not frosted, interfered with
normal cultural operations. The following were practically im-
possible in fields harvested green: subsoiling and chiseling, fer-
tilizer incorporation, mechanical tillage, and efficient herbicide
usage. It was estimated that trash spreaders could operate only
with difficulty. Anticipated pest problems, especially with insects
and rodents, did not develop. A severe climbing cutworm attack






TABLE 12. -GROSS AND NET TONS CANE PER ACRE.
GROSS TONS CANE NET TONS CANE
PER ACRE PER ACRE
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN

1968-69
A --
B 28.0 21.6 26.7 19.3
C 29.1 38.8 28.6 32.3
D# 52.0 52.7 -
E 43.0 43.9 40.7 36.8

Average 38.03 39.25 32.00 29.47
1969-70
1 P 35.2 42.6 33.5 34.3
2 R 66.6 63.2 63.3 58.6
3 23.6 26.8 22.3 23.8
4 BS 40.3 43.0 38.6 36.0
5 H 29.1 32.3 27.7 28.0
6 39.0 30.2 37.9 27.3
7# 35.6 39.6 34.1 34.8
8 DH 40.6 43.7 39.0 39.8

Average 38.75 40.18 37.05 35.33
1970-71
I 22.0 27.0 21.1 21.2
II H 30.5 27.3 28.9 24.1
III BS 30.8 37.8 30.5 32.2
IV 35.8 35.2 32.9 29.5
V 54.7 41.3 52.0 37.6
VI 49.0 49.2 46.6 45.4
VII 52.2 55.8 50.6 50.7
VIII DH 37.5 42.8 35.6
IX # 27.6 23.9 -
X P 36.4 33.7 34.1 31.4
XI R 54.3 50.9 51.2 39.7
XII 52.2 52.6 48.0 47.3

Average 40.25 39.79 39.23 35.91

Overall
Average 39.38 39.83 37.45 34.77





TABLE 13.-GROSS AND NET TONS CANE PER ACRE FOR
FIELDS HARVESTED AS GREEN AND BURNED
CANE IN SUCCESSIVE CROPS.
GROSS TONS CANE NET TONS CANE
PER ACRE PER ACRE
COOPERATOR BURNED GREEN BURNED GREEN

#: 7, 1969-70 35.6 39.6 34.1 34.8
IX, 1970-71 27.6 23.9 -
P: 1, 1969-70 35.2 42.6 33.5 34.3
X, 1970-71 36.4 33.7 34.1 31.4
R: 2, 1969-70 66.6 63.2 63.3 58.6
XI, 1970-71 54.3 50.9 51.2 39.7
BS: 4, 1969-70 40.3 43.0 38.6 36.0
III, 1970-71 30.8 37.8 30.5 32.2
H: 5, 1969-70 29.1 32.3 27.7 28.0
II, 1970-71 30.5 27.3 28.9 24.1
DH: 8, 1969-70 40.6 43.7 39.0 39.8
VIII, 1970-71 37.5 42.8 35.6 -
Average Decline)
Between 1969-70)
& 1970-71 crops) -5.05 -8.00 -4.36 -7.37


necessitated application of insecticides in one green cane sample
while the adjacent burned cane sample did not require treatment.
A comparison of successive yields from green and burned sample
fields indicates a greater yield decline in green cane plots for
both gross and net tons cane/A (Table 13). The short duration
of these comparisons and the relatively small and isolated
samples may have minimized agronomic problems and also pre-
cluded establishing confidence limits for yield differences. An ex-
tension of the practices compared in these trials over a greater
acreage and over a longer term would be required to develop
adequate agronomic information.

Research Summary
The data obtained in this three-year comparison of green and
burned cane harvest operations and observed agronomic re-
sponses demonstrate the following differences for which overall
average values are given in Table 14.
A 50% increase in man-hours/gross ton cane was required






TABLE 14.- COMPARISON OF OVERALL AVERAGE VALUES
FOR BURNED AND GREEN CANE HARVEST
PARAMETERS.
GREEN/
HARVEST PARAMETER BURNED GREEN BURNED

MANUAL CUTTING,
man-hours/gross T 0.66** 1.00 1.52
CONTINUOUS LOADER
CAPACITY,
gross T/operating hour 149.9 ** 62.0 0.41
FIELD TRANSPORT
CAPACITY,
gross T/unit 3.95** 2.62 0.66
FIELD-MILL TRANSPORT
CAPACITY,
gross T/unit: overall 21.60** 15.15 0.70
truck-trailer 19.87** 12.62 0.64
railcar 24.77** 19.80 0.80
TRASH IN CANE AT MILL,
percent 4.73** 13.04 2.76

NB Burned and green cane differed highly significantly (P<0.01) (**)
for each of the above parameters. Burned and green cane did not
differ significantly in Brix, percent sucrose, or theoretical yield of 960
sugar.


for cutting green cane. Qualitatively, cutting was inferior in
green cane and harvest of the green test samples was accom-
plished only by offering the cutters incentive differentials.
Continuous loader operation was affected markedly by the
additional trash in the green cane samples which impeded pickup,
cutting, and conveying mechanisms. Green cane reduced loader
capacity about 59% on a gross tons cane loaded/operating hour
basis.
Field wagon transport capacity for green cane was two-thirds
that of burned cane on a gross tonnage basis.
Transload stations did not transfer green cane into mill trans-
port units as readily as burned cane.
Mill transport unit capacity of green cane was 70% of burned
cane on a gross tonnage basis.
Observations and limited data supplied by cooperators indi-
cate that green cane presented occasional unloading, conveying,
and milling problems. Green cane received at the mill contained
2.8 times the trash levels of the burned cane samples. Green and





burned cane samples did not differ in juice quality parameters
in these trials.
The data obtained are insufficient to support conclusions or
predictions on the agronomic results of repeated green cane
harvest practices.

Implications of Florida Research
A shift to harvesting green or unburned cane will influence
cultural practices to an unknown degree. The most immediate
effects of trash will be on fertilization and cultivation practices.
The greatest impact of nonburning would be on harvest
operations. Hand cutting in green cane would require at least
a 50% greater labor force and wage differentials would be re-
quired. In addition, the quality of cutting would suffer and there-
by induce unmeasured losses in the harvested crop and the sub-
sequent ratoon.
To maintain an acceptable flow rate of cane from the fields,
it will be necessary to at least double, and perhaps triple, the
number of cane loaders in operation. Increased maintenance and
downtime from continuous service in green cane could require
additional stand-by units.
Field transport of green cane from field-to-transload stations
will require a 50% increase in numbers of cane wagons and trac-
tors to maintain tonnage of green cane equivalent to that burned
cane.
A similar increase of about 50% in numbers of transload-to-
mill transport units will be required.
A decision not to increase the numbers of field and mill
transport units would require a 50% increase in numbers of
trips.
The increased requirement in numbers of loaders and of field
and mill transport units will require increased horsepower or
horsepower hours with commensurate effects on fuel consump-
tion, engine emissions, maintenance, and both operating and
service personnel.
Effects of green cane harvesting on mill operations are less
predictable. A three-fold increase in trash can be expected with
nonburning. This increase will undoubtedly affect trash de-
ductions and crop payments to growers, trash disposal, and sup-
plemental fuel-oil stoking of boilers to overcome inadequate
steam generation associated with moist bagasse.
This research did not determine the effect of green cane har-
vesting on sugar recovery.





Viable alternatives to preharvest burning are limited. Pre-
harvest chemical desiccation of sugarcane foliage could reduce
the weight of field trash, but desiccation is most promising when
combined with preharvest burning. This practice would require
the expense and management of another chemical tool.
Mechanical harvesters have been used to cut and load erect,
moderate tonnage sugarcane for seed purposes early in the crop,
but they have not reached desired performance levels in fields
destined for milling. Slow loading and a high trash content
(10.28%) were recorded in one trial (21).
Trash cleaning units mounted on continuous loaders, me-
chanical harvesters, or transload stations offer a possibility of
removing trash after the cane is cut. Current trash cleaning
units are not highly efficient but do reduce trash content of cane
delivered to the mill. Trash cleaning stations located at the mill
could have greater capacity and be more efficient than field units,
but they would require the cartage of trash to the mill and then
disposal after separation.
New varieties satisfactory for completely mechanized har-
vesting have not been commercialized. Erect varieties which lose
their senescent leaf blades and sheaths appear promising, but
trash accumulation on the ground interferes with a harvesting
machine operator's ability to sense the height of cut, interferes
with cutting and pickup components, and causes free trash to
be picked up and introduced into the conveying system. Some of
these operational problems have occurred in exploratory trials
in Florida (21).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Preharvest burning of sugarcane is practiced to reduce trash
-dead and live crop foliage and weeds. Nonsugar bearing plant
material has practical and economic influence on sugarcane har-
vesting and milling operations. Burning and trash left in the
cane field influence agronomic practices. The sugarcane literature
provided little insight into the comparison of harvesting green
and burned cane.
Florida research was conducted to compare harvesting of
green and conventionally burned cane on a field-scale basis. Ac-
tual costs per se were not an objective and were not determined;
green cane values were compared with those observed for burned
cane, the industry standard. Sample units were scaled down to
adjacent plots of about seven acres in size when large acreages





of green cane affected mill operations and harvest scheduling
adversely. Plant, first ratoon, and second ratoon fields of the re-
cumbent variety Cl. 41-223 were used for all samples. An at-
tempt was made to choose fields to be retained for successive
annual sampling. Comparative data were recorded on the fol-
lowing phases for green and burned cane for each sample field:
hand cutting, field loading, field and mill transport, tonnage,
trash content, and juice quality. Supplementary data and ob-
servations for each phase were taken as appropriate and feasi-
ble. Agronomic observations were made in the succeeding ratoon
crops.
Florida research results may be summarized by the following
average values: hand cutting green cane, 1.00 and burned cane,
0.66 man-hours/gross ton of cane; continuous loader capacity in
gross tons cane/operating hour green cane, 62.0 and burned
cane, 149.9; field wagon capacity in gross tons/wagon load green
cane, 2.62 and burned cane, 3.95; mill transport capacity in
gross tons/mixed load (trailer and railcar) green cane, 15.15
and burned cane, 21.60; percent trash in green cane, 13.04 and
burned cane, 4.73. The above differences between green and
burned cane values were highly significant. Average differences
in juice quality values of 2 to 3% between green and burned
cane samples were not significant. It was not possible to obtain
an adequate comparison between green and burned cane on phy-
sical milling operations and on sugar extraction, but adverse
qualitative effects were reported frequently for green cane. Sub-
sequent agronomic effects from leaf trash left in fields harvested
green were limited and transitory. Trash was a major impedi-
ment in tillage operations. Anticipated pest problems did not
develop. The usual annual decline in sugarcane tonnage in suc-
cessive crops was slightly greater in fields harvested green. The
scope of these trials precludes effective forecasting of long-term
effects of non-burning on sugarcane production and management.
This research, and the literature on sugarcane milling, imply
that a shift from burned cane to green cane harvesting would
have a severe impact on the industry with the greatest effects
on harvest operations and on processing. The hand-cutter labor
force would have to be increased by at least 50%, and wage
supplementation would be necessary concomitant with a probable
decrease in the quality of cutting. Maintaining the flow of sugar-
cane from the field to the mills could require as much as a trip-
ling of cane loaders in operation to serve at least 50% more field
and mill transport units. Operating hours of existing field and






transport equipment will have to be increased commensurate
with the above estimates if additional units are not placed in
operation. The increase in energy input and added operating
and service requirements will be great. A three- to five-fold
increase in trash will be delivered to the mills under green cane
harvesting with present equipment and procedures. The effects
of trash on processing were not determined in this research, but
the literature indicates that increases in trash affect the entire
sequence of milling operations and sugar recovery. Comparative
values developed during this study and obtained from the mill-
ing literature permit individual mills to calculate the magnitude
of responses in a transition from conventional burned cane to
green cane harvesting at the present level of technology and
operations.
No solutions to the problems associated with harvesting
green cane are available at present. Preharvest desiccation, me-
chanical harvesters, and varietal modification simultaneously
offer some promise and different problems. Fully acceptable me-
chanical harvesters for burned cane have not been developed,
and these units are less effective in green cane.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Anon. 1965. Permanent trash trials. Cane Growers' Qtrly. Bul.
29 (1):8.
2. Anon. 1970. The effect of cane burning. IN Cane mechanization
in Cuba. Int'l Sugar J. 73:107-110.
3. Arceneaux, George, and Lester G. Davidson. 1944. Some effects of
trash in cane on milling results. Sugar Bul. 22 (18) :151-158.
4. Balch, R. T., and C. R. Broeg. 1948. The sugar cane trash problem
from a chemical standpoint. Int'l Sugar J. 50:322-323.
5. Bestor, H. A. 1941. Sugarcane growing in the Everglades. Facts
About Sugar 36 (1):19-25.
6. Bianchi, R. H., and Arthur G. Keller. 1952. Clean fresh cane-How
much is it worth? Louisiana State Univ. Eng. Expt. Sta. Bul.
28. 40 pp.
7. Birkett, L. S. 1965. The influence of tops and trash on the economics
of sugar production. Proc. ISSCT 12:1636-1642.
8. Bourne, B. A. 1956. Florida. IN Sugarcane cultivation throughout
the world. Advance reprint from Handbook of Sugarcane, Vol.
2. 22 pp.
9. Clayton, Joe E., and Donald B. Churchill. 1973. Cleaning sugarcane
during harvest: cleaning rolls or pneumatics. Amer. Soc. Sugar
Cane Tech. 1972 Meetings Proc. 2:143-146.
10. Coll, E. E., W. F. Guilbeau, J. T. Jackson and S. J. Cangemi. 1965.
Juice clarification experiments on trashy vs clean cane. Sugar
Bul. 43: 245-248.






11. Daubert, W. S. 1949. The cost of trash to the sugar factory. Sugar
44 (7) : 32-33.
12. deStefano, Ronald P. 1976. Deterioration losses in Florida sugar-
cane. Amer. Soc. Sugar Cane Tech. 1975 Meetings Proc. 5
(NS) :66-70.
13. Doty, J. W. 1959. Rodent control in commercial cane areas of Flori-
da Everglades. Proc. ISSCT 10:1011-1015.
14. Gonzalez E., V., and A. Sotolongo A. ,1970. Economic evaluation of
systems of harvesting by manual cutting for cane cleaning sta-
tion and traditional cutting in burnt fields. XXXIX Conf. Assoc.
Tech. Azue. Cuba. 1970:300-313. Seen in abstract only (Int'l
Sugar J. 73:272. 1970).
15. Gonzalez Villafane, E., et al. 1968. Algunos factors que afectan la
eficiencia del cortador de cana en Puerto Rico. Univ. de Puerto
Rico, Estac. Expt. Agr. Bol. 210:1, 3, 5-15. Seen in abstract only
(Trop. Abs. 24 (4): S881. 1969).
16. Keller, Arthur G., and Francis C. Schaffer. 1951. The effect of cane
trash on the milling operation. Louisiana State Univ., Eng. Expt.
,Sta. Bul. 25. 43 pp.
17. Keller, Arthur G., and John J. Seip. 1948. A study of the causes of
the declining sugar recovery in Louisiana. Louisiana State Univ.,
Eng. Expt. Sta. Bul. 14. 23 pp.
18. Nickell, L. G. 1970. Comparisons of burning vs non-burning of cane.
I. Field. Hawaiian Sugar Tech. 1970. Reports: 101-110.
19. Questel, D. D., and T. E. Bregger. 1959. Internal temperatures in
preharvest burned cane and mortality of the sugarcane borer.
Proc. ISSCT 10:921-923.
20. Sloane, G. E., and L. J. Rhodes. 1972. A comparison of the process-
ing of .burned and unburned sugarcane. Hawaiian Planters'
Record. 58 (14) :173-182.
21. Swager, Tom L., and Ray L. Walker. 1971. The Toft CH 364 Robot
cane harvester at Florida Sugar Corporation. Amer. Soc. Sugar
Cane Tech. 1971 Meetings Proc. 1:30-32.
22. Thompson, G. D. 1965. The effects of trash conservation on soil
moisture and the sugarcane crop in Natal. Proc. S. African Sugar
Tech. Assn. 39:143-156.
23. Tu, J. C. 1969. Comparisons of burning vs non-burning of cane. II.
Factory-Refinability. Hawaiian Sugar Tech. 1970 Reports:
111-115.
24. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1969. A National program of re-
search for Sugar. Prepared by a Joint Task Force of the U. S.
Department of Agriculture and The State Universities and Land
Grant Colleges. 97 pp.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs