Sugarcane Yield and Yield Components as Affected by Harvest Time

Abstract

Brazil is the largest sugarcane producing country in the world. Mills usually operate nine months to process the sugarcane produced in the country. Here we investigated the effect of harvest time on the on-farm sugarcane yield and yield components (stalk fresh yield [SFY], sucrose yield [SY], and sucrose concentration [POL%]). We used a large database collected from commercial sugarcane blocks to assess the effect of harvest time on SY and yield components. Blocks were first clustered based on similarity of climate and soil, referred as environments, and the effect of harvest season on SY, SFY, and POL%, as influenced by the environment and the number of harvests, was evaluated using analysis of variance. Harvest season strongly influenced POL% and SY but had a comparably smaller effect on SFY. Although relatively smaller compared with other sources of variation, there was a statistically significant interactive effect of harvest number and harvest season on SY, with highest SY when harvest occurred during the mid-season or late season in old ratoons and during the mid-season in the case of young ratoons. Closing the yield gap due to sub-optimal harvest time by concentrating the harvest around the productivity peak would increase national sucrose production by 8%, but this is not possible due to logistic and milling constrains. In contrast, our findings suggested room to extend the harvest period to 10 months, which will free up milling capacity by 8% with no yield penalty. The extra milling capacity could serve as a motivation to increase productivity via agronomic practices to fully exploit the milling processing capacity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Data Availability

Data is confidential. Summary of data at the regional level to preserve the identity of producers and mills in the database can be shared upon request.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Assuming a national production of 642 million tons (CONAB 2020) and an overall fixed cost of US$60 for processing one metric ton of milled stalks. The extra fixed costs were calculated based on the extra production in the S3 scenario in relation to the current 9-month harvest season and the fixed cost per metric ton.

References

  1. Burnquist, Heloisa L. 1999. Remuneration framework based on sugarcane quality-CONSECANA [in Portuguese]. Preços Agrícolas 14: 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  2. CONAB. 2019. Brazilian harvest forecast for sugarcane [in Portuguese]. Available at https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/cana

  3. CONSECANA. 2006. Instruction manual for sugarcane payment. Piracicaba [in Portuguese]. Available at: http://www.oricana.com.br/novosite/manual_consecana.pdf

  4. Donaldson, R. A., K.A. Redshaw, R. Rhodes, and R.V. Asterwerpen (2008). Season effects on productivity of some commercial South African sugarcane cultivars: II. Trash production. Proceedings of The South African Sugar Technologists Association 81: 528–538.

  5. Ferraro, Diego O., Dario E. Rivero, and Claudio M. Ghersa. 2009. An analysis of the factors that influence sugarcane yield in Northern Argentina using classification and regression trees. Field Crops Research 112: 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gilbert, Robert A., James Shine Jr, Jimmy Miller, and Ronald W. Rice. 2004. Sucrose accumulation and harvest schedule recommendations for CP sugarcane cultivars. Crop Management 3: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gilbert, Robert A., James Shine Jr, Jimmy Miller, Ronald W. Rice, and C.R. Rainbolt. 2006. The effect of genotype, environment and time of harvest on sugarcane yields in Florida, USA. Field Crops Research 95: 156–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins, Andrew J., R.C. Muchow, A.V. Rudd, and A.W. Ford. 1998. Optimising harvest date in sugar production: A case study for the Mossman mill region in Australia: I. Development of operations research model and solution. Field Crops Research 57: 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. IFPRI 2019. Global spatially-disaggregated crop production statistics data for 2010 Version 1.1. Available at https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PRFF8V, Harvard Dataverse, V3. Accessed on Dez, 18th 2020.

  10. Inman-Bamber, N. G. 1994. Effect of age and season on components of yield of sugarcane in South Africa. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association 68: 23–27.

  11. Inman-Bamber, Geoff N., G.D. Bonnett, M.F. Spillman, M.L. Hewitt, and J. Xu. 2009. Source-sink differences in genotypes and water regimes influencing sucrose accumulation in sugarcane stalks. Crop and Pasture Science 60: 316–327.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Inman-Bamber, Geoff N., G.D. Bonnett, M.F. Spillman, M.H. Hewitt, and D. Glassop. 2010. Sucrose accumulation in sugarcane is influenced by temperature and genotype through the carbon source–sink balance. Crop and Pasture Science 61: 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Julien, M.H.R., and P. Delaveau. 1977. The effects of time of harvest on the partitioning of dry matter in three sugarcane varieties grown in contrasting environments. Proceeding of International Society Sugar Cane Technologists. 16: 1755–1769.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lawes, R.A., and R.J. Lawn. 2005. Applications of industry information in sugarcane production systems. Field Crops Research 92: 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lawes, R.A., L.M. McDonald, M.K. Wegener, K.E. Basford, and R.J. Lawn. 2002. Factors affecting stalk fresh yield and commercial cane sugar in the Tully district. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42: 473–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lingle, S.E., and J.E. Irvine. 1994. Sucrose synthase and natural ripening in sugarcane. Crop Science 34: 1279–1283.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marin, Fábio. R., and James W. Jones. 2014. Process-based simple model for simulating sugarcane growth and production. Scientia Agricola 71: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Marin, Fábio. R., James W. Jones, Frederick Royce, Carlos Suguitani, Jorge L. Donzeli, Wander J. Pallone, and Filho, and Daniel S.P. Nassif. 2011. Parameterization and evaluation of predictions of DSSAT/CANEGRO for Brazilian sugarcane. Agronomy Journal 103: 304–315.

  19. Marin, Fábio. R., Rafael V. Ribeiro, and Paulo E R. Marchiori. 2014. How can crop modeling and plant physiology help to understand the plant responses to climate change? A case study with sugarcane. Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology 26: 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marin, Fábio. R., Peter J. Thorburn, Daniel S.P.. Nassif, and Leandro G. Costa. 2015. Sugarcane model intercomparison: Structural differences and uncertainties under current and potential future climates. Environmental Modelling & Software 72: 372–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marin, Fábio. R., Geraldo B. Martha, Kenneth G. Cassman, and Patricio Grassini. 2016. Prospects for increasing sugarcane and bioethanol production on existing crop area in Brazil. BioScience 66: 307–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marin, Fábio. R., James W. Jones, and Kenneth J. Boote. 2017. A Stochastic Method for Crop Models: Including Uncertainty in a Sugarcane Model. Agronomy Journal 109: 483–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marin, Fábio. R., Juan I. Rattalino, Jose F. Edreira, and Andrade, and Patricio Grassini. . 2019. On-farm sugarcane yield and yield components as influenced by number of harvests. Field Crops Research 240: 134–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McDonald, Lisa. 2006. The effect of time of ratooning on sugarcane growth in the Burdekin. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 28: 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

  25. McDonald, Lisa, Andrew Wood, and Russell Muchow. 1999. A review of the effect of harvest time on sugarcane productivity. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 21: 177–184.

    Google Scholar 

  26. O’Leary, Garry J. 2000. A review of three sugarcane simulation models with respect to their prediction of sucrose yield. Field Crops Research 68: 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prado, Hélio. 2005. Soil management zones for sugarcane in the Mid-South region of Brazil. Informações Agronômicas [in Portuguese] 110: 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Robertson, M.J., A.W. Wood, and R.C. Muchow. 1996a. Growth of sugarcane under high input conditions in tropical Australia. I. Radiation use, biomass accumulation and partitioning. Field Crops Research 48: 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Robertson, M.J., R.C. Muchow, A.W. Wood, and J.A. Campbell. 1996b. Accumulation of reducing sugars by sugarcane: Effects of crop age, nitrogen supply and cultivar. Field Crops Research 49: 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Robertson, M.J., N.G. Inman-Bamber, R.C. Muchow, and A.W. Wood. 1999. Physiology and productivity of sugarcane with early and mid-season water deficit. Field Crops Research 64: 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sachs, Raquel C. 2007. Cane payment systems in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil [in Portuguese]. Informações Econômicas 37: 55–66. Avaliable at http://www.iea.sp.gov.br/ftpiea/ie/2007/pag%2055-66.pdf.

  32. Singels, Abraham, and C.N. Bezuidenhout. 2002. A new method of simulating dry matter partitioning in the CANEGRO sugarcane model. Field Crops Research 78: 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Singels, Abraham, M.A. Smit, K.A. Redshaw, and R.A. Donaldson. 2005. The effect of crop start date, crop class and cultivar on sugarcane canopy development and radiation interception. Field Crops Research 92: 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Singels, A., M. Jones, and M. van den Berg. 2008. DSSAT v4. 5-Canegro sugarcane plant module. South African Sugarcane Research Institute. Available at: https://sasri.sasa.org.za/agronomy/icsm/documents/DSSAT_Canegro_USER_documentation_final.pdf.

  35. Vianna, Murilo S., Daniel S. P. Nassif, Kássio. S. Carvalho, and Fábio. R. Marin. 2020. Modelling the trash blanket effect on sugarcane growth and water use. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 172: 105361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding sources include the Fulbright program, the Global Engagement Office at the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq grants 425,174/2018–2 and 300,916/2018–3), the Research Foundation of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP 2017/20,925–0), and the FAPESP-UNL SPRINT Program (2017/50,445–0).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

FRM performed conceptualization, data collection, organization, data analysis, writing, and editing. JIRE and JFA were involved in data analysis, writing, and editing. PG contributed to conceptualization, writing, and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio R. Marin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human or Animals Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marin, F.R., Rattalino Edreira, J.I., Andrade, J.F. et al. Sugarcane Yield and Yield Components as Affected by Harvest Time. Sugar Tech (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-020-00945-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sugarcane
  • Harvest time
  • Sucrose yield
  • Stalk fresh yield
  • POL