CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane is one of the several species of tall perennial true grasses of the genus
Saccharum, tribe Andropogoneae, native to the warm temperate to tropical regions of
South Asia and Melanesia used for sugar production. It has stout jointed fibrous stalks
that are rich in the sugar sucrose which accumulates in the stalk internodes. The plant is
2 to 6 meters (6 to 19 feet) tall. All sugar cane species interbreed and the major
commercial cultivars are complex hybrids. Sugarcane is a tropical crop and its
maximum growth takes place under hot, humid and sunny conditions. The importance
of sugarcane in the agrarian economics of the world needs no emphasis because of its
higher value as a cash crop, a major source of sugar and as a source of basic raw
material for various Agro-Based industries.

It is a long duration crop and requires 10 to 15 and even 18 months to mature,

depending upon the geographical conditions. It requires hot and humid climate with
average temperature of 21-27C and 75-150 cm rainfall. India is one of the most
sugarcane producing countries in the world which covers 18.52 % area and contributes
18.45 % sugarcane production of the world. Largest sugarcane producing state of India
is Uttar Pradesh which has 38.61 % share in overall sugarcane production as per 2013-
14 statistics (J.V. Mande and B.M. Thombre, 2009). The second and third largest states
are Maharashtra and Karnataka. Other main sugarcane producing states of India include
Bihar, Assam, Haryana, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

Sugarcane cultivation in India is a labour intensive process. Farmers depend

mainly on human power and it requires continuous engagement of labour throughout the
crop cycle. Scarcity of labour is often felt in the agricultural sector. For want of
sufficient labour at reasonable wages, most of the cultural operations are delayed or not
taken up at all, resulting in low production and productivity. Yadav (2008) estimated
that, 134 man hours are required per metric ton of sugar produced. Of this, one third is
required for production whereas remaining two third is utilized for harvesting, cleaning
and loading. Hence mechanization of sugarcane harvesting is essential not only for
reducing the production cost but also for reducing drudgery involved in manual
harvesting operations and also to ensure quality produce. Shortage of labour is one of

1
the reasons why many farmers have walked away from this promising crop.
Mechanization is considered as an alternative to solve the problem of labour shortage.

Rajula shanthy and Muthusamy (2012) stated that wide row spacing of 120 cm
gave a difference in cane yield of 5.70-41.59 t/ha when compared with farmers
conventional practice of 90 cm narrow spacing and manual harvesting costs incurred for
narrow row spacing and wider row spacing are Rs. 39,379 per hectare and Rs. 42,500
per hectare respectively.

Therefore, an emphasis should be made to reduce the harvesting costs which

forms the major part of sugarcane cultivation. Thus, we made an attempt to study the
following objectives.

Objectives of the study

1. Performance Evaluation of mechanical and manual harvesting of sugarcane.

2. Cost economics of sugarcane harvesting and manual harvesting.

2
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Marcio Alexandre Pancelli1 et al., (2015) studied sugarcane mechanical harvest

deposes straw residue on the soil surface, increases soil organic matter and improves
nutrients cycling, especially potassium (K). The objective of this work was to evaluate
the effect of K fertilizer on vegetative growth, mineral nutrition, straw yield and
technological quality; i.e., levels of total soluble solids, industry fiber (bagasse),
apparent sucrose, juice purity, and reducing sugars in a ratoon sugarcane grown in
Oxisol in a mechanized harvesting system

Marcos Antonio Marcari et al., (2015) stated that the climate is an important
factor in sugarcane production, and its study is fundamental for understanding the
climatic requirements of the crop. We developed regional agro-meteorological models
to forecast monthly yields in tonnes of sugarcane per hectare (TCH). We used monthly
climatological data (air temperature, precipitation, water deficiency and surplus,
potential and actual evapotranspiration, soil-water storage, and global solar irradiation)
of the previous year to forecast TCH and ATR for the next year using multiple linear
regressions.

Suresh Kumar P.K et al., (2015) presented to obtain preliminary data required
for the study, laboratory and field measurements were made to ascertain the cutting and
lifting behavior of sugarcane stalk that can be used by designers for design of the
sugarcane harvester. An apparatus was developed to measure the lifting moment of
sugarcane stalk from the lodged position to vertical under field conditions. Laboratory
studies were conducted to measure the mechanical properties of sugarcane stalk. To
measure the cutting energy a pendulum type impact cutting device was used.

Rohit J.Masute et al., (2014) studied in many countries, sugarcane harvesting is

a very labour-intensive activity in which workers usually become fatigued after
manually cutting the cane for a few hours. They need frequent pauses for rest, and they
experience sustained injuries from excessive stress on the joints and muscles of the
body. And also today's world need faster rate of production of agriculture products. He

3
analyzed sugarcane harvester machine aspects for economical harvesting which will
help to minimize the working fatigue and to reduce labour cost.

Ou Yinggang et al., (2013) stated that the cost of labor in China is increasing
rapidly and China needs to change its sugarcane production methods from manual work
to mechanization in order to catch up with international trends in this global industry.
Although a lot of efforts in China have gone into sugarcane mechanization since the
1960s, the overall level of mechanization in sugarcane production is still only
approximately 30%, which is about 20% lower than that achieved in the other main
field crops.

Ramalakshmi Devi S et al., (2012) stated that the present study was carried out
with the objective of finding out the problems encountered by sugarcane farmers and
respective suggestions to overcome the problems as perceived by the sugarcane farmers.
The intervention and popularization of suitable and feasible machines for harvesting
sugarcane can help the farmers in completing the harvesting work at low cost and also
helps in timely delivery at the factory gate.

Shanthy et al., (2012) focused on various sociological and economical issues

concerned with wider row (150 cm) spaced planting in sugarcane. The study was
conducted in Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Tamil Nadu state of South India during 20072009.
Farmers realized increased net returns through improved cane productivity of 2030
t/ha apart from the economic benefit of growing intercrops. Wide row planting also
facilitated mechanization and reduced cost of cultivation. In spite of the constraint of
small land holdings, all the farmers favoured the continued adoption of this technology.

Thiyagarajan R et al., (2012) presented commonly used and high energy

demanding tools like sugarcane harvesting knives of various models available in India
were selected to assess the ergonomic suitability. Ten subjects were selected for the
investigation based on the age and fitness. The parameters used for the ergonomical
evaluation of selected tools include heart rate and oxygen consumption rate, energy cost
of operation, acceptable work load (AWL), limit of continuous performance (LCP),
over all Discomfort Rate (ODR) and Body Part Discomfort Score (BPDS). Based on the
analysis of results, the sugarcane harvesting knife (H1) ranked as first in terms of
minimum value of heart rate, energy cost of work, AWL, LCP, ODR and BPDS.

4
 Takuyuki Yoshioka et al., (2011) studied for harvesting willows, a sugarcane
harvester which was used in southern Japan was applied during its agricultural off-
season. The mechanical harvest was considered to have little influence on willow
regeneration as long as the machine cut rather developed trees. The system performance
of harvesting and collecting willow billets in a hypothetical model field was calculated
22.4 m3 per hectare, suggesting the feasibility of the low-cost supply of wood chips.

Parasuraman and sudhagar (2010) studied on effect of yield with respect to

spacing and stated that the highest average cane yield of 145.5 t/ha was recorded with
120 cm spacing followed by 150 cm spacing (139.5 t/ha) when compared to 90 cm
conventional narrow spacing of yield 120.46 t/ha.

Mande J.V et al., (2009) presented that the present study was carried out in two
talukas of Latur district namely Latur and Renapur. The sample of 72 sugarcane
growers was studied. Majority of respondents were middle aged, had secondary school
education, nuclear type of family with medium family size, medium land holder and
having agriculture as main occupation. Hundred percent of the respondents adopting the
ploughing practice and ridges and furrow method of sugarcane planting.

S.K. Thakare and Swathi dindorkar(2009) stated that the assignment on

development and testing of manually operated sugarcane set cum forage cutter was
undertaken with objectives of developing a machine useful for cutting operation and
energy consideration specially for women. The actual output in eight hours was 86.61
kg for dry and 127.92 kg for green forage. The overall performance of forage cutter
during operation was found satisfactory without breakdown.

Efraim Albrecht Neto et al., (2008) studied drawbacks of cleaning technology

used in chopper harvesters result in high level cane losses. The objective of this work
was the development of a detrasher for the removal of the sugarcane extraneous matter.
The intention was also to make it viable equipment concerning its cleaning efficiency
and equip a commercial sugarcane harvester.

Bachche S. G et al., (2007) stated that in India, manual planting of sugarcane is

very common. The planting of sets & fertilizer application both operations have to be
performed differently. The study was undertaken for field testing of sugarcane cutter
planter and for economic comparison with traditional method. The planter was used
with a 55 hp tractor and operated in low third gear. Productive and non-productive times

5
were recorded. Moreover, the time required to cover a 30 m distance in the middle of
the field was noted and in turn the speed of operation was calculated.

Faghiri M et al., (2007) studied post harvest sugarcane residues including

sugarcane tops, dry and green leaves and cane bits are widely used in sugarcane
producing countries. It is an important forage source for ruminants. Because a suitable
machine doesnt exist and manual removal would be too expensive, therefore, these
residues are burnt after drying in few weeks and this will result in more environmental
pollution.

Raghu S et al., (2006) conducted field experiments at Parrys research farm by

planting sugarcane variety Co 86032 raised through micro propagation with different
spacing viz., 90 60 cm, 90 90 cm, 120 60 cm and 120 90 cm during 2002-03
planting season. Among the four spacings, 90 60 cm recorded the highest tiller
number of 1.88 lakh/ha, 203.93 cm stalk length, internode length of 12.59 cm and cane
yield of 105.90 t/ha. Thus, a spacing of 90 60 cm was found suitable for raising tissue
culture raised Co 86032 variety.

Pawar M. W et al., (2005) conducted an experiment with a 5ft inter row

spacing to find out optimum inter settling spacing for polybag planting during preseason
season of 20012002 at Vasantdada Sugar Institutes farm at Manjari. The results
indicated that the cane yield was significantly increased by 17.48 t/ha in 60 cm inter
settling spacing as compared to control (106.65 t/ha) in five feet wider row spacing.

Rodrigo F. G. Baldo et al., (2005) stated that Harvest losses due to lack of
vehicle synchronization are substantial. This issue can be addressed by using automated
guidance systems on both vehicles. By using local distance sensors between the
operating vehicles, their relative position could be determined based on the harvester
position, which is the leading vehicle in the process and the only vehicle that carries the
high accuracy GPS receiver. The goal of this study was to evaluate different distance
sensing devices.

T.C. Mendoza and E.L.Rosario (2005) conducted experiments on optimum

spatial arrangements in sugarcane legume intercropping and found that two narrow rows
spaced at 0.5 m with interval row spacing 2.0 m appeared to be optimum in sugarcane
annual legume intercropping. This spatial arrangement indicated slight yield reductions

6
for the intercrops and comparable yield level for sugarcane to its pure culture at
conventional equidistant row planting scheme.

T.G. Fuelling et al.,(1978) evaluated the performance of sugarcane harvester and

concluded that speed of operation has little effect on quality of cane. Cane left behind in
the field is independent of speed of operation and is mainly associated with lodging and
ground conditions. Improved field practices are as important in improving harvester
performance as machine design.

7
 CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medak is the leading producer of sugarcane in Telangana. Harvesting operation

is the most tedious activity in sugarcane cultivation which involves huge input energy.
In Medak, harvesting methods followed are manual and mechanical. Evaluation study
was conducted at Kohir, a town and Mandal headquarters in the Medak district of
Telangana, India. Kohir is located at 17.60000N 77.71670E. It has an average elevation
of 627 metres (2060 ft.).

3.1. Manual harvesting

For the most of the sugarcane crops in Medak, harvesting is done manually
using locally made small hand tools such as knives. The farmer generally use old
designs made of iron for harvesting sugarcane. The sugarcane harvesting operation
involves the unit operations viz., cutting the sugarcane, detrashing the cane, detopping
and transporting to sugarcane factory for further processing.

Fig. 3.1 Manual harvesting Knife

3.2. Mechanical harvesting

In a normal sugarcane harvesting operation, the harvester first severs cane tops
and spreads them to the side of operating rows. Then the topped cane plants are
gathered by crop dividers and arranged in the longitudinal orientation (parallel to
feeding direction) to be fed into machine. Next, stalks are cut at their bases about 30
mm above the ground using a cutting mechanism. Stalks are then conveyed by feeding
8
rollers to cane choppers for chopping them into 15-30 cm billets. Chopped billets are
transported up the discharge elevator, where the primary and secondary extractor fans
remove residual leafy materials prior to discharging billets into the collection bins.

Fig. 3.2 Sugarcane harvester AUSTOFT 4000 Series

The specifications of the sugarcane harvester AUSTOFT 4000 Series are shown in
Appendix-I.

3.3. Field trials

With a goal to establish performance measures of the sugarcane harvester, a

series of field trials were conducted in the cane fields of Kohir Mandal. Four field trials
were conducted; the first on 28th January 2016 at 10:30 AM, second on 10th February
2016 at 10:00 AM, third on 17th February 2016 at 8:30 AM and fourth on 17th February
2016 at 1:00 PM.

3.3.1. Field Trail 1

3.3.1.1. Mechanical harvesting

This field trial was done in the field (1 acre) of Theegala Laxmanna s/o
Ashanna, a farmer in Kohir village. The crop variety sown in the field was Co 86032
with a spacing of 4 ft.

3.3.1.2. Manual harvesting

9
 This filed trial was done in the field (1 acre) of Laxmaiah s/o Rajanna, a farmer
in Kohir village. The crop variety sown in the field was Co 86032 with a spacing of 3 ft.

3.3.2. Field Trial 2

3.3.2.1. Mechanical harvesting

This field trial was done in the field (1 acre) of Narsappa s/o Komuraiah, a
farmer in Kohir village. The crop variety sown in the field was Co 86032 with a spacing
of 4.5 ft.

3.3.2.2. Manual harvesting

This field trial was done in the field (1 acre) of B.Nagaraju s/o Saidulu, a farmer
in Kohir village. The crop variety sown in the field was Co 86032 with a spacing of 3 ft.

3.3.3. Field Trial 3

3.3.3.1. Mechanical harvesting

This field trial was done in the field (1 acre) of Srinivasa Reddy s/o Narasimha
Reddy, a farmer in Kohir village. The crop variety sown in the field was Co 86032 with
a spacing of 4 ft.

3.3.3.2. Manual harvesting

This field trial was done in the field (1 acre) of Ramulu s/o Bikshapathi, a farmer
in Kohir village. The crop variety sown in the field was Co 86032 with a spacing of 3 ft.

3.3.4. Field Trial 4

3.3.4.1. Mechanical harvesting

This field trial was done in the field (1 acre) of Venkataiah s/o Suraiah, a farmer
in Kohir village. The crop variety sown in the field was Co 86032 with a spacing of 4.5
ft.

3.3.4.2. Manual harvesting

This field trial was done in the field (1 acre) of Somaiah s/o Mallaiah, a farmer in Kohir
village. The crop variety sown in the field was Co 86032 with a spacing of 3 ft.

10
3.4. Procedure for determination of parameters

This study evaluated and compared an existing sugar cane harvester Austoft
4000 and manual harvesting in terms of height of cut, time taken to harvest, field
capacity and harvesting cost.

3.4.1. Determination of height of cut above the ground

Ten cut stalks left after harvest in both mechanical and manual harvested fields
respectively were chosen randomly in different rows. Height of cuts was noted by
placing the scale along the left over cut stalks in both mechanical and manual harvested
fields. These heights of cuts of machine harvested fields were compared with manual
harvested fields to evaluate its performance.

Fig. 3.3 Determination of height of cut above the ground

3.4.2. Determination of time taken to harvest

The harvesting operation was made to start in both mechanical and manual
harvested fields and the time of start of harvest was noted using a stopwatch.
Additionally, the machine operational time of single row was noted for about five rows
and also the total time taken to harvest one acre was noted by using a stopwatch. The
noted mechanical and manual time readings were compared to evaluate the harvester
performance.

3.4.3. Determination of height and diameter of canes

Five canes are selected randomly from different rows of both mechanical and
manually harvested fields respectively. Height of canes is measured by placing the tape
along the length of cane. Diameters of canes are measured by using scale.

11
 Fig. 3.4 Determination of height of cane

3.4.4. Determination of field capacity

Field capacity is the total area covered in an operation to the total time taken to
complete the operation. The total area covered in each of the four field trials was taken
as one acre to make a standard. The total time taken to harvest was noted already during
both mechanical and manual harvesting trials. The field capacity was obtained by
dividing area covered in harvesting operation with the total time taken to harvest in both
mechanical and manual trials.

Field capacity (ha/h) =

3.4.5. Calculation of the total harvesting cost

The total harvesting cost is calculated for custom hiring harvester and self-
owned harvester by farmer.

3.4.5.1. Calculation of the total harvesting cost (custom hiring)

The total harvesting cost on custom hiring basis in mechanical harvest includes
hire cost of machine, labour cost and costs incurred in transporting the cane billets to
nearby sugarcane industries for further processing. The total harvesting costs in manual
harvest includes labour costs for harvesting operation, loading and transporting the cane
billets to industries nearby. The transport cost may vary with the distance of field from
the industry.

Total harvesting cost on custom hiring (Rs/t) = Hire cost of harvester + Labour cost +
Transport cost

12
3.4.5.1.1. Calculation of Labour cost in Rs/ton (custom hiring)

Labour cost = Rs/day

Field capacity = ha/day

= Labour cost (Rs/ha)

Yield = t/ha

= labour cost (Rs/t)

3.4.5.2. Calculation of the total harvesting cost (Harvester owned by farmer)

3.4.5.2.1. Fixed Cost:

1. D (Rs/h) = S = 10% of initial cost

2. I (Rs/h) = I = 10% per year

3. Housing cost per hour (Rs/h) = 1% of initial cost of the machine

4. Insurance cost (Rs /h) = 1% of initial cost of the machine
5. Taxes (Rs /h) = 1% of initial cost of the machine

Total fixed cost (Rs /h) = Depreciation + Interest + Housing cost + Insurance
cost + Taxes

3.4.5.2.2. Operating cost:

1. Fuel cost (Rs/h) = Fuel consumption (litres/hr) Cost of fuel (Rs/litre)

2. Cost of lubricant (Rs/h) = 30% of fuel cost
3. Repair and maintenance cost (Rs/h) = 6% of capital cost per year
4. Wages for operator (Rs/h)

Total operating cost (Rs/h) = Fuel cost + Cost of lubricant + Repair and maintenance
cost + Wages of operator

Total cost (Rs/h) = Fixed cost + Operating cost

13
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Height of cut above the ground

As described in subsection 3.4.1, there were ten left over stalks chosen randomly
in different rows of four mechanical and manual harvested field trials respectively. The
mechanical and manual harvested height of cuts in field trial 1 was 5.15 cm and 10.25
cm respectively, in field trial 2, 3.85 cm and 10.08 cm respectively, in field trial 3, 4.5
cm and 12.71 cm respectively and in field trial 4, 2.92 cm and 10.38 cm respectively.
The mechanical harvested field height of cut is lower than manual harvested field height
of cut. This difference in height of cut may be due to the following two reasons. In case
of manual harvest, labours may cut the canes six inch above the ground level to avoid
the strike of knife with soil. In case of mechanical harvest, the base cutter is arranged as
close to the ground as possible so that there is lower height of cut. It is to be noted that,
the maximum sugar content is present at the bottom of the cane (Rohith J.Masute, et al.,
2014).

14

12
Height of cut (cm)

10

8
Manual harvesting
6
Mechanical harvesting
4

0
Field trial Field trial Field trial Field trial
1 2 3 4

Fig. 4.1 Comparison of height of cuts for manual and mechanical harvesting

14
4.2. Time taken to harvest

The total time taken to harvest one acre in mechanical and manual harvested
fields of field trial 1 was 2 hours 40 minutes and 8 hours respectively, in field trial 2 it
was 2 hours 35 minutes and 8 hours respectively, in field trial 3 it was 3 hours 25
minutes and 10 hours respectively and in field trial 4 it was 2 hours 50 minutes and 10
hours respectively.

40000

35000
Time taken to harvest (s)

30000

25000

20000 Manual harvesting

15000 Mechanical harvesting

10000

5000

0
Field trial Field trial Filed trial Field trial
1 2 3 4

Fig.4.2 Comparison of time taken to harvest in manual and mechanical

harvesting

4.3. Field capacity

The field capacity of mechanical and manual harvest of field trial 1 was 0.15
ha/h and 0.05 ha/h respectively, in field trial 2 it was 0.154 ha/h and 0.05 ha/h
respectively, in field trial 3 it was 0.117 ha/h and 0.04 ha/h respectively and in field trial
4 it was 0.14 ha/h and 0.044 ha/h respectively.

15
 0.18

0.16

0.14
Field capacity (ha/h)
0.12

0.1
Manual harvesting
0.08 Mechanical harvesting
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
Field trial 1Field trial 2Field trial 3Field trial 4

Fig.4.3 Comparison of field capacity of manual and mechanical harvesting

4.4. Total harvesting cost

The total harvesting cost is calculated for custom hiring based harvester and self-owned
harvester by farmer.

4.4.1. Total harvesting cost (custom hiring)

The total harvesting cost on custom hiring in mechanical harvest includes hire
cost of machine, labour cost and costs incurred in transporting the cane billets to nearby
sugarcane industries for further processing as mentioned in subsection 3.4.5. The labour
cost in mechanical harvest of field trial 1, field trial 2, field trial 3 and field trial 4 were
Rs. 5 per ton, Rs. 5 per ton, Rs. 10 per ton and Rs. 5 per ton respectively. The hire cost
in mechanical harvest of field trial 1, field trial 2, field trial 3 and field trial 4 were
Rs. 520 per ton, Rs. 520 per ton, Rs. 450 per ton and Rs. 450 per ton respectively. The
transport cost in mechanical harvest of field trial 1, field trial 2, field trial 3 and field
trial 4 were Rs. 320 per ton, Rs. 320 per ton, Rs. 380 per ton and Rs. 380 per ton
respectively. The total harvesting cost in mechanical harvesting of field trial 1 was
Rs. 845 per ton, in field trial 2 it was Rs. 845 per ton, in field trial 3 it was Rs. 840 per
ton and in field trial 4 it was Rs. 835 per ton. The total harvesting costs in manual
harvest includes labour cost for harvesting operation, loading and transporting the cane
billets to industries nearby. The manual harvesting labour cost to cover one acre in field
trial 1 was Rs. 10,000, in field trial 2 was Rs. 10,500, in field trial 3 was Rs. 8000 and in
16
field trial 4 was Rs. 12,000. The total harvesting cost in manual harvesting of the four
field trials were same i.e., Rs. 1500 per ton.

1600
Total harvesting cost, custom hiring (Rs/t)
1400

1200

1000

800 Manual harvesting

600 Mechanical harvesting

400

200

0
Field trial Field trial Field trial Field trial
1 2 3 4

Fig. 4.4 Comparison of total harvesting cost of manual and mechanical harvesting
custom hiring)

4.4.2. Total harvesting cost (Harvester owned by farmer and custom hiring )

Total harvesting cost of sugarcane by harvester owned by farmer is Rs. 832 per
tonne. Total harvesting cost of sugarcane by harvester on custom hiring is Rs. 841 per
tonne.

842
840
Cost of harvesting (Rs/t)

838
836
834
832
830
828
826
Custom hiring Owned by farmer

Fig. 4.5 Comparison of total harvesting cost of mechanical harvesting (custom hiring)
and mechanical harvesting (Harvester owned by farmer)

17
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Mechanization of sugarcane harvesting is essential not only for reducing the
production cost but also for reducing drudgery involved in manual harvesting
operations, and also to ensure quality produce.

The evaluation study was carried out in Medak district of Telangana. The
existing methods of manual and mechanical harvesting were evaluated to know its
performance. The study is concluded in terms of height of cut, time taken to harvest,
field capacity and total cost of harvesting as follows.

In field trials, the height of cut of sugarcane above the ground using harvester
has an average value of 4.1 cm whereas manual harvesting has an average value of 10.8
cm above the ground. The harvester takes an average time of 7.5 h whereas manual
harvesting takes an average time of 22.5 h to harvest one hectare. The field capacity
obtained for mechanical harvesting has an average value of 0.141 ha/h whereas manual
harvesting has an average value of 0.045 ha/h. From the present study, the cost of
harvesting is calculated from four different field trials for sugarcane harvester on
custom hiring which has an average of
Rs. 841 per ton whereas with harvester owned by farmer has an average of Rs. 832 per
tonne and in manual harvesting has an average of Rs. 1500 per ton.

From this study it was observed that the cost of harvesting by mechanical
method of harvesting and manual harvesting are Rs. 63,433/ha and Rs. 16,667/ha. So, in
order to reduce the cost of harvesting by machine, the harvester should work for more
hours to cover maximum area.

The only possible way to sustain sugarcane farming is through mechanization as

it is a labour, drudgery and energy intensive crop. For any tractor drawn implements,
increased row spacing is a pre-requisite. Farmers have started realizing this crude reality
and a considerable area is practiced under wider row spacing. Wide row spaced
cultivation has its own advantages over narrow spacing. Wider row spacing with
mechanization would prove to be profitable in terms of cane yield and harvesting cost
than narrow spacing.

18
 REFERENCES

Abdel-Mawla, H. A. 2005. "State of the art: Sugarcane mechanical harvesting-

discussion of efforts in Egypt".

Bachche S. G., Yewale, S. N., Magdum, V. R., and Patil, S. B. 2007. "Field testing of
sugarcane planter and economic comparison with traditional method",
Proceedings of the International Agricultural Engineering Conference, Bangkok,
Thailand, Cutting edge technologies and innovations on sustainable resources
for world food sufficiency. Asian Association for Agricultural Engineering.

Baldo Rodrigo F. G., Timothy S. Stombaugh., Paulo. S. G. Magalhaes and Rodrigo. S.

Zandonadi, 2012. "Dynamic test of sensors to measure the distance between two
machines", Infomation Technology, Automation and Precision Farming.
International Conference of Agricultural Engineering-CIGR-AgEng. Agriculture
and Engineering for a Healthier Life, Valencia, Spain, CIGR-EurAgEng.

Banerjee K., Pramanik, B. R. and Puste, A. M. 2012 ."Effect of different row spacing
on ratoonability of high sugar genotypes of sugarcane hybrids", Journal of Crop
and Weed 8.2: 77-79.

Faghiri M., Razavi, S. J. and Masoumi, A. A. 2008. "Determination of physical and

rheological properties of sugarcane residue to design a picker and baling
mechanism", Agricultural and biosystems engineering for a sustainable world.
International Conference on Agricultural Engineering, Hersonissos, Crete,
Greece, 23-25 June, 2008. European Society of Agricultural Engineers (AgEng).

Fuelling T. G., Henkel, C. R., Leverington, K. C., and Wegener, M. K. 1978. "Sugar
cane harvester performance", Proc. Qd Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 45th Conf.

Ma S., Scharf, P. A., Karkee, M. and Zhang, Q. 2015. "Performance Evaluation of a

Chopper Harvester in Hawaiian Sugarcane Fields", Transactions of the ASABE
58.2: 271-279.

Mande J. V., and Thombre, B. M. 2009. "Adoption of cultivation practices by sugarcane

growers", Agricultural science digests 29.3: 178-181.

19
Manimaran S., Kalyanasundaram, D., Ramesh, S. and Siva Kumar, K. 2009.
"Maximizing sugarcane yield through efficient planting methods and nutrient
management practices", Sugar Tech 11.4 (2009): 395-397.

Masute Rohit J., Chaudhari, S. S., Khedkar, S. S. and Deshmukh, B.D. 2014. "Review
paper on different aspects of Sugarcane harvesting methods for Optimum
performance", International Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied
Sciences IJREAS 2.01: 52-55.

Parasuraman P., and Sudhagar, R. 2010. "Growth and yield analysis of sugarcane as
influenced by different row spacings", Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences
44.4: 919-921.

Pawar M. W., More, D. B., Amodkar, V. T. and Snehal joshi 2005. "Effect of
intersettling spacing on sugarcane yield and quality", Sugar Tech 7.1: 87-89.

Raghu S., Jayaram, S., Ramkumar, S., Prabakaran, P. and Vekatesalu, V. 2006.
"Influence of spacing on growth and yield of sugarcane raised throughin vitro
micropropagation", Sugar tech 8.1: 82-84.

Ramalakshmi Devi S., Satya Gopal, P. V., Sailaja, V. and Prasad, S.V. 2012. "Problems
encountered by sugarcane farmers and suggestions to overcome the problems",
part i: plant science.

Shanthy T. Rajula, and Muthusamy, G. R. 2012. "Wider Row Spacing in Sugarcane: A

Socio-economic Performance Analysis", Sugar Tech 14.2: 126-133.

Sureshkumar P. K., and Manohar Jesudas, D. 2015. "Physico-mechanical properties of

sugar cane stalks related to mechanical harvesting", Journal of Tropical
Agriculture 53.1: 48-55.

Thiyagarajan R., Kathirvel, K. and Jayashree, G. C. 2013. "Ergonomic intervention in

sugarcane harvesting knives", African Journal of Agricultural Research 8.6
(2013): 574-581.

Yadav R. N. S., Sharma, M. P., Kamthe, S. D., Tajuddin, A., Sandeep Yadav and Raj
Kumar Tejra. 2002. "Performance evaluation of sugarcane chopper harvester",
Sugar Tech 4.3-4: 117-122.

20
Yinggang Ou., Malcolm Wegener., Yang Dantong., Liu Qingting., Zheng Dingke.,
Wang Meimei, and Liu Haochun. 2013. "Mechanization technology: The key to
sugarcane production in China", International Journal of Agricultural and
Biological Engineering 6.1 (2013): 1-27.

21
 APPENDIX I
Table 7.1 Specifications of AUSTOFT 4000 Sugarcane harvester
Specifications of AUSTOFT 4000

Engine Base cutter

Make Cummins Drive Hydraulic and
reversible
Series 6B Number of discs 2, identical
and reversible
Power 176 hp Number of blades 8, removable
Cylinder Volume 5.88 l Distance between 495 mm
center of discs
No. of Cylinders 6
Feed rollers
Aspiration Turbo / Aftercooler Number of rollers 11
Number of rollers on 8
Transmission
the roller train
Type Hydrostatic Drive Hydraulic and
reversible
Travel Speed 16 kmph Upper rollers Floating

Capacity Chopper
Fuel Tank 210 l Number of knives 2
per drum
Hydraulic Tank 130 l Deflector plate Adjustable

Tyres Knockdown roller

Front 8-ply 10.5 x 16 Height Adjustable
Rear 14.9 x 28 R-1 10-ply Angle 51

Topper Extractor
Height Variation 1050 to 3000 mm Number of blades 3
Height Hydraulic Hood Directional
Adjustment

Crop Dividers Elevator

Distance between 1100 mm Drive Hydraulic and
points reversible
22
Height Hydraulic Slewing angle 170
Adjustment
Spiral Angle 300 Optional extension 750 mm

Lower Section Hardened Weight 8,000 kg

23
 APPENDIX II
Manual = M1

Mechanical = M2

Table7.1 Average parameters values of four replications

Parameters Field Trial -1 Field Trial -2 Field Trial -3 Field Trial -4
M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2
Area covered 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
(ha)
Time taken to 28800 9600 28800 9300 36000 12300 36000 10200
harvest (sec)
Field capacity 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.154 0.04 0.117 0.04 0.14
(ha/h)
Height of cut
above the ground 10.25 5.15 10.08 3.85 12.71 4.5 10.38 2.92
(cm)
Spacing of crop 3 4 3 4.5 3 4 3 4
(ft)
Number of uncut 0 2120 0 1500 0 1610 0 1560
cane left/acre
Number of 20 2 21 2 16 3 20 2
labour/acre
Labour cost/acre 10000 500 10500 500 8000 900 12000 500
(Rs)
Total harvest 1500 844.1 1500 844.0 1500 839.6 1500 834.4
cost (Rs/ton) 6 5 1 2

Table7.2 Height of canes (cm)

Field Trial -1 Field Trial -2 Field Trial -3 Field Trial -4

S.No.

M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2

1 350 240 250 260 260 230 240 250

# 300 131 240 180 250 210 205 190

3 300 142 320 190 270 170 250 230

4 320 165 300 220 290 200 210 230

5 300 230 300 140 250 220 210 260

24
 Table7.3 Height of cut (cm)

Field Trial -1 Field Trial -2 Field Trial -3 Field Trial -4

S.No.
M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2
1 11.5 4.0 11.2 6.5 10.5 6.4 10.3 2.3
2 5.5 7.0 13.1 6.0 12.5 6.0 8.6 1.9
3 5.0 6.5 8.3 3.5 9.0 4.1 12.3 0.7
4 14.0 6.5 8.6 5.5 12.0 1.0 18.0 3.3
5 14.5 1.5 9.2 3.0 14.5 7.0 6.4 4.0
6 10.0 6.0 10.5 1.0 15.0 5.3 8.3 4.2
7 9.0 4.0 11.1 4.2 13.5 4.7 10.2 6.7
8 16.0 8.0 11.0 2.0 15.1 2.3 8.9 0.4
9 5.0 4.5 7.7 4.5 12.5 1.9 9.2 5.1
10 12.0 3.5 10.1 2.3 13.0 6.3 11.6 0.6

Table7.4 Diameters of canes (cm)

Field Trial -1 Field Trial -2 Field Trial -3 Field Trial -4

S.No.
M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2

1 3.5 2.5 2.7 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.5 2.9

2 2.2 3.4 3.1 3.5 2.4 3.2 2.0 3.0

3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.3 2.4 2.9 2.3

4 2.4 2.3 3.3 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.5

5 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.4 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.7

25
 APPENDIX III
Calculation of total harvesting cost (Harvester owned by farmer)

1. Fixed cost
1.1. Depreciation (Rs/h) D=

Cost of harvester C = Rs. 1, 60, 00000

Salvage value S = 10 % of initial cost of harvester

= Rs. 16, 00000

Useful life of harvester L = 10 years

Working hours H = 500 h/year

D=

D = Rs. 2880 /h

1.2. Interest (Rs/hr) I=

Cost of harvester C = Rs. 1, 60, 00000

Salvage value S = 10 % of initial cost of harvester

= Rs. 16, 00000

Interest rate i = @ 10% per year

Working hours H = 500 h/year

I=

I = Rs. 1760 /h

1.3. Housing cost per hour = 1% of initial cost of harvester

26
 = Rs. 320/h

1.4. Insurance cost (Rs/h) = 1% of initial cost of harvest

= = Rs. 320/h

1.5. Taxes (Rs/h) = 1% of initial cost of harvest

= Rs. 320/h

Total fixed cost (Rs/h) = Depreciation + Interest + Housing cost +

Insurance cost + Taxes

= 2880 + 1760 + 320 + 320 + 320

= Rs. 5600/h

2. Operating cost
2.1. Fuel cost (Rs/h) = Fuel consumption (litres/h) Cost of fuel (Rs/litre)

= 2048.35
= Rs. 967/h
2.2.Cost of lubricant (Rs/h) = 30% of fuel cost

= 967 = Rs. 290/h

2.3.Repair and maintenance cost (Rs/h) = 6% of capital cost per year

= Rs. 1920/h

2.4.Wages for operator (Rs/h) =

= Rs. 167/h

27
 Total operating cost (Rs/h) = Fuel cost + Cost of lubricant + Repair and
maintenance cost + Wages of operator

= 967 + 290 + 1920 + 167

= Rs. 3344/h

Total cost (Rs. / h) = Fixed cost + Operating cost

= 5600 + 3344= Rs. 8944/h

Assumption: Yield = 80 t/ha

Average time taken to harvest one acre = 2.8 h
Average time taken to harvest one tonne = 0.093 h
Total cost of harvesting = 89440.093
= Rs. 832/t

Calculation of total harvesting cost on custom hiring (Rs/t)

Total harvesting cost on custom hiring (Rs/t) = Hire cost of harvester + Transport cost +
Labour cost

Calculation of Labour cost on custom hiring (Rs/t)

Labour cost = Rs/day

Field capacity = ha/day

= Labour cost (Rs/ha)

Yield = t/ha

= Labour cost (Rs/t)

1. Field trial 1
1.1. Hire cost = Rs. 520/t
1.2. Transport cost = Rs. 320/t
1.3. Labour cost = Rs. 250/day
Number of labours =2
Field capacity = 0.15 ha/h

28
 = 1.2 ha/day

Labour cost (Rs/ha) =

= Rs. 417/ha

Assumption: Yield = 80 t/ha

Labour cost (Rs/t) =

= Rs. 5.2/t

Total harvesting cost on custom hiring (Rs/t) = Hire cost of harvester + Transport cost +
Labour cost

= 520 + 320 + 5

= Rs. 845/t

2. Field trial 2
2.1. Hire cost = Rs. 520/t
2.2. Transport cost = Rs. 320/t
2.3. Labour cost = Rs. 250/day
Number of labours =2
Field capacity = 0.154 ha/h
= 1.232 ha/day

Labour cost (Rs/ha) =

= Rs. 406/ha

Assumption: Yield = 80 t/ha

29
 Labour cost (Rs/t) =

= Rs. 5.07/t

Total harvesting cost on custom hiring (Rs/t) = Hire cost of harvester + Transport cost +
Labour cost

= 520 + 320 + 5

= Rs. 845/t

3. Field trial 3
3.1.Hire cost = Rs. 450/t
3.2. Transport cost = Rs. 380/t
3.3. Labour cost = Rs. 250/day
Number of labours =3
Field capacity = 0.117 ha/h
= 0.936 ha/day

Labour cost (Rs/ha) =

= Rs. 801.2/ha

Assumption: Yield = 80 t/ha

Labour cost (Rs/t) =

= Rs. 10.01/t

Total harvesting cost on custom hiring (Rs/t) = Hire cost of harvester + Transport cost +
Labour cost

= 450 + 380 + 10 = Rs. 840/t

30
 4. Field trial 4
4.1. Hire cost = Rs. 450/t
4.2. Transport cost = Rs. 380/t
4.3. Labour cost = Rs. 250/day
Number of labours =2
Field capacity = 0.14 ha/h
= 1.12 ha/day

Labour cost (Rs/ha) =

= Rs. 446.42/ha
Assumption: Yield = 80 t/ha

Labour cost (Rs/t) =

=
= Rs. 5.5/t

Total harvesting cost on custom hiring (Rs/t) = Hire cost of harvester + Transport cost +
Labour cost

= 450 + 380 + 5

= Rs. 835/t

Average cost of harvesting of four field trials = Rs. 841/t

Calculation of cost of harvesting for mechanical and manual harvesting

1. Mechanical harvesting
Average field capacity = 0.141 ha/h
Cost of harvesting = Rs. 8944/h
Cost of harvesting = Rs. /ha

= Rs. 63,433/ha

31
2. Manual harvesting
Average field capacity = 0.045 ha/h
Working hours =8
Field capacity for 8 hours = 80.045
= 0.36 ha
Labour cost = Rs. 300/person
Number of labours = 20
Cost of harvesting = 20300
= Rs. 6000
Cost of harvesting = Rs.

= Rs. 16, 667/ha

32