Sugar Tech
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-00957-9
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Quality Indexes and Performance in Mechanized Harvesting
of Sugarcane at a Burnt Cane and Green Cane
Marcelo J. da Silva1 • Lucas de O. Neves1 • Murilo H. F. Correa1
Carlos H. W. de Souza1
Received: 19 June 2020 / Accepted: 19 January 2021
Ó Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2021
Abstract Today, mechanized harvesting is a reality in
almost all commercial sugarcane fields in Brazil. In the last
20 years, government policies and public–private initia-
tives have given appropriate support to adopting green cane
fields, associated with less environmental impact, soil
conservation, and human health protection. Even though,
some production regions remain with burning straw prac-
tice before of mechanical harvest. In order to better com-
prehend why pre-harvest burning still being applied at
mechanized harvest of sugarcane in Brazil? The objective
was performing an analysis of performance and quality of
mechanized harvesting of sugarcane, considering areas
with a burnt cane and green cane. For this, two similar
commercial fields were selected for performing a com-
parison. In the two harvest areas (burnt cane and green
cane), quality indexes and performance measured were:
cutting height, damage in cut culms, visible losses, and
effective field capacity. At comparison, better quality
indexes were achieved at harvest in the green cane (shorter
cutting height: 5.5 versus 6.5 cm; less damage index in cut
culms: 0.37 versus 0.45; lower visible losses: 3.0 versus
6.24 t ha-1). These results were associated with a lower
average forward speed of the machine at harvest in green
cane (1.88 m s-1 against 1.32 m s-1). On the other hand,
the greater effective field capacity developed by the har-
vester in the burnt cane (1.02 versus 0.71 ha h-1) helped to
understand one reason that sustains the resistance on ban-
ning of pre-harvest burning before of mechanical harvest-
ing in sugarcane fields.
& Marcelo J. da Silva
marcelo_js07@hotmail.com; marcelo.jose@ufpr.br
1
University of Paraná - UFPR, Dr. João Maximiano St, 426,
Jandaia do Sul, PR 86900000, Brazil
•
Keywords Agricultural machinery  Sugarcane harvester 
Quality indexes
Introduction
Currently, sugarcane fields are cropped on approximately
10 million hectares in Brazil, which resulted in 750 million
tonnes in 2019, which represents 40% of global production.
The sugarcane fields are mainly concentrated in the
Brazilian Center-South region. According to the National
Supply Company, 325 million tonnes were harvested in
São Paulo state, where it is observed a greater intensity in
sugarcane fields. In the same Center-South region, Paraná
state also had a contribution (35 million tonnes). These
millable stalk productions are harvested using three meth-
ods: manual, semi-mechanized, and mechanized. Today,
more than 90% of Brazilian sugarcane crops are harvested
applying the mechanized method (data are from Conab
2019).
Mechanized harvesting in sugarcane areas is carried out
under a burnt cane and green cane. The conventional pre-
harvest burning is mainly applied to ease visualization of
sugarcane rows by the harvester operator; also, the burning
straw decrease the processing demand (* 10
to * 18 t ha-1 of straw, according to Leal et al. (2013) by
the harvester mechanisms (Ma et al. 2014); in addition, the
practice facilitate dry cleaning of millable stalks in a sugar
mill (Bernhardt et al. 2000) and helps on phytosanitary
control (Ma et al. 2014). On the other hand, the method
eliminates available straw of fields, emits particulate
material on the atmosphere resulting at the negative effect
on air quality in urban centers (Arbex et al. 2007), causes
negative impacts in life associated on sugarcane fields
123

(benefic insects, small animals, plants, Gheler-Costa et al.
2013) and produces juice exudation from stalks that can
induce a loss of 5 to 130 L ha-1 of ethanol (Ripoli and
Ripoli 2015).
Since the early 2000s, a social appeal to adopt the
mechanized harvesting in green cane fields have been
encouraged in Brazil. The reasons are fundamentally in
social and environmental benefits (Ma et al. 2014; Chagas
et al. 2016; Lemos et al. 2019). The harvest of green cane
has advantages, such as the provision of covering straw on
the soil surface; increments of soil organic matter (Galdos
et al. 2009; Pinheiro et al. 2010); increase in soil moisture
retention (Pinheiro et al. 2010; Castioni et al. 2019); pro-
tection against soil erosion from rainfall-runoff (Valim
et al. 2016); nutrient recycling from the straw (Menandro
et al. 2017); preservation of soil microfauna (Segnini et al.
2013); protection of animal and vegetation life associated
with the sugarcane microenvironment (Gheler-Costa et al.
2013). Furthermore, the crop residues availability (on the
soil surface or in sugar mill) opens up an alternative to
produce electricity (at the cogeneration process, Menandro
et al., 2017) or ethanol from the second-generation (Alves
et al. 2015). Even so, the mechanical harvest of green cane
encounters resistance under a common occurrence of sug-
arcane lodging, a problem for machine operators, that
needs to visualize the base of sugarcane rows. Also, the
green cane harvesting requires more dry cleaning (straw
wastes) at stages of field and milling (dos Santos et al.
2019).
In general, management using fire in sugarcane fields in
Brazil has been reduced over the last * 20 years, as a
result, achieved from government policies (São Paulo State
Law n8 11.241/2002 and Brazilian forestry code: Law
n°12.651/2012), besides public–private initiatives, such as
an agri-environmental protocol signed by sugar-ethanol
segment in 2007. The laws established deadlines, proce-
dures, rules, and prohibitions for burning practice. The next
year (2021), management in mechanizable areas with a
slope of less than 12% should completely stop burning
practice in sugarcane fields.
Despite the proximity of the deadline for banning the
pre-harvest burning in flatter areas, some producing regions
in Paraná state remain using fire to eliminate the sugarcane
straw before the harvest. This transition resistance on
mechanical harvest models justifies a study about the
quality and performance of harvester machines on burnt
cane and green cane. Better indexes for quality and per-
formance of mechanized sugarcane harvesting can con-
tribute to the millable stalks delivered for processing in the
mill, field integrity for the next cycles (sugarcane is a semi-
perennial crop), and field capacity of harvester machines.
The present research searched for arguments to better
understand the difficulty in transition that has been
123
Sugar Tech
happened in Brazilian sugarcane fields for the mechanized
harvesting model: the pre-harvest burning practice towards
full operation in a green cane field. Despite the pointed
advantages for mechanized harvesting without burning
(less environmental impact, soil conservation, and human
health protection), a significant portion in Brazil remains
using the pre-harvest burning in sugarcane fields (approx-
imately 106 ha, according to Conab 2019). Thus, the
objective was performing an analysis of performance and
quality of mechanized harvesting of sugarcane, considering
areas with a burnt cane and green cane.
Material and Methods
The Sugarcane Harvesting
The research was a result of a collaborative partnership
with an agro-industrial cooperative for sugarcane products
(COOPERVAL), placed in the Center-South region of
Brazil (23°360 °1100 S and 51°380 3600 W, Jandaia do Sul,
Parana State, Brazil). The local climate is classified as a
humid subtropical mesothermal (Cfa type at Koppen clas-
sification). Average temperatures, along with the
spring/summer, usually are above 22 °C. The monthly
rainfall can achieve up to 160 mm to the period. Between
autumn and winter (April to September), when is typically
covered in the main phase of sugarcane harvesting, the
local average temperatures are 14 to 17 °C. Historically,
the monthly rainfall is below 60 mm to this more driest
season. The condition is generally used as a favor to per-
form the sugarcane harvesting.
The experiment was performed at a second ratoon cane
cycle. The comparison was applied in two common situa-
tions: a burnt cane and a green cane field. For this, an
experiment area (12.4 ha) was select for analysis of
mechanized harvest quality after burning of straw; in the
same region, another experiment area (9.5 ha) was chosen
for a mechanized harvest of a green cane field (Fig. 1).
These areas were just a snip from larger sugarcane fields
(21.1 and 62 ha, respectively). In addition, both fields had a
similar condition (crop variety: CTC 9003, slope: less than
15%; and cane yield: 114 to 137 t ha-1). Also, to perform
the analysis about performance and quality of mechanized
harvesting of sugarcane, it was not carried external inter-
ventions in the harvesting procedures. This methodology
was applied in order to achieve a more reliable evaluation,
showing the common conditions that happens on harvest-
ing of these commercial fields.
At mechanized harvest was applied a John Deere
machine, model CH670. The diesel engine (model 6090T
PowerTech) specifications were listed as 280 kW, 9 L,
common rail direct fuel injection, air admission through a
Sugar Tech
Fig. 1 Location of study areas
turbocharger with air-to-air aftercooling. The harvester
working width was one row per step, under interrow
spacing of 1.5 m (the most common in sugar cane fields).
This harvester was equipped with automatic control of base
cutter height. However, the worked machine did not have
an assembly for an automated steering system (autopilot).
Figure 2 highlights the applied sugarcane harvester with
principal components. At the machine, the base cutter was
responsible for cutting height. In this system, the knive’s
impact in the base of plants usually causes a damage level
for subsequent cycles of ratoon cane. Also associated with
sugarcane harvester work, the visible losses could occur in
Fig. 2 Principal components of
sugarcane harvester. Adapted
from the John Deere website
the: base cutter, butt-lifter roller, topper, primary extractor,
and secondary extractor.
Quality Indexes for Mechanical Harvesting
At experimental areas (burnt cane and green cane), twenty-
four sample points were randomly used to observe an
average of cutting height performed by the harvester kni-
ves. At the sampling point, fifteen cut culms along one row
were measured to represent the cutting height average (at
the inside interval of approximately 0.85 m). A
retractable measuring tape was used to measure the cutting
123
 Sugar Tech

heights. The measurements were taken perpendicularly

from the ground up to the cut stem top of culms. When the
cut was made on the soil surface, the heights were con-
sidered equal to zero. It was calculated one cutting height
average for each twenty-four specific sampling point.
At the same twenty-four sampling points where cutting
height was evaluated, the damages caused by the harvester
knives were also observed. Each damage index sample was
composed by a visual classification of fifteen sequential cut
culms along one row (at the inside interval of approxi-
mately 0.85 m). This classification was inspired in research
presented by Mello and Harris (2003). The principles
consist of: no damage, partial damage, and extreme dam- Fig. 4 Classification of visible losses from a mechanized harvest of
sugarcane. a. Entire stalk. b. Stalk sett. c. Stump. d. Stalk piece. e.
age (Fig. 3). The three stages were associated with a score Stalk top (leaves and tip not included). Source: Magalhães et al.
that ranged from 0.00 to 1.00. The damage index was (2008)
calculated using the average among the scores given for
that fifteen cut culms observed per sampling point. The forward speed measurements were performed along
Around the assessed points of cutting height and damage 50 m. At each tested area, twelve points were taken using a
evaluation, visible losses caused by the harvester process random selection. The effective field capacity (Ca, ha h-1,
were also measured. For this, a measuring frame with 10 (Eq. 1) was evaluated considering the harvester working
m2 was installed to assess the visible losses at each sam- width (w, m) and the forward speed (s, km h-1). The
pling point. The frame covered two cane rows (3.0 m, measurements did not consider time losses (maneuvers,
crosswise) along with a linear interval (3.33 m, length- rest intervals, stop for diesel supply). These stops affect
wise). At sampling points, the visible losses inside of the both treatments, similarly:
frame were accounted as: entire stalks, stalk setts, stumps ðsÞðwÞ
with height higher than 5 cm (Toledo et al. 2013), stalk Ca ¼ ð1Þ
10
pieces, and stalk tops (when the topper of harvester cuts the
millable stalk), Fig. 4. Method for Construction of Quality Control Charts

Effective Field Capacity
Mechanized harvest performance was raised by effective
field capacity (hectares per hour), considering the two
studied cases: a burnt cane and green cane. No external
intervention was carried out to modify the harvester speed.
Thus, the proposal was performing the measures under the
original condition of effective field capacity in these fields.
The evaluated parameters (cutting height, visible losses,
and damage index in cut culms and effective field capacity)
were analyzed using descriptive statistics and quality
control charts. The control chart represents a method
commonly applied for improving quality control on oper-
ational processes. On control chart, the method was
determined and it is called control limits: an upper control
limit (UCL, Eq. 2), a lower control limit (LCL, Eq. 3), and

Fig. 3 Visual classification of

damage index in cut culms of
sugarcane. Adapted from Mello
and Harris (2003)

123
Sugar Tech
a central limit (CL, Eq. 4) which expressed the average
data. On expression, the factor for the control limit (A3)
was established according to the number of samples,
according to Montgomery (2009).
UCL ¼ x þ A3  S ð2Þ
LCL ¼ x  A3  S ð3Þ
CL ¼ x ð4Þ

where x—average; A3 —factor for control limit; S—stan-
dard deviation.
Results and Discussion
Cutting Height in the Sugarcane Harvesting
Millable stalks quality, harvest losses infield, and the
number of cycles of ratoon cane (duration of sugarcane
crop) are related to cutting height of sugarcane culms.
Ideally, the cutting height could achieve 5 cm (Toledo
et al. 2013). It is considered as a loss to the sugar mill when
the cutting height achieves a value above of this recom-
mendation. The cutting height can also affect the duration
of sugarcane crop. In general, regrowth from basal buds is
more vigorous when compared to the tillers sprouted lat-
erally. Even though, a cutting height above 5 cm con-
tributes to increasing the number of tillers, taking
advantage of residual nutrients from ratoon stubs (Silva
et al. 2008). In contrast, mineral impurities mixed inside of
millable stalks and plucking ratoon canes by the knives
could increase when cutting occurs below of this recom-
mendation (Salvi et al. 2007).
Here, the average cutting height in the burnt cane was
6.53 cm, almost 18% greater than the average cutting
height in the green cane (5.54 cm). However, the both
harvesting presented values above the recommendation of
Fig. 5 Cutting height of sugarcane culms. a Green cane. b Burnt cane
5 cm (Fig. 5). However, the standard deviation of cutting
height showed higher values to the harvest in the green
field (1.96 cm), than the harvest in the burnt field
(1.55 cm); thus, a greater difficulty was observed on con-
trolling of cutting height target. The higher variation
observed in the cutting height on mechanized harvesting
without burning was associated with low visibility caused
by the straw and green leaves.
Both control charts for cutting height of sugarcane
harvesting (green cane and burnt cane) showed values that
exceed upper and lower limits of quality control (approx-
imately 50% of sample points). These revealed some dif-
ficulty in achieving a better precision on cutting height at
mechanized harvest of sugarcane. The results were similar
with others studies about quality control (Toledo et al.
2013; Voltarelli et al. 2015); even so, when it is applied,
the automatic control system of cutting height associated in
the base cutter of the machine (Salvi et al. 2007; Voltarelli
et al. 2018).
At the analysis of mechanized harvest of sugarcane
considering burnt cane and green cane fields, the highest
values for cutting height could have occurred because of
problems with irregularities in the soil surface, caused by
previous mechanical operations (planting, tillage, and
antecedent harvesting). The forward speed of the sugarcane
harvester is also a relevant factor in cutting height. Better
result achieved for cutting height in green cane field (av-
erage of 5.5 cm) was associated with lower speed applied
on harvest (1.32 m s-1), when compared to the cutting
height in the burnt cane (average cutting height of 6.5 cm,
under 1.88 m s-1). Higher average harvester speed in burnt
cane (measured using 24 samples at 12.4 ha) can be
associated with a faster actuation of the automatic control
system of cutting height; the characteristic could influence
on precision and accuracy of cutting height.
123

Damage in Cut Culms of Sugarcane
The mechanized harvest of sugarcane causes incidental
damage in the ratoon buds. These natural damages are
caused by knives impact in the inertial cutting of stalks
from the ratoon cane. The injuries in ratoon cane at the
harvest phase can cause negative influences in sprouting, as
well, increase exposure to pests, such as sugarcane borer
(Diatraea saccharalis) and beetles (Migdolus fryanus). In
damage index analysis, how much near of zero, it is con-
sidered a better result (less injuries in ratoon cane). Here,
the damage index (Fig. 6) was lower in the harvest of green
cane (average of 0.37), when compared to the harvest in the
burnt cane (average of 0.45). However, both evaluated
harvest systems presented values outside of control limits
(upper and low). But, standard deviation was 60% more
down to the system without the burning of straw, showing a
better quality control. In addition, at mechanized harvest
without burning, a significant amount of samples (25%)
stayed at the bottom of the lower control limit, a favorable
condition to preserve the duration of ratoon cane field’s.
In general, average values to the damage index for
harvest in green cane (0.37) and burnt cane (0.45) were
classified as partial damage in cut culms of ratoon cane. At
harvest in the burnt field, the higher average for damages
index was associated with proportional cutting height.
When the knives impact point is higher than the recom-
mended cutting height (5 cm, Toledo et al. 2013), a
moment in relation to the base can cause more damages in
ratoon cane (laceration at the top and mobilization at the
bottom of stumps). Intense traffic of agricultural machinery
in the field (harvesters, tractors, and articulated haulouts) is
also pointed as another factor to the damages in ratoon cane
at mechanized harvest. Difficulty in observing the sugar-
cane rows, combined with machinery traffic (up to 73% of
the total area, Souza et al. 2014), increase risks of
Fig. 6 Damage index in cut culms of sugarcane. a Green cane. b Burnt cane
123
Sugar Tech
trampling the ratoon cane rows. These factors could con-
tribute to damages in ratoon cane.
In this case, agricultural traffic control can be an
essential tool to reduce damages caused by machinery
trampling in the sugarcane field. Among the main ideas,
traffic control can decrease some negative aspects of
mechanization, such as soil compaction (Braunbeck and
Magalhães 2014). Automatic steering system (autopilot)
and the steering wheel by lightbar already have been used
as solutions to decrease damages in ratoon cane fields,
considering the machinery traffic control (Braunack et al.
2006; Sousa et al. 2017). These technology use signals
from global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) to assist in
the precision and accuracy of steering wheels at line tracks.
Tractors and articulated haulouts with geometry adjustment
in track width, it could also be applied as an useful tool to
protect against damages in ratoon cane.
Visible Losses Caused by Mechanized Harvesting
of Sugarcane
Naturally, every mechanical harvesting causes a certain
level of loss. At harvesting of sugarcane, the losses reduce
the amount of millable stalks delivered to the mill, con-
sequently generating an impact in crop yield. The losses
are classified as visible (entire stalk, sett, piece, stump, and
stalk pieces cut together with tops) and invisible (chips,
sawdust, and juice). In general, losses are associated with
the harvester systems, such as the primary and secondary
extractors (separation of straw from raw material), base
cutter, topper, and choppers. Also, natural factors (wind
incidence or nutritional deficit) and plant weight could lead
to sugarcane lodging. The sugarcane lodging and stems
interlacing can interfere on the harvester operator view,
especially in observing the sugarcane rows, where it is
applied the harvester base cutter.
Sugar Tech
The first three samples showed visible losses above the
upper control limit for both studied models of harvesting.
The behavior was associated with the beginning of mech-
anized harvesting, characterized by the adaptation of
machine operator in the working area, maneuver require-
ment on shorter lines, and forward speed calibration per-
formed by the harvester operator. Even though,
mechanized harvesting in green cane brought lower visible
losses (average of 3.0 t ha-1) than the mechanized har-
vesting in burnt cane (average visible losses 6.2 t ha-1).
However, Neves et al. (2004) presented different results:
the research pointed higher losses in mechanized harvest-
ing in green cane; the authors explained that losses were
associated with greater vegetable mass processing. Here,
the result can be supported by the forward speed in har-
vesting. The burnt field was harvested faster speed (1.88
versus 1.32 m s-1).
In general, the average values for visible losses (at green
cane: 2.18%; and, at burnt cane: 5.45%) showed smaller
levels when compared to the others similar studies that
achieved losses of 6.11% (Noronha et al. 2011), 5.68%
(Neves et al. 2004), 8.1% (Manhães et al. 2018), 13.6%
(Xavier et al. 2020), and an average of 6.3% under three
different harvester speeds (Manhães et al. 2014). Besides,
the control chart showed that approximately 30% of sample
points achieved losses below 2 t ha-1 for mechanized
harvesting in green cane field (Fig. 7), a positive result for
millable stalks delivered to the mill. However, the samples
through the area revealed that visible losses could surpass
the upper control limit at some points. The achievement
also agreed with research performed by Silva et al. (2008):
the mechanized harvesting of sugarcane requires precision
and accuracy. For this, statistical quality control can help to
achieve better results in the performed machine working.
Fig. 7 Visible losses from mechanized harvest in sugarcane. a Green cane. b Burnt cane
Effective Field Capacity
Effective field capacity at mechanized harvesting was
attributed to the fixed working width (1.5 m) and forward
speed of the machine. On burnt cane, the field capacity
(average of 1.02 ha h-1, Fig. 8b) was higher than that
achieved in green cane (average of 0.71 ha h-1, Fig. 8a).
The result was a direct reflection of the harvester forward
speed. The mechanized harvesting was 42.2% bigger in the
burnt field (1.88 m s-1 against 1.32 m s-1), corroborating
with Braunbeck et al. (1999) that reported an increase in
40% in field capacity for mechanized harvest in burnt cane.
On the other hand, a lower standard deviation was
observed to the mechanized harvesting in the green cane
field (5.6% versus 17%). In addition, forward speed in
burnt field surpassed the recommended band for mecha-
nized harvesting (1.1 to 1.5 m s-1, according to Ramos
et al. 2016); higher speeds could cause negative impacts to
the millable stalks delivered in the mill (mineral residues,
straw wastes and visible losses), as well as could produce
damages for next ratoon cane cycles. Notwithstanding,
mechanized harvesting can be practiced using up to
2.5 m s-1 (Ripoli and Ripoli 2015), under favorable con-
ditions, such as low yield below * 70 t ha-1, e.g., erect
plants and flat areas.
Here, the highest forward speed with proportional
effective field capacity evidenced one of the reasons for
persistence of pre-harvest burning in sugarcane fields. A
higher effective field capacity can lead a more significant
quantity of millable stalks in the mill; also, this result can
influence in aspects, such as the machines (number of
harvesters, articulated haulouts, tractors, and trucks) and
the harvest time (approximately nine months in majority of
sugarcane mills).
123

Fig. 8 Effective field capacity for sugarcane harvesting. a Green cane. b Burnt cane
Conclusion
The models (green cane and burnt cane) for mechanized
harvesting of sugarcane revealed better quality indexes
(damages in ratoon buds, visible losses, and cutting height)
in green cane field. Positive results were associated with a
lower average of harvester forward speed in the green cane
(1.32 m s-1 versus 1.88 m s-1). Despite the possible
benefits achieved from the harvest in green cane fields
(increments in the cycles of sugarcane field and gross
product delivered to the mill), a greater forward speed
performed at mechanized harvesting of burnt field guar-
anteed a higher level for effective field capacity (an
increment of 42%). From the harvest manager’s view, this
parameter can be naturally understood as a direct advan-
tage in the mill phase. These contents helped to understand
one reason that sustains the resistence on stop of pre-har-
vest burning practice before the mechanical harvesting in
sugarcane fields.
Acknowledgements The authors thank the agro-industrial coopera-
tive (COOPERVAL) that supplied the studied area and logistical
support for performing the fieldwork.
Funding Federal University of Paraná.
Data Availability Included at sections of manuscript.
Code Availability Not applicable.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of interest Not applicable.
References
Alves, M., G.H.S.F. Ponce, M.A. Silva, and A.V. Ensinas. 2015.
Surplus electricity production in sugarcane mills using residual
bagasse and straw as fuel. Energy 91: 751–757.
123
Sugar Tech
Arbex, M.A., L.C. Martins, R.C. Oliveira, L.A.A. Pereira, F.F. Arbex,
J.E.D. Cançado, P.H.N. Saldiva, and A.L.F. Braga. 2007. Air
pollution from biomass burning and asthma hospital admissions
in a sugar cane plantation area in Brazil. Journal of Epidemi-
ology and Community Health 61: 395–400.
Bernhardt, H.W., V. Pillay, and A. Simpson. 2000. Impacts of
greencane harvesting on sugar factory operation at Sezela.
Proceedings of South African Sugar Technologists’ Association
74: 369–372.
Braunack, M.V., J. Arvidsson, and I. Håkansson. 2006. Effect of
harvest traffic position on soil conditions and sugarcane (Sac-
charum officinarum) response to environmental conditions in
Queensland, Australia. Soil and Tillage Research 89: 103–121.
Braunbeck, O., A. Bauen, F. Rosillo-Calle, and L. Cortez. 1999.
Prospects for green cane harvesting and cane residue use in
Brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy 17: 495–506.
Braunbeck, O.A., and P.S.G. Magalhães. 2014. Technological
evaluation of sugarcane mechanization. In Sugarcane bioetha-
nol—R&D for Productivity and Sustainability, 451–464. Editora
Edgard Blücher: São Paulo.
Castioni, G.A.F., M.R. Cherubin, R.O. Bordonal, L.C. Barbosa,
L.M.S. Menandro, and J.L.N. Carvalho. 2019. Straw removal
affects soil physical quality and sugarcane yield in Brazil.
Bioenergy Research 12: 789–800.
Chagas, M.F., R.O. Bordonal, O. Cavalett, J.L.N. Carvalho, A.
Bonomi, and N.L. Scala. 2016. Environmental and economic
impacts of different sugarcane production systems in the ethanol
biorefinery. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 10: 89–106.
CONAB. 2019. Monitoring of Brazil’s sugarcane harvest. Brasilia.
Galdos, M.V., C.C. Cerri, and C.E.P. Cerri. 2009. Soil carbon stocks
under burned and unburned sugarcane in Brazil. Geoderma 153:
347–352.
Gheler-Costa, C., G.S. Santos, L.S. Amorim, L.M. Rosalino, L.T.M.
Figueiredo, and L.M. Verdade. 2013. The effect of pre-harvest
fire on the small mammal assemblage in sugarcane fields.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 171: 85–89.
Leal, M.R., M.V. Galdos, F.V. Scarpare, J.E.A. Seabra, A. Walter,
and C.O.F. Oliveira. 2013. Sugarcane straw availability, quality,
recovery and energy use: A literature review. Biomass and
Bioenergy 53: 11–19.
Lemos, S.V., A.P. Salgado, A. Duarte, M.A.A. Souza, and F.A.
Antunes. 2019. Agroindustrial best practices that contribute to
technical efficiency in Brazilian sugar and ethanol production
mills. Energy 177: 397–411.
Ma, S., M. Karkee, P.A. Scharf, and Q. Zhang. 2014. Sugarcane
harvester technology: A critical overview. Applied Engineering
in Agriculture 30: 727–739.
Sugar Tech
Magalhães, P.S.G., R.F.G. Baldo, and D.G.P. Cerri. 2008. System of
synchronism between sugar cane harvest machine and infield
wagon. Engenharia Agrı´cola 28: 274–282.
Manhães, C.M.C., F.M. Alves, R.A. Araújo, D.G. Oliveira, H.
Oliveira, M.P.S. Silva, A.S. Santos, and M.D. Moura. 2018.
Visible losses to the mechanical harvesting of ratoon sugarcane
using the harvester John Deere 3520. American Journal of
Analytical Chemistry 09: 580–590.
Manhães, C.M.C., R.F. Garcia, C. Delorme, F.M. Alves, H. Oliveira,
and C.M.F.G. Santos. 2014. Evaluation of visible losses and
damage to the ratoon cane in the mechanized harvesting of
sugarcane for different displacement speeds. American Journal
of Plant Sciences 05: 2956–2964.
Mello, R.C., and H. Harris. 2003. Performance of basecutter of
sugarcane harvester with angled and serrated blades. Revista
Brasileira de Engenharia Agrı´cola e Ambiental 7: 355–358.
Menandro, L.M.S., H. Cantarella, H.C.J. Franco, O.T. Kölln, M.T.B.
Pimenta, G.M. Sanches, S.C. Rabelo, and J.L.N. Carvalho. 2017.
Comprehensive assessment of sugarcane straw: implications for
biomass and bioenergy production. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining 11: 488–504.
Montgomery, D. 2009. Introduction to statistical quality control.
Hoboken: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-3773.
Neves, J.L.M., P.S.G. Magalhães, and W.M. Ota. 2004. Sugar cane
loss monitor, adapted to a commercial chopper sugar- cane
harvester. Engenharia Agrı´cola 24: 764–770.
Noronha, R.H.F., R.P. Silva, C.A. Chioderoli, E.P. Santos, and M.T.
Cassia. 2011. Statistical control applied in the process of
mechanical sugar cane harvest in the diurnal and nocturnal
periods. Bragantia 70: 931–938.
Pinheiro, E.F.M., E. Lima, M.B. Ceddia, S. Urquiaga, B.J.R. Alves,
and R.M. Boddey. 2010. Impact of pre-harvest burning versus
trash conservation on soil carbon and nitrogen stocks on a
sugarcane plantation in the Brazilian Atlantic forest region.
Plant and Soil 333: 71–80.
Ramos, C.R.G., K.P. Lanças, G.A. Lyra, and Jefferson Sandi. 2016.
Fuel consumption of a sugarcane harvester in different opera-
tional settings. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agricola e
Ambiental 20: 588–592.
Ripoli, T.C.C., and M.L.C. Ripoli. 2015. Stalk harvesting systems.
Sugarcane: agricultural production, bioenergy and ethanol.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Salvi, J.V., M.A. Matos, and M. Milan. 2007. Evaluation of the
performance of a base cutting device of a sugar cane harvester.
Engenharia Agrı´cola 27: 201–209.
Soares, C.C., F.M. Okuno, D.G. Duft, D.J. Carvalho, J. Morandi, P.C.
Júnior, C.R. Trez, P.E. Mantelatto, and M.R. Leal. 2019.
Commercial sugarcane dry cleaning systems in Brazil: Progress
and challenges. Bioenergy Research 12: 920–929.
Segnini, A., J.L.N. Carvalho, D. Bolonhezi, D.M.B.P. Milori, W.T.L.
Silva, M.L. Simões, H. Cantarella, I.C. Maria, and L. Martin.
2013. Carbon stock and humification index of organic matter
affected by sugarcane straw and soil management. Scientia
Agricola 70: 321–326.
Silva, M.D., E.M. Jeronimo, and A.D. Lúcio. 2008. Height of cut and
harvest period effects on tillering and yield of sugarcane.
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 43: 979–986.
Silva, R.P., C.F. Corrêa, J.W. Cortez, and C.E.A. Furlani. 2008.
Statistical control applied in the process of mechanical sugar
cane harvest. Engenharia Agrı´cola 28: 292–304.
Sousa, A.C.M., Z.M. Souza, R.M.P. Claret, and J.L.R. Torres. 2017.
Traffic control with autopilot as an alternative to decrease soil
compaction in sugarcane areas. Tropical and Subtropical
Agroecosystems 20: 173–182.
Souza, G.S., Z.M. Souza, R.B. Silva, R.S. Barbosa, and F.S. Araújo.
2014. Effects of traffic control on the soil physical quality and
the cultivation of sugarcane. Revista Brasileira de Cieˆncia do
Solo 38: 135–146.
Toledo, A., R.P. Silva, and C.E.A. Furlani. 2013. Quality of cut and
basecutter blade configuration for the mechanized harvest of
green sugarcane. Scientia Agricola 70: 384–389.
Valim, W.C., E. Panachuki, D.S. Pavei, T.A. Sobrinho, and W.S.
Almeida. 2016. Effect of sugarcane waste in the control of
interrill erosion. Semina: Ciencias Agrarias 37: 1155–1164.
Voltarelli, M.A., C.S.S. Paixão, C. Zerbato, R.P. Silva, and J.
Gazzola. 2018. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) in
mechanized harvest of sugarcane billets. Engenharia Agricola
38: 88–96.
Voltarelli, M.A., R.P. Silva, M.T. Cassia, D.F. Ortiz, and L.S. Torres.
2015. Basal cut quality in sugarcane plants using three knife
models. Engenharia Agrı´cola 35: 528–541.
Xavier, W.D., D.C. Silva, R.B. Costa, D.O. Ribeiro, V.S. Sousa, and
J. Vitor. 2020. Losses in the mechanized harvesting of sugarcane
as of speed function of two harvester models in tropical savanna
environment. Australian Journal of Crop Science 14: 675–682.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123