Abstract
This project examined three cane supply treatments; Commercial harvesting, Low Loss harvesting and Low Loss Harvesting plus cleaning; to determine if post-harvest cane cleaning offered benefits over harvesting alone. As a basic concept, it was expected that reducing harvester extractor fan speed would reduce cane loss, resulting in increased CCS yield but also increased trash content, and that the post-harvest cane cleaning operation would remove the additional trash, maintaining the higher CCS yield. To facilitate this project, a mobile cane cleaner (MCC) was purchased from Norris ECT by SRA. The MCC was leased by the project from SRA. Major modifications to the cleaning chamber of the NorrisECT 180 mobile cane cleaner (MCC 180) were necessary. The MCC was a prototype machine not suitable for commercial use. The results did support the expectation of higher CCS yield with lower extractor fan speed, but much of the higher yield measured by low loss harvesting was lost after post-harvest cane cleaning. Economic analysis quantified harvesting costs and the resulting product income. In an experiment on Rajinder Singh’s farm, the treatment with post-harvest cane cleaning was found to be less economically attractive than the normal harvesting treatment, even with the lower transport cost in getting cane to Mossman Mill, a distance of 95 km. The project did not measure an increase in CCS yield from the low loss harvesting plus cane cleaning treatment to improve upon sugar income.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
Lower extractor fan speed raised CCS yield.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“cane”
e0“The results did support the expectation of higher CCS yield with lower extractor fan speed”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane cleaning removed much of the yield gain from low loss harvesting.
Verbatim
t0“cane”
e0“much of the higher yield measured by low loss harvesting was lost after post-harvest cane cleaning”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane cleaning was less economically attractive than normal harvesting on the stated farm.
Verbatim
t0“cane”
e0“In an experiment on Rajinder Singh’s farm, the treatment with post-harvest cane cleaning was found to be less economically attractive than the normal harvesting treatment, even with the lower transport cost in getting cane to Mossman Mill, a distance of 95 km.”
Claim · model-written summary
Low loss harvesting plus cane cleaning did not increase CCS yield.
- Taxon
- canet0
- Treatment
- low loss harvesting plus cane cleaning treatmente0
- Outcome
- CCS yielde0
- Direction
- did not measure an increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“cane”
e0“The project did not measure an increase in CCS yield from the low loss harvesting plus cane cleaning treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The mobile cane cleaner prototype was unsuitable for commercial use.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Verbatim
t0“cane”
e0“The MCC was a prototype machine not suitable for commercial use.”