Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland
Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland
Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
perhaps at 10 - 20 km intervals. These road transport landings will used for several days to weeks at a<br />
time while the surrounding farms are harvested. Transport between the paddock landings and the road<br />
transport landings will be by the addition <strong>of</strong> a third transport step, using a fast tractor or an 8x8 prime<br />
mover as a shunt truck to move one or two trailers at a time between the two types <strong>of</strong> landing.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> logistics, coordination between harvester and the two infield haulouts will be in the order<br />
<strong>of</strong> minutes, maintained by relatively short haul distances. Coordination between the haulouts and the<br />
shunt will be in the order <strong>of</strong> hours, because the paddock landings provide a short term surge buffer.<br />
Coordination between the shunt truck and the road trucks will be in the order <strong>of</strong> days, with<br />
stockpiling at the road transport landings governed by the perishability <strong>of</strong> the biomass and the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> bins available.<br />
There is no quantitative data on field efficiency as the prototype harvester has not undergone<br />
commercial testing and it is anticipated that another more powerful prototype will be required to<br />
conduct full scale commercial trials.<br />
2.4.4 Discussion<br />
Significant losses arise from mechanical harvesting <strong>of</strong> sugarcane. The majority <strong>of</strong> these losses are in<br />
billeting and separation <strong>of</strong> trash from billets. Recent developments in sugarcane harvester monitoring<br />
and performance have seen installation on harvesters <strong>of</strong> various sensors to allow the status <strong>of</strong> the<br />
machine to be determined. This has indicated that the percentage <strong>of</strong> time the sugarcane harvester is<br />
actually cutting cane is only around 50% <strong>of</strong> the total harvesting ‘shift’. Information on losses and<br />
field efficiencies from mallee harvesting is limited and will need consideration. Real time monitoring<br />
<strong>of</strong> the current prototype harvester will allow optimisation <strong>of</strong> performance.<br />
Table 2.10 Harvester performance monitoring comparison<br />
Parameter Sugarcane Harvester Mallee Harvester<br />
Losses 7.5-26% Unknown but indications are low<br />
Real Time Monitoring<br />
Increasing<br />
Partial capability for prototyping; PLC and<br />
autosteer in commercial machines<br />
Field Efficiency 50-55% Unknown; >70% may be feasible<br />
2.5 Harvest and Transport Integration<br />
Harvest and transport sectors are <strong>of</strong>ten complex systems from a tactical and strategic planning<br />
perspective. Improved integration <strong>of</strong> harvest and transport can maximise efficiencies and pr<strong>of</strong>itability<br />
across these sectors, leading to reduced costs <strong>of</strong> production. In order to improve the system the key<br />
drivers and links must be developed.<br />
2.5.1 Time <strong>of</strong> Harvest<br />
Sugar system<br />
Existing harvesting arrangements are based on interpretations <strong>of</strong> the commercial cane sugar (CCS)<br />
curve. The effect <strong>of</strong> harvest time on sugarcane productivity is a complex one. The Australian sugar<br />
60