Evaluating relative contribution of extraneous matter along with quantitative and qualitative loss in cane harvested by mechanical harvester compared to manual harvesting


209 / 105

Authors

  • Ankur Chaudhary CCS Haryana Agricultural Univeristy
  • Vijay Kumar CCS Haryana Agricultural University
  • Mehar Chand CCS Haryana Agricultural University Regional Research Station Uchani Karnal
  • Samar Singh CCS Haryana Agricultural University Regional Research Station Uchani Karnal

https://doi.org/10.37580/JSR.2021.2.11.219-225

Keywords:

Sugarcane; Mechanical harvesting; Green top; Cut portion; Trash and Juice quality

Abstract

The cultivation of sugarcane is very labour intensive especially during planting and at harvesting time. Timely supply of harvested cane to the sugar mills significantly affects the sugar recovery of mills. Delayed harvests cause greater yield loss and quality as well. Now mechanical harvesters are introduced as promising machinery for the timely and efficient management of harvesting process. So, a study was conducted to quantify top cane, trash and contribution of extraneous matter in mechanical and manual harvested cane at different sugar mills viz., Saraswati Sugar Mills (Yamuna Nagar), Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. Bhadson (Karnal) and Karnal Coop. Sugar Mills (Karnal) with total six locations during April, 2019. The results have shown that the extraneous matters (on mean basis) was found higher in mechanical harvested cane for trash (1.7%), green top (5.7%) along with cut portion (8.1%). In case of manual harvested, trash and green top was 1.0 and 2.9%, respectively without any cut portion (setts). The presence of higher extraneous matter consequently reduced juice quality in mechanical harvested as compared to manual harvest cane and mechanical harvested (cane portion). There was 0.33 unit decrease in the sugar recovery (5%) in mechanical harvested mixed cane produce including cane portion, green top and trash as compared to mechanical harvested cane portion only. Similarly, there was 0.71 unit decrease in the sugar recovery in the mechanical harvested mix produce as compared to manual harvested cane.

Author Biographies

  • Ankur Chaudhary, CCS Haryana Agricultural Univeristy
    Assistant Scientist Department of Agronomy CCS Haryana Agricultural University Hisar
  • Vijay Kumar, CCS Haryana Agricultural University

    Principal Scientist CCS HAU Regional Research Station Uchani Karnal

  • Mehar Chand, CCS Haryana Agricultural University Regional Research Station Uchani Karnal
    Principal Scientist, CCS Haryana Agricultural University Regional Research Station Uchani Karnal
  • Samar Singh, CCS Haryana Agricultural University Regional Research Station Uchani Karnal
    Principal Scientist, CCS Haryana Agricultural University Regional Research Station Uchani Karnal

References

Ahmed AE, Alam-Eldin AO. 2013. An assessment of mechanical vs manual harvesting of the sugarcane in Sudan–The case of Sennar Sugar Factory. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 14 (2):160-166.

Anonymous. 2021. State wise area and production of sugarcane in country during 2015-16 to 2020-21. http://sugarcane.dac.gov.in/pdf/ StatisticsAPY.pdf

Ma S, Karkee M, Scharf PA, Zhang Q. 2014. Sugarcane harvester technology: a critical overview. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 30(5):727-739.

Murali P, Balakrishnan R. 2012. Labour scarcity and selective mechanization of sugarcane agriculture in Tamil Nadu, India. Sugar Tech. 14(3):223-228.

Singh I, Solomon S. 2003. Post-harvest quality loss of sugarcane genotypes under sub- tropical climate: Deterioration of whole stalk and billets. Sugar Tech. 5(4):285-288.

Yadav RN, Yadav S, Raj TK. 2003. Labour saving and cost reduction machinery for sugarcane cultivation. Sugar Tech. 5(1-2):7-10.

Downloads

Submitted

20-04-2021

Published

25-04-2023

How to Cite

Chaudhary, A., Kumar, V., Chand, M., & Singh, S. (2023). Evaluating relative contribution of extraneous matter along with quantitative and qualitative loss in cane harvested by mechanical harvester compared to manual harvesting. Journal of Sugarcane Research, 11(2), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.37580/JSR.2021.2.11.219-225
Citation