J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., Vol.

6 (1):129- 141, 2015

SUGARCANE MECHANICAL HARVESTING-EVALUATION

OF LOCAL APLICATIONS
Abd-El Mawla, H. A. * and B. E. Hemeida **
*Prof. & Head of Ag. Eng. Department, Al-Azhar University, Assiut.
** Agric. Eng. Res. Inst., A.R.C. Egypt.

ABSTRACT
The design and commercial manufacturing of mechanical sugarcane
harvesters have taken place firstly in Hawaii, Australia, Southern USA (Louisiana and
Florida) and Japan where the sugarcane production is fully mechanized. Significant
researches of mechanical cane harvesting have also been done in Barbados, Brazil,
Trinidad, Cuba, India and several other countries. Normally there are two sugarcane
mechanical harvesting systems classified as follow: 1-Whole-stalk sugarcane
harvesting system (the system which delivers whole stalk of canes). Large self-
propelled whole stalk harvesters operated only within full mechanization systems.
Other tractor mounted machines or small single axle walkman steering cane cutters
are fabricated for the conditions of developed countries. 2-Cut-chop-harvesting or
chopper harvesting system (the system which chop the cane into billets while
harvesting). This system is also called sugarcane combine harvesting system. All
other cane harvesters are whole-stalk-harvesters developed to perform stalk base
cutting as principle function and some of harvesters may include mechanisms for
topping and/or windrowing in addition. Since manual harvesting of sugarcane is
actually whole stalk harvesting by labors so that in changing from manual to a
mechanical harvesting system, whole stalk harvesting may fit more easily. When
replacing manual by mechanical harvesting whole stalk harvesting matches the
existing system of reaping, transportation, storage and the feeding of cane into mill.
Actually for semi mechanization, the machine will perform one or more of the
functions done by the labor performing mix sugarcane harvesting system. Developed
countries apply full mechanization for harvesting entire production of sugarcane.
Australia use chopper machines for full mechanization sugarcane harvesting. United
States of America apply full mechanization of sugarcane harvesting systems either by
choppers (in Hawaii and Florida) or by solider whole stalk harvesters (in Louisiana).
Countries grow large areas of sugarcane such as Brazil, India, Cuba, South Africa
and China may have large agricultural sectors that economically apply full
mechanization, medium sectors that apply semi mechanization and small size farms
that still harvest sugarcane manually. These countries fabricate both of full and semi
mechanization technology for sugarcane harvesting. Other countries such as Iran,
Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and other developed countries fabricate successful semi
mechanization harvesters. Several trails have been done to locally demonstrate
imported sugarcane harvesters. The demonstrated machines were not accepted by
the local farmers because of poor performance. Other trails to develop and test local
designs of sugarcane cutter harvesters through graduate student research programs
have not yet been succeeded. The current article devoted to review the commercially
available cane harvesters, report the efforts to mechanize cane harvesting and
evaluate the conditions that determine the application of cane mechanical harvesting.
Keywords: Mechanization- Types of cane harvester- full mechanization of cane
harvesters- Semi mechanization of cane harvesters- Mechanize cane
harvesting in Egypt.
Abd-El Mawla, H. A. and B. E. Hemeida

INTRODUCTION
Cane harvesting is the single most costly operation in sugar cane
farming. Although more sophisticated self-propelled sugar cane harvesters
are in use in developed countries but manual harvesting is still practiced in
most poor countries. Variable sizes and designs of semi mechanization
sugarcane harvesting machinery are available. Full mechanization systems
may be whole stalk harvesting system or chopper harvesting system. The
important issues that have to be addressed are improving harvesting rates
and reducing extraneous matter levels of the cane delivered to the factory.
Further research is required to study the impact that crop residues have on
ratoon crops especially under cool or wet conditions as well as alternative
post harvest equipment and management systems (Meyer et al., 2005).
Characteristics and performance of harvesters in Okinawa, where
mechanization of sugar cane harvesting is well advanced, were reviewed
based on the results of past research. There was a trend for the greater the
engine power of the harvester, the higher the working efficiency, and the
trash ratio and harvesting loss were lower. It turned out that large- and
middle- sized wheel-type harvesters did not perform well in rain, while small
crawler-type harvesters were often more operational regardless of rain. The
field was most affected by soil compaction when the row width was narrower
and the harvester operation speed was lower. It is expected that small
harvesters will not only be introduced in areas unsuitable for middle and large
sized harvesters, but also play a complementary role in areas where large-
and middle-sized harvesters are already in use. The recommendations of the
ISSCT workshop about mechanical harvesting were concluded by Norris et
al. (2007). Experience has shown that to leap ahead to the use of chopper
harvesters with no intermediate steps, involves the risk of costly failure and
abandoned machines. Such a gradual process is most easily achieved by
following the introduction of mechanical loading with a simple tractor-based
cane cutter, retaining the same whole-stalk loading and transport system.
The logical follow-up from this is a whole-stalk harvester as the same
transport and factory cane storage system can continue in use, with
consequent saving on capital outlay (Abdel-mawla 2000). Scott (1988)
reported that the whole-stalk cut cane green and remove the tops, but make
no other attempt at cleaning. So burning is required, after cutting. They are
also not as tolerant of recumbent cane and adverse field conditions as
choppers have become, even though their performance in the right conditions
is superb. Market attitudes will undoubtedly change when whole-stalk
machines become available, equipped with internal cleaning systems and
exhibiting performance and versatility comparable with choppers. Huang and
Wei (1989) reported the development of whole stalk harvester in China. A
67kW machine has been designed to harvest green cane yielding about 80
ton/ha. The power requirements are much lower than those required for
chopper harvester thereby saving harvest costs. The first machine was
developed at 1981 as a cane cutter; the tractor controls were reversed with
the base cutter mounted on the 3-point linkage. The beaters covered with
rubber were attached to the shaft of the base cutter in order to strike the

130
J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., Vol. 6 (1), January , 2015

whole-stalk cane to left side of the machine to form a windrow. In practice the
wheel of the machine rolled over some of the buts, thus damaging the cane.
In 1985 the machine was redesigned to reassemble a reasonable a
Solder-type-Harvester has proved to be feasible for harvesting green cane
yielding about 80 ton/ha. The author concluded that the whole stalk
sugarcane harvester operated efficiently in erect and semi erect cane. The
pillars mounted on both sides of the machine saved field time losses. The
engine power of only 67 kW was adequate and is much lower than that of
chopper operating in similar conditions thereby reducing harvest losses. An
effective field capacity of 23 ton/h has been achieved in green cane with a
yield of 80 ton/ha in the past three harvesting season. However chopper
harvester facilitates more convenient handling of the cane. Another
advantage of the chopper harvester is its ability to gather and harvest
sprawled and lodged crops. Field performance of chopper harvesters was
also reported by Neto et al (1989). The most effective criteria were identified
of the performance of chopper harvesting in green and burnet cane mostly
tested for: 1- Effective speed (km/h). 2- Effective field capacity, (t/h). 3- Cane
quality (purity % juice, poll % cane, fiber % cane). 4- Cane losses (stalks,
fraction of stalks in the tops and fraction of stalks in the stubble). 5- Crop
residues in the field after harvesting (green leaves, tops, dry leaves).
Chopper harvester facilitates more convenient handling of the cane. Another
advantage of the chopper harvester is its ability to gather and harvest
sprawled and lodged crops. In this respect, it has a clear advantage over the
whole-stalk harvester, which is severely limited to in sprawled cane. The
gathering mechanisms have been improved over the years to the extent that
heavy, sprawled crops lying flat on the ground across the ridges can be
gathered. In Australia where chopper-harvester were used extensively, as a
consequence of these improvement, cane variety with good yields but with a
tendency to sprawl can be grown and farmers use more fertilizer without
fearing for difficulties in mechanically harvesting heavy crops.
McConnell harvester system was basically designed for Barbados
conditions, tested and reported by Blackburn(1984). The system consists of
two machines, the first is a tractor front mounted harvester topper and the
second is a tractor-trailed detacher and elevation. The one-row McConnel
harvester mounted on a standard 75 hp agricultural tractor worked in a wide
range of field conditions in Puerto Rico. No mechanical problems were
encountered with the flail topper-cleaner or with the base-cutter. The
mechanical problems encountered concerned the prime mover and included
engine cooling, air cleaner, hydraulics, and PTO power transmission which
can easily be solved by fabricating a prime mover to fit the field conditions
and harvesting components. The idea of handling cane in-line by rubber-
covered drums is not new, but the method of cleaning is, we believe, novel
and has been patented. Several hundreds of analyses during trials in
Barbados 1975, 76 and in Natal 1976 indicate that total extraneous matter
levels for green whole-stick cane, cut, cleaned and loaded by the new
system, is usually less than 10% and many samples were below 5%.Cane
variety and yield are the main variables.

131
Abd-El Mawla, H. A. and B. E. Hemeida

Meyer (2005) reported that in South Africa, the SASABY harvester

has proved to be a very useful tool in the improvement of mechanical
harvesting sites and harvester performance. Mechanical harvesting under
experimental conditions does not affect cane yield. It is expected that
sugarcane will be manually harvested in the short to medium term in the
South African sugarcane industry. The current apparent shortage or
unwillingness of labor to harvest sugarcane can be ascribed to several
reasons. While high capacity sugarcane harvesters are commercially
available from overseas, these are expensive to operate and in many
instances not suited to large areas of South Africa. It is therefore vital that
alternative sugarcane harvesting aids be developed to improve manual cutter
productivity. On the other hand sugarcane growers should ensure that infield
conditions and their field layouts are such that these are more acceptable to
using harvesting machinery than is currently the case. One of the major
challenges facing the South African sugarcane industry is that of moving to
green cane harvesting regime. Green sugarcane cane harvesting presents
the opportunity to develop new technologies and make significant advances
in productivity and profitability while at the same time ensuring soil
sustainability and protecting the environment. The cane harvester can handle
up to 25 tons per hour was developed in South Africa. These made the initial
trials with a test rig to prove the principle of "in-machine topping and
cleaning". The importance of fabricating cheep efficient sugarcane harvester
that can perform economically under the conditions of developing countries
was discussed by Beer (1980). Starting from the conventional system of
cutting and stacking manually, a grower cane mechanize by degrees, initially
incorporating only a mechanical cutter. The main problems to be overcome
with a green cane harvesting system related to vision, especially setting and
seeing obstacles in the path of the base-cutter; row-following in lodged cane.
If the machine contains topping and gathering mechanisms, base
cutter, etc., it may be too expensive in relation to the throughput permitted by
this cleaning mechanism. Lubis (2014) reported that the South African made
sugarcane harvester VICRO equipped with full-hydraulic drive. It can
continuously and automatically complete the whole harvesting process of
picking up fallen cane, topping, cutting, transmitting, truncating, separating
cane and top, loading with truck elevate. The purpose of the sugar Cane
Harvester is to be able to harvest and top burnt sugar cane as well as un-
burnt sugar cane. The sugar cane harvester is attached to any tractor by
means of the two point tractor linkage. The sugar cane cutter was designed
and built in South Africa. The cane cutting machines are easily disassembled
and shipped to any country in the world. Boast (1989) reported that a front
mounted base-cutter has been developed for standard agricultural tractors of
the 50 kW class. The base cutter is driven hydraulically from a pump coupled
to the front crankshaft pulley or to the rear PTO shaft, depending on the
tractor model. The tractor's internal hydraulic oil supply is used but is
augmented by an additional 50 liters in an external oil tank. Alternatively all oil
can be supplied from a tank mounted on the 3-point linkage of the tractor.
The base-cutter operates automatically once it has been lowered to the land

132
J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., Vol. 6 (1), January , 2015

surface. Automatic ground following is effected by means of an intensifying

pressure cylinder which controls base cutting height according to the
resistance to culling. This allows the tractor operator to devote his attention to
driving and makes cane culling a simple task. Without automatic height
control a base-cutter mounted ahead of the front wheels of the tractor would
result in unacceptable base cutting. The midway attached sugarcane
harvester tested in the sugarcane farm of Malawy Research station during
the harvesting season of 1995. The machine is an Australian made Bonnel
type windrower topper sugarcane harvester. The machine included
mechanisms for cane stalk base cutting, topping and windrowing. The
performance of the machine showed poor compatibility with the existing
agricultural practices such as inter-row spaces. The operation of the machine
is also restricted to the erect cane. Yadava (1991) indicated that IISR tractor
rear mounted cane cutter developed in India. The IISR tractor rear-mounted
sugarcane harvester serves the purpose of stalk base cutting of single row of
sugarcane stalk and windrowing the harvesting crop. The machine represents
a mechanical harvester option for small sugarcane farms in India. Yinggang
et al. (2013) reported the small size whole stalk harvester, mounted on hand
tractor (11-14kW) manufactured by Guangxi Wuling-Guihua Machinery
Manufacture company. The machine type is 4GZ-9 whole stalk harvester,
mounted on 11-14.7 kW hand tractor, which was developed in 2002 by
Guangxi Institute of Agricultural Machinery. The sugarcane stalks are laid
down on the ground beside the machine after cutting. It can be used when
the sugarcane is not seriously lodged. Its productivity is 0.1-0.15 ha/h, and it
is adapted to row spacing ≥1.0 m. Gupta and Kiatiwat (1996) developed a
self-propelled walking type sugarcane harvester-windrower in Thailand. It is
one row single-axle walking-behind-type and works on the principle of impact
cutting by knife blades. As the machine moves forward along the row, the
cluster of cane stalks is guided from the divider by a two sets of lugged
chains and a spring loaded guide frame. At the narrowest point of guided
path, the canes are cut by blades of the base cutter, revolving at peripheral
speed approximately 42 m/s. A pair of solid rubber-gage tractor wheels
mounted in the front part of the machine prevents the base cutter blade from
striking the ground and control the height of cut. The tread width can be
changed by shifting a lock-pin along the shaft to make adjustment for various
spacing along the adjacent rows. A new low-cost, self-propelled, single-axle
walking-type sugarcane harvester powered by 6-kW (8-hp) gasoline engine. It
was primarily designed for farmers of developing countries who cannot afford
to purchase expensive sugarcane harvesters used in developed countries.
This machine reduced labor requirements for cutting and windrowing
sugarcane stems. In field tests, the average field capacity of the machine was
found to be 0.13 ha/h (0.32 acre/h) with average field efficiency of 71%.
The current research aimed to find out the technical and economical
reasons of non successful efforts to mechanize sugarcane harvesting.
Accordingly the research organized as follow:

133
Abd-El Mawla, H. A. and B. E. Hemeida

1- Review the commercially sugarcane harvesters design and performance.

The imported and locally demonstrated machines would be compared to
the knowledge experienced from the reviewed technology.
2- Field evaluation of the labor requirements and costs of traditional
sugarcane harvesting.
3- Reevaluate the local efforts of application and demonstration of the
commercially imported sugarcane harvesters locally. Also reevaluate the
efforts to develop local technology for sugarcane harvesters that done
through research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The performance of imported or locally developed cane harvesters
was extracted from published articles, non-published reports and graduation
Thesis. The reevaluation done as follow:
a- The machine cost would not be considered because of the non-certainty
about several parameters such as initial price, productive life of the
machine and harvester reliability.
b- Labor savings of operating any of the reported mechanical sugarcane
harvesters may be computed as follow:
1
LS  LT  ( LM ( ) (labor. day / fed )
FC  H
Where;
LS: Number of labor saved (labor. day/fed) , LT : Labor required for
traditional manual harvesting (labor.day/fed), LM: Labor required to
operate the machine (labor.day/fed), FC: Field capacity of the
machine (fed/h) and H : Operation hours (hours/day).
c- It is well known that cost of mechanical harvesting includes
machine cost in addition to labor cost. Since the cost of machine
owning and depreciation are not included, therefore, a comparison
of labor cost required for mechanical harvesting to the cost of labor
harvesting may indicate the major reasons for poor acceptability of
mechanical harvesting.

RESULTS AND DISCUTION

1- Evaluation of labor requirements and costs of traditional harvesting:
Data were collected from sugarcane farms in four locations in Upper
Egypt (Aswan, N. Hammady, Al-Oksor and Sohag). Table (1) shows the data
collected from the above mentioned locations. Three groups of labors are
required for harvesting, cleaning and windrowing the crop. In case of manual
harvesting the sugarcane fields of average production 45 ton/feddan requires
16 labors for stalk base cutting, 40 labors dry leave cleaning and 3 labors for
topping. Healthy labors are required for harvesting and windrowing with daily
wage about 40 to 60LE/day. Younger labors are required for cane dry leaves
cleaning with daily wage of 25to 30 LE/day. Variation of labor wages may
occur depending on the location and the time of the season. Harvesting
operation day starts at the early morning till noon.

134
J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., Vol. 6 (1), January , 2015

Table (1) Cost of sugarcane traditional harvesting(LE/Feddan)

No. of
Location Item Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May
labors
Base cutting 16 0.00 250 300 500 800
Cleaning 40 0.00 0.00 300 600 1200
Aswan 3400
Windrowing 3 150 150 150 150 150
Total 59 150 400 750 1250 2150
Base cutting 16 0.00 200 300 600 800
N. Cleaning 40 0.00 0.00 250 600 1200
3000
Hammady Windrowing 3 150 150 150 150 150
Total 59 150 350 700 1350 2150
Base cutting 16 0.00 150 380 550 800
Cleaning 40 0.00 0.00 300 600 1200
Al-Oksor 3200
Windrowing 3 150 150 150 150 150
Total 59 150 300 830 1300 2150
Base cutting 16 0.00 200 320 550 800
Cleaning 40 0.00 0.00 250 500 1200
Sohag 3000
Windrowing 3 150 150 150 150 150
Total 59 150 350 720 1200 2150
Average total cost 59 150 350 750 1275 2150 3150

Table (1) shows the change of the sugarcane harvesting costs along
the season. Cane harvesting may starts early in December for to maintain the
operation of molasses processing units that starts couple weeks earlier than
sugar mills. At that time, the farmers harvest their cane free in front of green
tops which the labors need for feeding their animals. The cost of sugarcane
harvesting increase gradually through the season because the farmers have
to pay for the labors especially those required for cane base cutters. In April
the farmers have to pay full wages for all labors required for base cutting,
cleaning the cane from dry leaves, as well as windrowing. In May when the
sugar mills announce certain date for ending the processing season, the
farmers harry up to catch the dead line where labor shortage occurred. At
these particular conditions farmers have to deal with sugarcane harvesting
contractors and pay more cost that may exceed 3000 LE/Feddan. The results
are also illustrated in Fig (1)

Fig (1) Change of sugarcane harvesting costs along the season

135
Abd-El Mawla, H. A. and B. E. Hemeida

I- Performance of imported sugarcane harvesters:

Several types of mechanical sugarcane harvesters have been
imported and tested. The most recognized demonstrations reported by Nour
and Allam (1980) and Zawahry (1986). Some of the data of Table (2)
collected from non-published reports of the sugarcane mechanization
research program of AEnRI. The demonstration of the mechanical sugarcane
harvesters have been sponsored by Agricultural Engineering Research
Institute (AEnRI), Sugar Crops Counsel and the Sugar and Integrated
Industry Company. The following notes may conclude the results of the data
collected while demonstrating the imported sugarcane harvesters:
1- The chopper harvester is incompatible with the sugarcane transport
system. The machine is also incompatible with the existing agricultural
practices. Either at the time of demonstration or currently sugar mills don’t
receive chopped cane. Chopper harvesters are also of astronomical price
operated in large fields where the economy of the Egyptian sugarcane
farmer could not support owning such expensive machine. Other
demonstrated machines are semi-mechanization whole stalk harvester-
cutters. Cutter harvesters may replace part of the labors required for
sugarcane.
2- Base cutting only.
3- Topping mechanism is of poor performance, complicate the machine and
destroy the green tops which required for animal feed. The farmer has to
manually harvest a strip from the side of the cane field before the machine
start operation.
4- Farmers have to complete harvesting operation represented in cleaning,
toping and pilling by labors.
5- The sugarcane harvester cutter may require 2 to 4 labors to operate the
machine and to remove cane from the path of the next stroke.
III-Performance of harvester prototypes developed locally:
Three prototypes of sugarcane cutter harvesters have been
developed through graduate students programs. Therefore the operation of
such machines should be limited to erect cane crop as recommended. Table
(3) shows the configuration and performance of the cane cutters developed
locally. The most important remarks concerning the experiments done to test
the above mentioned prototypes may be:
1- The first machine has to be pushed forward by a labor. The labor may
gets exhausted after short time because of rolling resistance due to soil
roughness. Other labor/s may be required to hold the cane while cutting
so that the rate of harvesting by the machine may not be much more than
that of manual harvesting by those two labors.
2- The tractor rear-mounted sugarcane harvester prototype developed and
tested 2011 included a star-wheel that direct the cut cane stalks to fall
behind the machine. The star-wheel may represent a simple windrower or
handling mechanism. Major problems faced the operation of the machine
may represented in poor control of cutting height, poor performance in
lodged cane and failure of the star wheel to direct the cane stalks to fall

136
J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., Vol. 6 (1), January , 2015

behind the machine unless the cane stalk is erect or lodged toward the
falling direction.
Table (2) Performance of imported mechanical harvesters.
Harvester & test
Season Summary results Technical notes
data
Type: Bonnel Australia Losses %: 4.5 % - The machine is heavy,
made Damage %: 2.5 % expensive and of poor
1984 Drive: Tractor mounted Capacity: 0.2 Fed/h maneuverability.
Function: Base cuter, Efficiency: 70% - The machine is incompatible
topper & windrower Labor saved: 30 % with agricultural practices.
Test location: Mallawy RS Cost saved: Negative - The farmer has to re-clean the
Tested by: Naway project harvested cane.
team 1984 - The machine cannot be
operated to harvest lodged
cane.
Type: KPT1 Cuba made Losses %: 6 % - The machine chopper
1986 Drive: Self propelled Damage %: 3 % harvester (sugarcane combine)
chopper Capacity: 0.7 Fed/h that is a very expensive
Function: Full Efficiency: 0.80 % machine.
mechanization Labor saved: 90 % - The machine is incompatible
Test location: Mataana RS Cost saved: Negative* with the cane transport system.
Tested by: Zawahry & - The performance of the
Youns 1986 machine was poor because the
incompatibility with all existing
agricultural practices.
Type: South Africa made Losses %: 2.5% - The machine is a base cutter
1995 Drive: Tractor front Damage %: 3 % place the cane linearly to pass
mounted Capacity: 0.25 Fed/h between tractor wheels.
Function: Base cutter Efficiency: 85 % - The machine can only be
Test location: Mallawy RS Labor saved: 20% operated in erect cane.
Tested by: Abdel-Mawla & Cost saved: Negative* - The machine is expensive
Ammary 1986 powered by auxiliary hydraulic
power system that is driven by
the tractor PTO.
Type: Brazil made Losses %: 3 % - The machine is a base cutter
Drive: Small power unit Damage %: 3 % with no parts for directing the
Function: Base cutter Capacity: 0.22 Fed/h fall of cut stalk so that two
Test location: Armant Efficiency: 75 % labors have to hold the cane
2007 Tested by: Ammary & Labor saved: 0.0 % before harvesting.
Sugar Company team Cost saved: Negative - The machine does not save
2007 either labor or cost.
Type: Chinese made Losses %: 2 % - The machine does not have
Drive: Small power unit Damage %: 2 % capabilities to top or clean the
2010 Function: Cutter Capacity: 0.28 Fed/h cane.
windrower Efficiency: 70 % - The farmer has to pick the
Test location: Mataana RS Labor saved: 20 % cane from the windrow top it,
Tested by: Abdel-Mawla & Cost saved: Negative clean it and pile it in a suitable
Sugar Company team size bundles.
2010 - The windrowing mechanism
that complicate the machine
did not save any cost or effort.
*Negative: The cost of harvesting a unit area of sugarcane using the machine is more
than the cost of manual harvesting.

137
Abd-El Mawla, H. A. and B. E. Hemeida

Table (3) Performance of locally developed mechanical harvesting

Information &
Year Prototype configuration
prototype performance
After Refai, E. M. A.
Degree: MsC
Title: A study on mechanization of
sugarcane harvesting.
Institution: Al-Azhar University
Machine type: Walking man pushing
Machine function: Base cutter +
2002 diflector
Powered by: Small Engine (6 hp)
Test location: Al-Oksor
Average performance in erect cane:
Losses %: 3 % F. efficiency: 65%
Damage %: 2% Labor save: null
F. capacity: 0.07 Cost save: null
Fd/h
After Mahmoud H. Ali
Degree: PhD
Title: Development of a single row
harvester for sugar-cane
Institution: Al-Azhar University
Machine type: Tractor rear mounted
Machine function: B. cutter + star-
2011 wheel
Powered by: Tractor PTO
Test location: Shandaweel RS
Average performance in erect cane:
Losses %: 4 % F. efficiency: 70 %
Damage %: 3% Labor save: 20 %
F. capacity: 0.12 Cost save: null
Fd/h
After Ibrahim, M. A.
Degree: PhD
Title: Developing a sugar cane
harvester according to the physical
properties and field condition
Institution: Assiut University
Machine type: Walking-man cane
cutter
2014 Machine function: B. cutter + divider
Powered by: Small single axle tractor
(14 hp)
Test location: Mallawy RS
Average performance in erect cane:
Losses %: 3.5 % F. efficiency: 60 %
Damage %: 2.5 % Labor save: 10%
F. capacity: 0.08 Cost save: null
Fd/h
3- The third prototype represents a small sugarcane cutter fabricated by
mounting the base cutter on the front of a small power unit. The machine

138
J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., Vol. 6 (1), January , 2015

is provided with a divider to separate the cut cane row and to help for
determining the falling orientation. The divider could be adjustable toward
the right or left sides. While experiments, it was clear that the distance of
the power unit wheels is not matching row spaces. The machine divider
was supposed to perform moderate except for some problems related to
poor fabrication quality. The operation in lodged cane represented a
problem and the machine rate was also low that did not significantly save
labor effort or costs.
IV- Comparison of labor requirements and labor costs of mechanical vs
traditional sugarcane harvesting:
Table (4) shows the labor requirements of harvesting sugarcane by
machines in comparison to traditional harvesting. For the chopper harvester
(sugarcane combine), only 1.7% of the labors are required. The problem is
that the machine is not compatible either with field conditions or with the
existing sugarcane transport systems. Other semi-mechanical harvesters
require from 78% to 85% of the labors require for traditional harvesting.
Table (4) Labor requirements for mechanical harvesters vs traditional
harvesting
Labor required for
Traditional Labor required for commercial harvester
harvesting developed harvesters,
Labor. day/ fed
Item Labor. day/fed
RM Labor T. Power u.
Cutter/topper FM base Ridden
Labor/fed /windrower Chopper base pushed mounted mounted
cutter windrower
cutter cutter Cutter cutter
Base
cutting
16 4 1 3 3 2 7 6 7
Cleaning 40 40 0.00 40 40 40 40 40 40
Handling
windrowing
3 3 0.00 3 3 3 3 3 3
Labor req. 59 47 58 46 46 45 50 49 50
% of
traditional
100% 80% 1.7% 78% 78% 76% 85% 83% 85%

CONCLUSION
Sugarcane mechanical harvesting systems may be fully mechanized
or semi mechanized systems. In the full mechanization systems, the
mechanisms of the sugarcane harvester perform a set of functions in
sequence to complete harvesting operation. Full mechanization systems of
sugarcane harvesting may either be self propelled whole-stalk harvesters or
the chopper harvesters. Semi mechanization technology represented in the
tractor mounted and small cane harvesters perform one or more of the
functions done by the full mechanization harvester. Variable types of tractor
mounted as well as small sugarcane cutters have been developed for the
conditions of developing countries.
Several types of sugarcane mechanical harvesters have been locally
demonstrated for farmers’ acceptance. Most of the demonstrated harvesters
cut the bases of cane stalks and leave them lying on the ground. The farmer
has to pick the cane stalks, top it, clean dry leaves and arrange it in a pile
suitable for loading. Therefore, the farmers determine that the use of cane
cutters do not save cost or effort. The attempts of developing a local cane

139
Abd-El Mawla, H. A. and B. E. Hemeida

harvester limited to graduate students research with no chance for field

demonstration. It seems like all the countries producing sugarcane have
developed successful cane harvester for their local conditions except for Egypt.
A national research program sponsored by the concerning organizations
should be started to develop a sugarcane mechanical harvester suitable for
crop conditions as well as Egyptian farmers’ socioeconomically constrains.

REFERENCES
Abdel-Mawla H. A. (2000) Analyzing cane delay of traditional delivery systems.
th
The 8 conference of Misr Society of Ag Engineering MSAE 25-26 Oct.
110-122.
Aly, M. H (2011) Development of a single row harvester for sugar-cane. PhD
Thesis, Al-Azhar University: 45-55
Beer, A.G. (1980) Semi-mechanized sugarcane harvesting systems for
developing country. Proce. XVII of ISSCT Cong..: 992 - 1001.
Boast M. M. W (1989) An economical mechanical front mounted cane cutter for
tractors ISSCT Proceed. Cong. XX: 1008-1016
Blackburn, F. (1984). Reaping and transport. Sugar-cane. Chapter 9;161-288.
Huang L. H. and Wei W. S. (1989) Development of whole stalk harvester
(China) ISSCT: 1017-1022
Ibrahim, M. A. (2014) Develop a sugar cane harvester according to the physical
properties and field condition. PhD Thesis, Assiut University: 42-48
Gupta C. P., L. Lwin, T. Kiatiwat (1996) Development of a Self-propelled
Single-axle Sugarcane Harvester. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture. 12(4): 427-434. (doi: 10.13031/2013.25667) @1996.
Lubis Muzaki (2014) World agricultural products.
Meyer, E. (2005) Machinery systems for sugarcane production in South Africa.
Seminar submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of MSc Eng. South African Sugarcane Research Institute
November 2005. https://www.google.com.eg: 12-14
Nour A. H. and A. Allam (1980) The feasibility of mechanical cutting and
loading of sugarcane in Egypt. ISSCT XVII: 1001-1007
Neto V. L. H. Monteiro, T.C. Ripoli and R.R. Nogueira (1989) Sugarcane
topping process utilizing mechanical harvesters of chopped cane
associated with row materiall quality for payment purpose. ISSCT XIX:
177-181.
Norris, C., J.C. Mirande, R. Guillen, E. Jacquin, C. Richard, P. Lyne and J.
Scandaliarus (2007) Productivity improvement under green cane
harvesting conditions. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., Vol. 26,
2007
Refaie, E.M.A. (2002) A study on mechanization of sugar cane harvesting. M.
Sc. Thesis Agric. Eng. Dept. Fac. Of Agric., Al-Azhar Univ. 32-47
Scott A (1988) Development of the centurion whole-st alk cane harvester.
ISSCT XIX: 192-201
Yadav, B. G. (1978). Potential of Bullock Cart transport in Orissa-A Cast Study.
Autumn 1978-AMA. 9 (4): 73-76.

140
‫‪J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., Vol. 6 (1), January , 2015‬‬

‫‪Yinggang, OU, Malcolm W., Yang D., Liu Q. Z. Dingke, W. M., and Liu H.‬‬
‫‪(2013) Mechanization technology: The key to Sugarcane Production in‬‬
‫‪China. Int J Agric & Biol Eng Open Access at http://www.ijabe.org Vol.‬‬
‫‪6 No.1: 1-27‬‬
‫‪Zawahry A. S. and S. M. Youns (1986) Performance of KP-T1 combine in‬‬
‫‪harvesting sugarcane in Egypt. AnRI, non-published report.‬‬
‫الحصاد اآللى لقصب السكر – تقييم التطبيقات المحليه‬
‫حسن عبد الرازق عبد المولى * و بهاء الدين حميده**‬
‫* قسم الهندسه الزراعيه ‪ -‬حامعة األزهر فرع أسيوط‬
‫**معهد بحوث الهندسه الزراعيه‪ -‬مركز البحوث الزراعيه ‪ -‬مصر‪.‬‬
‫حصاد قصب السكر عمليه مركبه تتضمن إجراء عدد من العمليات المتتابعه نسوقها كالتالى‪ -1 :‬قطع قاعدة ساق‬
‫القصب عند سطح األرض مباشرة ‪ -2‬إمساك وتداول األعواد ‪ -3‬وتنظيف الساق من األوراق الجافه ‪ -4‬وقطع القمه الخضراء‬
‫للعود ‪ -5‬وترتيب القصب فى أكوام مناسبه أو تحميله مباشرة على معدة النقل‪ .‬ومعدات حصاد القصب التى تشتمل على آليات‬
‫إلجراء تلك العمليات جميعها دون الحاجه للعمال تسمى آالت حصاد القصب بالميكنه الشامله‪ .‬أما إذا كانت اآلله تؤدى واحده أو‬
‫أكثر من تلك العمليات وتستكمل باقى خطوات الحصاد بالعمال فإنها تسمى آالت الميكنه الجزئيه لحصاد القصب‪.‬‬
‫ويمكن تصنيف معدات حصاد القصب بالميكنه الشامله إلى معدات حصاد بالعود الكامل)‪(Whole-stalk-harvester‬‬
‫ومعدات حصاد وتقطيع )‪ .( Chopper harvester‬وكال النوعين آالت كبيره مرتفعة اإلثمان تعمل ضمن منظومات محدده لنقل‬
‫وتوريد القصب للمصانع‪ .‬وتصنع آالت حصاد القصب بالعود الكامل الذاتية الحركه أساسا فى لويزيانا وتقوم الصين أيضا بتصنيع آالت‬
‫ذاتية الحركه لحصاد القصب بالعود الكامل ويعتبر إنتشار تلك اآلالت محدودا حول العالم لكونها ال تعمل بكفاءه فى ظروف القصب‬
‫الراقد‪ .‬أما آالت الحصاد والتقطيع فإن أداءها ال يتأثر كثيرا برقاد القصب لكنه يلزم اإلسراع فى نقل القصب ألن تقطيعه يسرع من‬
‫تدهور محتوياته من السكر‪ .‬ولكال النظامين مميزات وعيوب إشتملت عليها المقاله بالتفصيل‪.‬‬
‫آالت حصاد القصب بالميكنه الجزئيه ال بد أن تشمل على آليه أساسيه لقطع قاعدة العود وباإلضافه إليها ربما تشمل‬
‫على آليه للتداول آو آليه لقطع القمه الخضراء‪ .‬وجميع آالت الميكنه الجزئيه لحصاد القصب تصنف على أنها آالت حصاد بالعود‬
‫الكامل‪ .‬وتلك اآلالت إما أن تكون معلقه على الجرار أمامه أوخلفه أو على جانبه وإما أن تكون آله صغيره مركوبه آو موجهه‬
‫بالعامل‪ .‬والقاسم المشترك أن غالبية البلدان الناميه المنتجه للقصب قد طورت طرزا من آالت الميكنه الجزئيه لحصاد القصب‬
‫مناسبه لظروف حقولها فيما عدا مصر‪.‬‬
‫وقد إستعرض البحث التطبيقات التى تمت لتشغيل آالت الحصاد المستورده فى مصر والتى لم تلقى اى منها إقباال من‬
‫مزارعى القصب لعدم تحقيقها لمميزات خفض المجهود البشرى أو تكاليف الحصاد وعلى نتائج تطوير آالت محليه من خالل‬
‫البرامج البحثيه التى تمت فى الجامعات المصريه والتى لم ترقى أى منها إلى مستوى التشغيل لدى المزارع‪ .‬وبناءا على البيانات‬
‫التى الحقليه عن حصاد القصب يمكن إستنتاج اآلتى‪:‬‬
‫أوال‪ :‬أنه ال يوجد لدينا أى قطاع يقبل تطبيق الميكنه الشامله لحصاد القصب أو يحقق إقتصاديات إمتالكها وتشغيلها وأن الجهد يجب‬
‫أن ينصب فى إتجاه تطوير ميكنه جزئيه محليه‪.‬‬
‫ثانيا‪ :‬أن حصاد فدان من قصب السكر يحتاج إلى ‪ 16‬عامل من األصحاء لعملية قطع األعواد وفصلها عن الجذر من على سطح‬
‫األرض كما يحتاج إلى ‪ 44‬عامل من األقل عمرا لتنظيف القصب من األوراق الجافه باإلضافه إلى ثالثة عمال للتكويم‪ .‬وحيث أن‬
‫أى آله لحصاد القصب تحتاج على األقل إلى عاملين أو ثالثه لتشغيلها وإخالء القصب من طريق عودتها وبالنظر إلى بطء أداءها‬
‫وتأثرها بالرقاد وضعف إنتاجيتها فإننا نجد فى النهايه أنها ال توفر كثيرا من عمال الحصاد (‪ 16‬عامل)‪ .‬وبناءا عليه فإن أى آلة‬
‫لحصاد القصب ال تشتمل على آليه للتنظيف ال يرجى أن توفر من العماله البشريه او من التكاليف ما يستحق‪.‬‬
‫ثالثا‪ :‬أن غالبية المزارعين وعمالة حصاد القصب يعتمدون على القمم الخضراء ألعواد القصب كغذاء ضرورى لمواشيهم فى فتره‬
‫طويله من موسم الحصاد‪ .‬وبناءا عليه فإن آلة حصاد قصب تحقق ربحيه وقبول للمزارع ليس بالضرورى أن تشتمل على آلية‬
‫قطع القمه الخضراء حيث انها تزيد من تعقيد اآلله وتكاليف تصنيعها وتؤدى إلى تمزيق القمم الخضراء وعدم اإلستفاده منها‬
‫باإلضافه إلى أن الميل الطبيعى لألعواد يدنى كفاءة أداءها‪.‬‬
‫رابعا‪ :‬أن تكاليف الحصاد اليدوى لمحصول القصب تكون قليله فى بداية الموسم وتظهر األزمه الحقيقيه فى نهاية الموسم عندما يعلن‬
‫المصنع عن موعد توقفه حيث يتبارى المزارعون فى الحصاد للحاق بموعد المصنع وترتفع تكاليف الحصاد لتشكل عبئا‬
‫ضخما على المزارع‪ .‬وبناءا عليه فإن إقتصاديات تصنيع وإمتالك معدة حصاد للقصب يجب أن يتم حسابها على نصف‬
‫الموسم األخير فقط حيث تظهر األزمه وتأخذ فى التفاقم‪.‬‬
‫خامسا‪ :‬وأخيرا أن آلة حصاد القصب التى يرجى نجاحها فى ظروفنا سوءا ملحقه بالجرار أو موجهه بالعامل يجب أن تكون ذات‬
‫تكاليف مناسبه ومتزنه ديناميكيا ال تتسبب فى إجهاد مشغلها وتتماشى أبعادها مع ما إستقر عليه المزارعون فى ممارستهم‬
‫لتخطيط الحقل وأن تشتمل على جهاز تداول بسيط التصميم قوى يعمل بكفاءه ويدعم تركيب آلية أو عناصر لتنظيف لألوراق‬
‫الجافه على اآلله‪.‬‬

‫‪141‬‬