Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-10, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
Analysis Of The Mechanized Cutting
Process Of Sugarcane: A case study
Miguel Ríos Farías1, Miguel Escamilla López2, Johann Mejías Brito3,
Jesús Tejeda Castrejón4 & Claudia Castrejón Cerro5
1,2,4,5
Dept. of Industrial Engineering/ Instituto Tecnológico de Colima, México
3
Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering/ Instituto Tecnológico de Colima, México
Abstract: The work aims to analyze the labor day
exploitation of the sugar cane harvester CASE IH
7000. For the following three harvesters were
evaluated for 26 effective working days. The analysis
of the results allowed to determine that the
productive potential were not exploited optimally of
the harvester, just as the technical and exploitation
indicators are below the established parameters of
this machine, impacting negatively he utilization of
clean time of work, which only reaches 46.63% and
downtime for other reasons which rose to 18.40% of
the total observation time. Productivity behaved in
an average of 55.45 t / h of clean time work during
observations, value below the real possibilities of
harvesters.
1. Introduction
Today the cultivation of sugarcane (Saccharum
spp.) has spread to over 130 countries and territories
, among them Brazil stands out, world's leading
producer [1] with 30% of production [2], followed
by India (21%), China (7%), Thailand (4%), Pakistan
(4%), Mexico (3.5%), Colombia (3%), Australia
(3%), United States of America (2%) and Indonesia
(2%) [3]. The rising rate of annual sugar
consumption is currently 2.8% on the planet,
positioning it as an important food item for humanity
[4]. According to the International Sugar
Organization (ISO), for the sugar cycle 2012-2013,
world sugar consumption was 173 million ton, and
production of 184 million ton [5].
Mexico ranks sixth in the world in the production
of sugarcane [6], [7], [8], with 4% of this, and is the
seventh in his consumption. According to the
Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural
Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA), in
2014, each Mexican consumed on average 47.9
kilograms of sugar a year. In the country's sugar
industry it is historically one of the most important,
because of its economic and social relevance in the
field, generates more than two million jobs directly
and indirectly. This agricultural activity takes place
in 15 states and 227 municipalities, generating a
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
value of primary production of about 30 billion pesos
a year [8]. The state with the highest number of
cultivated hectares is Veracruz, representing 36.7%
of the national total, second is Jalisco with 11.4%,
followed by San Luis Potosi with 10.3%, followed
by twelve states [5], [9].
In the state of Colima the production of sugar
cane covers a total area of 17,250 ha, gathering close
to 2,975 producers, we must add to it the production
of 5 municipalities in the state of Jalisco, which carry
their harvest to the mill Quesería, S.A. de C.V.,
which is the second sugar production company in
the country. This crop is of great importance in the
state, because it has a participation in the state’s PIB
of 26 % in the primary sector [5], [7]. In his work [8]
points out that the sugar industry is one of the most
traditional activities and importance in the economic
development of the country and the region. However,
over time it has slowly been the effect of the
economic crisis, disputes between cane growers and
mill owners, and technological backwardness.
Despite advances in technology and the
importance of this crop, most of the harvest is done
by manual cutting and collecting it mechanically,
which causes that it arrives to the sugar factory with
stones and sprouts [10], also the cutting has to be
done 15 cm above the ground, which represents a
great waste of sugar sucrose. Performance under this
system is approximately 40 tons of cane per hectare,
also the plant has to be burnt before cutting it,, which
causes continuous loss of organic matter in the soil ,
leading to this continually impoverish, are among
others the causes that provoke that the agricultural
crop yield decreases considerably over the years
[11], [12], [13], [14].
One of the challenges that is facing agribusiness
of sugarcane to become more competitive is to
increase productivity and reduce production costs
[15], so it is necessary to introduce scientific and
technological advances in all links of the value chain
[9], [16], [17]. Various recent studies [18], [19], [20],
[21], [22] analyze the productivity of machines for
harvesting of this crop and exploitation of the
working day. The analysis of the deficiencies
Page 648
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-10, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
identified by these authors is aligned with the
guidelines established by SAGARPA to raise the
development of sugar cane, in which actions of
mechanization for the replacement of machinery are
promoted, make tasks efficient and reduce
production costs. At the same time this instance
points out the importance of studies that promote
productivity improvements, cost reductions and crop
harvest, among others.
Figure 1. States with the largest area of sugar cane
grown in Mexico. Source: SAGARPA, 2014.
The measures outlined above are oriented to
respond to the problems of the sugar industry in the
region, which is given by deficiencies in
infrastructure, machinery and equipment in the
production and harvesting, as well as the poor
organization of the production process and the low
level of scientific and technological research in the
field. In order to understand the behavior of the
machinery that performs the tasks of harvesting , this
paper aims to realize a study of the workday exploit
of the sugarcane harvest CASE IH 7000 in the area
of Jalisco state and northern part of Colima, México.
2. Methods
This work was done in the northern part of the
state of Colima and the state of Jalisco. The
evaluation 3 harvesters was developed CASE IH
7000, during the days of January 4 to February 2,
2016, a total of 26 effective workdays with a
duration of 12 hours approximately, a total of 901
hours of the workday of the machines under study
were evaluated. The method of movement was back
and forth with a larger turn in 180 degree turns in a
closed loop, open with recoil and bent-loop, and
other used depending on the particularities of the
edges of the field in harvest.
For this purpose the main methodologies for
evaluation of machines and/or agricultural equipment
were studied, taking as a basis the [24], the
methodology for assessing mechanized harvesting ,
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
[25], [26], [27], as well as some of the most
representative studies [4], [18], [19] made in this
area. The methodology used is focused on
determining the time in different conditions and
operations of the machine, allowing the calculation
of technological and exploitation indicators. To
determine these indicators data on the behavior of
three sugar cane harvesters were compiled.
In the model time keeping prepared for the
research it was recorded in chronological order all
the operations and the times used these are: clean
Working time (T1), auxiliary time (T2), technical
maintenance time (T3), Time for elimination of
failures (T4), rest time staff (T5), empty time transfers
(T6) Time of maintenance of means of transport (T7)
and time of stops for external causes of the machine
(T8). Data on the organization of harvesting, use and
work system of the machine, the characteristics of
the cane fields to cultivate , the volume of work
done, failures presented and other data related to the
exploitation of further specifies the sugar cane
harvesters.
The Control, processing, organization, analysis of
experimental data, obtaining parameters, graphs and
regression equations that characterize the variables
and processes investigated were performed with the
electronic tabulator Excel. The measuring
instruments used were: digital stopwatches, tape
measures and machine odometers. After making the
observations, we proceeded to determine the average
balance of time structure, by which it was
determined the actual balance of the working day, for
this computational techniques were applied. Finally
productivity rates and exploitation coefficients were
determined.
3. Results
The overall analysis of the elements of the
working day time the results were obtained as shown
in Figure 2. Clean working time or principal (T1)
represents 46.63% this is a low value, has a result for
the losses of time due to external causes of the
harvesters. The auxiliary time (T2) with a 11.12%,
was generated more by the poor definition of the
border turn of the fields, this aspect did not allowed
to use rational methods turns. The time of
maintenance of the machine under test (T3),
accounted for 4.49%, this value is due to the limited
availability of technicians for the execution of
maintenance media. The time for fault elimination
(T4) reached 14.19% of the workday, mostly because
of damage that attended before continuing with the
activities, this could have diminished consuming
normal time to develop the daily technical
maintenance.
Page 649
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-10, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
Figure 2. Percentage representation of time used for
sugarcane harvesters CASE-IH 7000.
The behavior of staff rest time (T5) was low, in
relation to the provisions of regulations of
agricultural work, with a representing value of 1.37%
of the time of the workday. The vacuum transfer time
(T6) represent 3.08%, the same is the product of the
distances traveled by moving between harvested
fields. Maintenance time or repair of equipment
support (T7) reached a very low value of 0.72%,
exerting little influence on the exploiting time of the
machine under study. The percentage of downtime
outside the machine (T8) amounted to 18.40 % of the
workday in it various effects caused by poor
organization of productive activities, negatively
impacting the lack of transport units during harvest
were detected.
Figure 3. Behavior of productive time (T1, T2, T3 and
T4), during the 26 days observed.
The behavior of productive times is observed (T1,
T2, T3 and T4) during the 26 work days observed.
Statistical analysis of the data, as well as the
utilization of the coefficient of productive time K04,
gave the results that can be seen in Figure 4, where it
is clearly perceived that the greater dispersion was
manifested in (T1) and (T4).
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Figure 4. Statistical Balance of productive times of the
workday.
Figure 5 shows the productivity performance of
clean time, ranging between 0.43 and 0.65 ha/h, in
the same way, it was reported a performance of 43-
61 t/h, lower value established by the manufacturer
(80 t/h) and that reference other authors (Masute et
al., 2014; Daquinta, et al., 2014).
Figure 5. Harvester productivity in clean time (W1)
depending on the crop performance (Ra).
Analyzing these values is inferred that there may
be a better use of the productive capacity of the
machine, it affects considerably the downtime for
reasons beyond the day and due to low agricultural
yields of the fields in the fotocronometraje was
performed. The curve obtained through the equation
W1 = 66.854x + 17.59, with a R2 = 0.9001 shows that
there is a strong relationship between productivity
and performance, and allows to determine for each
value of productivity performance in the range
determined by the curve.
The behavior of productivity in terms of productive
time has a sensible decrease due to the negative
impact of expenses of time due to technical problems
and technological caused by poor organization of the
process to make the repairs in the field, you can see
that W04 takes maximum values of 0.25 ha/h. The
curve obtained through the equation 0.0052x + W04
= 0.0699, with an R2 = 0.9001 shows that there is a
strong relationship between productivity and
performance (Figure 6), and also allows to determine
Page 650
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-10, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in
for each value of productivity performance in the
range determined by the curve.
Figure 6. Harvester productivity into productive time (W04)
depending on the crop performance (Ra).
The analysis of technical coefficients and
exploitation of the harvester, shown in Figure 7,
demonstrate there is a group of inefficiencies that
prevent proper development of the process of
harvesting potatoes, then the statement is plotted.
The coefficient of the exploitative time (K07) and the
coefficient of utilization of productive time (K04) are
the lowest exploitation arriving reaching values of
0.61 and 0.36 respectively. The coefficient values of
technological service (K23), security technology (K41)
and technical security (K42) reached values between
0.93 and 0.99, which confirms the high reliability of
the machine under study.
Figure 7. Behavior of technical coefficients and harvester
exploitation.
4. Conclusions
The analysis of the results allowed to determine that
the harvester CASE IH 7000 productive potentiality
aren’t exploited optimally.
The technical and exploitation indicators determined
for harvesters CASE IH 7000 are below the
established parameters of this machine, affecting
negatively the use of clean time work, which only
reach 46.63 % and downtime by other causes which
rose to 18.40% of the total observation time.
Productivity behaved in an average of 55.45 t/h of
clean time work during observations, value below the
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
real possibilities of harvesters and determined by
various authors.
5. References
[1]. Singh, A. K., & Solomon, S. (2015). Development of
a Sugarcane Detrasher. Sugar Tech, 17(2), 189-194.
[2]. Narimoto, L. R., Camarotto, J. A., & da Costa Alves,
F. J. (2015). The operation of mechanical sugarcane
harvesters and the competence of operators: an
ergonomic approach. African Journal of Agricultural
Research, 10(15), 1832-1839.
[3]. Sentíes, H. & Gómez, F.C. Nuevas directrices en el
mejoramiento genético de la caña de azúcar
(Saccharum spp) AGRO PRODUCTIVIDAD, ISSN-
0188-7394, Año 7, Volumen 7, Número 2, marzo-
abril, pp. 9-15, 2014.
[4]. Matos Ramírez, N., Iglesias Coronel, C., & García
Cisneros, E. (2014). Organización racional del
complejo de máquinas en la cosecha-transporte-
recepción de la caña de azúcar en la Empresa
Azucarera ARGENTINA. Revista Ciencias Técnicas
Agropecuarias, 23(2), 27-33.
[5]. SAGARPA, 2014. Servicio de Información
Agroalimentaria y Pesquera.
http://www.siap.sagarpa.gob.mx.
[6]. FAOSTAT. 2013. Sugarcane production. Food and
Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy:
http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
[7]. Hernández, A. La agroindustria de la caña de azúcar
en México. AGRO PRODUCTIVIDAD, ISSN-0188-
7394, Año 7, Volumen 7, Número 2, marzo-abril, pp.
35-41, 2014.
[8]. Domínguez, C., Sosa, R.. and Bravo, H. “Prevención,
minimización y control de la contaminación ambiental
en un ingenio azucarero de México”. Ingeniería
Investigación y Tecnología, volumen XV (número 4),
octubre-diciembre 2014: 549-560.
[9]. Castañeda, O.; Gómez, F.C.; Trejo, L.I.; Morales, V.;
González, M.T.; Martínez, Y.M. & Gámez, R.; Caña
de azúcar. AGRO PRODUCTIVIDAD, ISSN-0188-
7394, Año 7, Volumen 7, Número 2, marzo-abril, pp.
16-21, 2014.
[10]. Castillo, A.; Milanés, N.; Rodríguez, D. A.; Aguilar,
N.; Ordóñez, P. y Lozano, F. Impacto de la quema de
caña de azúcar sobre el N en suelos de la región
Veracruz Central, México. Revista Cuba & Caña,
2007, p. 7-12.
[11]. Kingston, G.; Donzelli, J. L.; Meyer, J. H.; Richard,
E. P.; Seeruttun, S.; Torres, J. y Van Antwerpen, R.
Impact of the green-cane harvest production system
on the agronomy of sugarcane. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar
Cane Technol., 2005, vol. 15, p. 521–533.
[12]. Cabrera, J. A y Zuaznabar, R. Impacto sobre el
ambiente del monocultivo de la caña de azúcar con el
uso de la quema para la cosecha y la fertilización
nitrogenada. I. Balance del Carbono. Cultivos
Tropicales, 2010, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 5-13, Cultivos
Tropicales, ISSN 0258-5936, cultrop v.31 n.1 La
Habana ene.-mar. 2010.
[13]. Ortiz L.H., Salgado G.S., Castelán E.M., Córdova
S.S. 2012. Perspectivas de la cosecha de la caña de
azúcar cruda en México. Revista Mexicana de
Ciencias Agrícolas Pub. Esp. Núm. 4: 767-673.
Page 651
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)
Vol-2, Issue-10, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

[14]. Fátima Cardoso¹, T., Cavalett¹, O., Chagas¹, M. F.,

de Morais¹, E. R., Nunes, J. L., Carvalho¹, H. C. J. F.,
... & Bonomi¹, A. (2013). Technical and economic
assessment of trash recovery in the sugarcane
bioenergy. Sci. Agric, 70(5), 353-360.
[15]. Spekken, M., José P. Molin, Thiago L. Romanelli.
Cost of boundary manoeuvres in sugarcane
production. Biosystems Engineering, Volume 129,
January 2015, Pages 112-126.
[16]. Ou Y G, Wegener M K, Yang D T, Liu Q T, Zheng
D K, Wang M M, (2013). “Mechanization
technology: The key to sugarcane production in
China. International Journal of Agricutural &
Biological Engineering, 2013; 6(1): 1－27.
[17]. Simões, D., Luis Gustavo Santin and Paulo Torres
Fenner. Ergonomic characterization of three sugar
cane harvester machinery models. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, ISSN 1991-637X, Vol. 11(8),
pp. 724-729, 25 February, 2016.
[18]. Matos Ramírez, N., García Cisneros, E., & González
González, J. R. (2010). Evaluación técnica y de
explotación de las cosechadoras de caña Case-7 000.
Revista Ciencias Técnicas Agropecuarias, 19(4), 06-
09.
[19]. Miranda Caballero, A., Castells Hernández, S.,
Fernández Abreu, O., Santos González, F., & Iglesias
Coronel, C. (2013). Análisis de la utilización del
tiempo de turno por las cosechadoras arroz CLAAS
DOMINATOR. Revista Ciencias Técnicas
Agropecuarias, 22(4), 27-31.
[20]. Ahmed, A. E., & Alam-Eldin, A. O. (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.
[21]. Suryawanshi, V., Thakur, S. S., & Sharma, A.
(2013). Performance evaluation of experimental self-
propelled double row sugarcane harvester. AMA,
Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin
America, 44(3), 80-88.
[22]. Daquinta, G., Domínguez, J., Pérez, C., &
Fernández, M. (2014). Indicadores técnicos y de
explotación de las cosechadoras de caña de azúcar
Case-IH 7000 y 8000 en la provincia de Ciego de
Ávila. Revista Ingeniería Agrícola, 4(3).
[23]. Sanap, D. J., More, S. S., & Bonkalwar, N. R.
(2015). Total factor productivity growth in sugarcane
crop of Maharashtra state. Journal of Sugarcane
Research, 4(2), 56-63.
[24]. NC 34-37:87: Máquinas Agropecuarias y Forestales.
Metodología para la evaluación tecnológica
explotativa, 2da Edición, Vig. Febrero 2003.
[25]. NORMA ISO 8210: 1989: Equipment for harvesting
Combine harvesters Test procedure. Vig. 1989.
[26]. MINAZ. Metodología para la evaluación de la
cosecha mecanizada, Indicación No 3 de 2008, pp. 1-
7, Dirección de Cosecha y Maquinaria, Ministerio del
Azúcar, Cuba, 2008.
[27]. Masute, R., S. S. Chaudhari, S. S. Khedkar, B. D.
Deshmukh, Review paper on different aspects of
sugarcane harvesting methods for optimum
performance. International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Applied Sciences, ISSN : 2249-9210.
Vol. 02, Issue 01, pp. 52-5, 2014.

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Page 652