Comparison of Quantity and Quality Indices in Green and Burnt Harvesting Sugarcane Cultivars

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

assistant proffesor of agronomy department ramin university of ahwaz

Abstract

Abstract

Background and objectives: Increase in global warming and environmental issues, public opinion pressure, especially in urban areas near cane fields, the necessity of replacing green harvesting sugarcane (Saccharum Officinarum) instead of burning up is increasing. To set on fire cane fields also due to lose about 20 T ha-1 herbaceous (Trash blanket) remains can change to organic matter and help to soil fertility and sustainable production of sugarcane in Khuzestan.

Materials and methods: To evaluation quantity and quality indices at harvesting time in green harvesting method and comparison with burnt harvesting losses a test performed in 2015-2016 growing season at Imam Khomeini Agro Industry Company. The experiment design was a split plot based on complete randomized block with four replications. Three sugarcane cultivars were as main plots and five harvesting methods and ratooning after harvesting were as sub plots considered. Infield losses such as complete cane, chopper cane, unravel cane, uncut cane, total losses, pol percent and cane yield was studied in test units. A SAS (v 9.2) software was used for accounts statistical and LSD test for means comparison.

Results and Discussion: The results showed that cultivars had significant effect on all of measured characteristics. The highest and lowest unravel cane loses was observed in cultivar of CP73-21 (2.65 T ha-1) and CP48-103 (1.23Tha-1), respectively. Maximum total of losses belong CP73-21 cultivar (12.14Tha-1) and minimum (4.46Tha-1) belong CP48 cultivar. Because of difference between sugarcane cultivars in terms of cane length, leaf numbers, maturation stage period and tolerance to logging, these characteristics have important role in field losses. The highest unravel cane losses belong whole of green harvesting methods (without significant different between themselves) with nearly (2Tha-1) and the lowest unravel cane was observed burnt harvesting (1.35Tha-1). Green harvesting methods had more losses than burnt harvesting method. Because leaves and top are green at harvesting time in green harvesting method so losses amount in green harvesting method is higher than burnt method. The highest pol percent belong pre and middle mature cultivar. Method harvesting had not significant different on pol percent .The highest cane yield was observed in CP69-1062 cultivar (92.87Tha-1) and the lowest cane yield was observed in CP73-21 cultivar (65.4Tha-1). Average yield of burnt harvesting was 83.19Tha-1 and average yield of total green harvesting methods was 73.68T ha-1. Generally, yield of green harvesting methods had yield about 11% lower than burnt harvesting methods.

Conclusion: Because researches about green harvesting sugarcane start lately in Iran and because infield losses is higher in early maturity cultivar than other cultivars and need to technical changes about sugarcane harvesters for field losses decrease, current green cane harvesting must be start with middle maturity and late maturity cultivars.

Keywords

Main Subjects


1.Abdollahi, F. 2015. Agronomy section directions. Doc No AG-WI 0129 plan and programme unit, Imam Khomeini agro industry company press 6p. (In Persian)
2.Alizadeh, A. 2002. Water, Soil and Plant Relation. Astan Ghodes Razavi press 484p. (In Persian)
3.Baxter, B. 1983. Green cane harvest review. Aust, Cane grower, February: 32-35. Calcino, D.V, 1984. Ingham growers modify machines for trash retention. BSES Bull, 5:14-15.
4.Clements, H.F. 1980. Sugarcane Crop Logging and Control: Principles and Practices. Pitman Publishing Limited, London, 520 p.
5.FAOSTAT. 2013. World agricultural data, http://apps.fao.org/faostat/.
6.Gomez, J., Chappell, D. and McDonald, L. 2006. Sugar losses in burnt and green cane harvesting in Argentina. Sugarcane International Tech., 25(3): 21-24.
7.Gomez, J., De Castillo, G. and Ullavari, M. 2002. Effects of chopper harvesting on cane quality, 2003 ISSCT AG Mechanisation Workshop, held in Thibodaux, USA.
8.ICUMSA (International Commission For Uniform Methods In Sugar Analysis). 1999. ICUMSA Methods book and ICUMSA supplement, whalley, H.C.S. (ED.) Elsevier publishing company, Amsterdam, London, New York, 420 p.
9.Karmollachaab, A., Bakhshandeh, A., MoradiTlavat, M.R., Moradi, F. and Shomeili, M. 2015. Effect of chemical ripeners application on yield, quality and technological ripening of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Iran. J. Crop Sci., 17(1): 63-73. (In Persian)
10.Khajepour, M.R. 1992. Industrial Crop Production. Esfahan Industrial University Publications, 272p. (In Persian)
11.Kingston, G. 2002. Experience With the green-cane trash-blanket production system in Australia industry experience and recent research. In: Memoria Tecnica Ataca 2002, 175-185.
12.Kingston, G., Donzelli, J.L., Meyer, J.H., Richard, E.P., Seeruttun, S., Torres, J. and Van, R. 2005. Impact of the green-cane harvest production system on the agronomy of sugarcane. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 15: 521-533.
13.Moradi, R., and Makenali, N. 2014, Sugercane production direction document No: AG-WI-0110. Sixth edit. plan and programme unit Imam Khomeini Agro Industry Company press. 25p (In Persian)
14.Nunez, O., and Spaans, E. 2008. Evaluation of green-cane harvesting and crop management with a trash-blanket. Sugar Techol., 10(1): 29-35.
15.Richard, E.P. 2003. Implication of green-cane harvesting on planting and crop reestablishment: an overview. Int. Sos. Sugar Cane Technol. Agricultural Engineering Workshop –Abstract of Communications. http://issct.intnet.mu.
16.Ridge, D.R. and Dick R.G .1988. The adoption of green cane harvesting and trash blanketing in Australia. Agri. Eng., 1034-1040.
17.Rozeff, N., and Crawford Jr, H.R. 1979. Green cane VS. burned cane harvest comparisons. Agri. Eng., 916-932.
18.Stewart, G.A., and Kingston, G. 1979. An estimate of the production of sugarcane tops and trash in Queensland. Resour. Recov. Conserv., 4: 239-246.
19.Stewart, R.L., and McComiskie, G. 1988. A comparison of green and burnt cane harvesting in the Burdekin. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar cane Technol., Conf., pp. 27-31.
20.Thorburn, P.J., Meier, E.A., Collins, K., and Robertson, F.A. 2012. Changes in soil carbon sequestration, fractionation and soil fertility in response to sugarcane residue retention are site-specific. Soil Tillage Res., 120: 99-111.
21.Wood, A.W. 1991. Management of crop residues following green harvesting of sugarcane in north Queensland. Soil Tillage Res., 20: 69-85.