The sugar cane vegetal residues unloaded in the sugar mill: Operational costs and physical characteristics

• Autor(a) principal: Ripoli, M. L C [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2004
• Outros Autores: Franco, F. N., Ripoli, T. C C, Gamero, Carlos Antonio [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo de conferência
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: https://elibrary.asabe.org/azdez.asp?AID=16989&T=2; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/68041
• topic: Costs; Evaluation; Forage machinery; Harvest residues; Sugar cane; Biomass; Boilers; Harvesting; Plants (botany); Sugar mills; Vegetal residues; Plants; Sugar Cane

Brazil produced in 2002/03 season 317.87×106tons of sugar cane stalks and 36.88×106tons of vegetal residues (green leaves, dry leaves and tops) in a planted area of 4.61×106 hectares (ha). These residues have a useful heat of 3,613.14Mcal.t-1. Currently most of this biomass is burned as a pre-harvest practice. The doubt persists in the system type that it must be adopted to pick up, load, transport and unload this biomass at the sugar mill boilers. This study analyzed 22 variables related to operational costs and physical characteristics of these residues in a field situation using a JOHN DEERE® 6850 forage harvester with two different treatments: T1 and T2 (two types of rakes) with 6 repetitions each one. The geographic location of the studied area that belongs to COSTA PINTO MILL (COSAN® Group) is: Latitude 22°40'30S and Longitude 47°36'38W. The adopted methodology was proposed by Ripoli et al. (2002). The obtained results at a 5% level of significance showed that both treatments did not differed significantly between them. Some of the results were, where EBP stands for Oil Equivalent Barrel: Windrowing (T1=US$0.17.EBP-1 and US$9.59.ha-1, T2=US$0.08.EBP-1 and US$4.27.ha-1); Pick up (T1=US$1.31.EBP-1 and US$44.29.ha-1, T2 =US$1.37.EBP-1 and US$48.36.ha-1); Transportation (T1=US$1.27.EBP-1 and US$14,30.ha -1, T2=US$1.33.EBP-1 and US$14,80.ha -1), Unloading at the sugar mill (T1=US$0.30.EBP-1 and US$3.39.ha-1, T2=US$0.32.EBP-1 and US$3.51.ha-1); Total (T1=US$3.05.EBP-1 and US$71.57.ha-1, T2=US$3.10.EBP-1 and US$70.94.ha-1). Confronting the obtained data with the ones in the bibliography, this system revealed itself more expensive than the baling system or the integral harvest system using combines.