25.12.2013 Views

Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!