Agricultural Engineering FIELD MECHANIZATION …

1 Agricultural Engineering FIELD MECHANIZATION IN THE PUERTO RICAN SUGAR INDUSTRY Richard T. Symes The New Central Aguirre Aguirre, Puerto Kico ABSTRACT The crisis facing the Puerto Rican sugar industry is being fought by accelerated MECHANIZATION developments aided by the Commonwealth's PRlA program. INTRODUCTION Since the Puerto Rican sugar industry is in a fight for its survival, it is felt that this paper may be of some interest to this Congress. The writer feels that the paper presented by Mr. Lawrence Partridge entitled "Harvesting, Loading and Transporting Sugar Cane in Puerto Rico in the Past, Present and Future" to the 12th Congress of the ISSCT adequately covered the history of the Peurto Rican sugar industry up to the year 1965. The writer will, therefore, limit his remarks to the period from 1965 to date. At the time the above mentioned paper was being presented to the 12th Congress, Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican sugar industry were entering into the years of the sugar crisis.

2 Puerto Rico is an island with an extremely high population density and is undergoing a rapid industrial development; therefore the sugar industry rather suddenly found that it had to justify its existence as a profitable user of expensive land by mechanizing its FIELD operations, and at the same time compete for the labor skills required for mecl~anization in an area which was short of skilled labor due to its rapid industrialization. The industry's fight is not yet won, but it should be of great interest to the rest of the world sugar areas. MECHANICAL CUTTING The greatest problem facing the industry was the rapid decrease in the availability of hand labor for the cutting of cane. Practically every type of mechanical harvester has been tried in Puerto Rico, including the famous back pack powered cane knife, but the writer will limit his discussion to those which reached some acceptance as production harvesters.

3 Among the soldier type machines, the Cameco and the J8cL self propelled and tractor attached machines were the only ones to achieve acceptance. Since 1966-1968 were years in which drought severely restricted sugarcane growth, this type of machine was productive; while the smaller grower was not equipped to maintain or operate such a unit, the larger enterprises used them, and some contract cutting was done for the small grower. The combine, or cut-load, harvester found acceptance only in enterprises RICHARD T. SYMES 97 which *ere large enough to set up separate organizations to operate and main- tain these relatively complex machines. The windrowing harvester was first introduced in 1965, but it gained wide acceptance only during the 1970 crop. These units were constructed in botll 1- and 2-row cutting models, and their operating mode was to cut the cane loose at or about ground level and then push it to the left hand side of the machine.

4 Heap rows consisting of the cane from 4 to 6 rows were accumulated by this harvesting method, the cane lying rougllly parallel to the row direction. Many had felt that the windrower was the final solution to the problem of cutting cane since it would accept both heavy, down cane or light erect cane, and the machine appeared to be relatively simple; however, they were not simple enough for the Puerto Rican maintenance levels. The heap row created by these units was very diilicult to load by conventional grab loaders. In fact, when the cutting and loading was compared to the cut-load combines, the productivity of this system, measured in tonstman-machine hour, was low. The so-called Jivaro Push Rake won some acceptance during the 1970 crop. This machine was constructecl in 2 different configurations. The 1st one consisted of a Caterpillar D-4 tractor size machine equipped with a piling device or brush rake mounted on the front.

5 The machine was backed over the cane, the tracks breaking the stalks off, at or near ground level; the motion of the machine was then reversed, the rake lowered and the cane pushed into a pile for loading. The 2nd version of the machine consisted of practically any type of tractor on which a device could be fitted on the front to pile or heap cane. A piece of 4- to 6-in. water pipe about 10 ft long was then mounted, horizontally, at the rear of the machine about 6 in. above the ground level. The method of operating this device was similar to the track mounted one, the pipe causing the cane to bend and snap off. Both of these machines were simple enough for the average small grower and enjoyed some popularity; however the work quality was highly variable depending on variety, soil type and soil moisture. During 1970 crop the Coneja, or live bladed V-Cutter, was introduced.

6 This machine is similar to machines tested by the HSPA in past years. It is basically a V-Cutter with 2 rotating cutting blades set at the nominal row spac- ing. As the machine moves through the FIELD it forms heap rows parallel to the row direction, these heap rows consist of the cane from 2 rows. The machine is simple, highly productive and, while the cane is not easy to load by conven- tional methods, it can be loaded. The machine's cutting quality is highly variable and it does not top the cane, but it is the machine for Puerto Rico today and for some time to come. During the 1971 crop, over 90% of the mechanically harvested cane in Puerto Rico was cut by the Coneja type of cutter. MECHANICAL LOADING With the exception of 1 milling area of Puerto Rico which uses the Toft er mounted on trucks, all cane is loaded by grab loaders similar to those loped in Louisiana.

7 The introduction of the windrowing harvesters in 0 caused cane loading problems, due to the fact that the cane was oriented gthwise of the rows rather than crossed as before. For this reason the swivel ab modification of the grab loader won some acceptance. The introduction of the Coneja type harvester reduced the requirement 98 Agricultural Engineering for a swivel grab equipped loader, but led to many modifications of the pilers. The cane as left by the Coneja varies in its orientation to the row direction depending on the type of culture on which the cane is grown, , flat, hilled up or furrow bottom, and the relative tonnage or condition of the cane. In some cases the cane from the I~L row will be parallel to the row direction and the cane from the 2nd row will then fall on this 1st row cane, but at an angle of 90" to it.

8 Also, since the loaders were designed to load cane heaped 4 rows in 1, the 2 row in 1 heap means that the loader must push further to pick up the same amount of cane. Several piler configurations are in use, varying from modified Louisiana types to spring tooth tined rakes. Some areas are prepiling the cane with push rakes or similar devices. This not only reduces the loader piler prob- lem but accomplishes a certain amount of scrapping. This system may be expanded to include loading with hydraulic in- dustrial cranes so that the machine can load several piles at each stop and yet travel parallel to the cane row, thus avoiding FIELD damage. Combine or continuous loading is being discussed; however, the writer feels that this development will require as high a level of maintenance as does a combine harvester. The industry is not yet ready to accept this level of mainte- nance.

9 PRIMARY CANE TRANSPORT Very little good thinking has been done about the problem of transport- ing cane in Puerto Rico. Infield hauling, whether to a transfer point or direct to the mill, is still primarily done in the old standard gooseneck cart equipped with 2 large aircraft tires and 2 small automotive tires. About the only modifica- tion to the carts up to this time is the substitution of chain nets for the sling chains. Many have been attracted by the apparent savings involved in direct transport by carts or small trucks to the mill from the FIELD , but they have not investigated the decrease in efficiency of the cane handling system at the mill. Some to-the-mill bulk handling facilities are losing 50% of their design efficiency in cane handling. This, then, involves longer waiting periods for unloading and by direct relation more transport units to assure uninterrupted FIELD loading.

10 FINAL TRANSPORT Four mills on the island are equipped to receive cane transported by railroad; in 2 cases side unloading of rail cars is used; in 1 case the entire car is rotated so that the cane is spilled out from the top. The other mill still uses the method of pulling sling chains through the car so that the cane can be lifted out in a bundle. One mill is equipped to end-dump highway trailers, but most mills have adopted or converted to the chain net unloading system, sometimes called the Hilo System. Due to the crowded condition of the island road system, it is probable that the next major problem which will have to be solved will be the one of the final transport system. RICHARD T. SYMES CANE HANDLING AT THE MILL Three mills have installed bulk handling systems, featuring bridge cranes equipped with grabs to store the cane and feed the mill.