Cost of machinery in sugarcane production

Factors such as time and resources dedicated to harvesting sugarcane are of great importance for the cost of machinery and the plant's economic performance.

The cultivation of sugar cane in Brazil, which is destined for sugar and alcohol plants, has a large cultivated area, placing the country as the world's largest producer of this raw material. In the world, sugarcane is the main crop that generates clean fuel, with hydrated alcohol and in co-generation, with the production of electrical energy.

Due to the growth in demand from the global and national market to obtain sugar and fuel alcohol respectively, it caused a boost in the economy of the sugar and alcohol sector, so that for the plants to produce their by-products and be able to serve consumer markets, they increased the area planted with the material. -cousin. As a result, the area and production to be harvested also increased, at a time of changes in the harvesting system. Until recently, to harvest sugarcane in the field and transport it to the plant, the harvesting system used was semi-mechanized, with the prior burning of the raw material. In this condition, cutting is done manually and the entire sugarcane is loaded into transport vehicles using machines called loaders.

Due to the growth in the area and sugarcane production, it is more economically viable to harvest the raw material in a fully mechanized way, proven by technical and scientific studies. Although not limited to economic viability alone, the harvesting system has changed in recent times, moving from the semi-mechanized to the mechanized system, where self-propelled harvesters are used that cut, fractionate, clean and load the sugarcane into transshipment vehicles or directly. in transport vehicles. Due to the change that is taking place in the sugarcane harvesting system, the Plants will have to adopt the mechanized harvesting system once and for all, due to labor and environmental issues inherent to the agro-environmental protocol, which determines that sugarcane fields could only be burned in areas flat areas until 2014 and in sloped areas until 2017, according to Severo & Cardoso (2009) and National Biomass Reference Center (2008).

For mills, the production process is very important, however, it is necessary for them to maintain a constant and quality flow of sugarcane harvested in a mechanized way, in order to meet the demand in the production of their by-products, although they must consider the costs involved with the mechanized harvesting operation. The operations of the mechanized harvesting system are inserted in the harvesting process, and they occur in a systemic manner, with the influence of several operational and economic performance factors. Among the existing factors, field efficiency is an agricultural management factor, inherent to the operational performance of machines, which involves the service times relevant to the mechanized harvesting operation, such as productive, accessory, auxiliary, ineptitude, lost and worked times. , according to Gonçalves et al. (1993).

The “productive times” refer to the equipment working, such as the harvester processing the raw material and the tractor/transshipment set carrying out internal loading in the field. “Accessory time” occurs during the preparation of machines in the field to harvest and load sugarcane and others. The “auxiliary times” are made up of the times of headland maneuvering, fuel supply to the machines, unloading of the raw material harvested by transshipment into trucks, adjustments and final adjustments. “Times of ineptitude” practically do not occur, as they are a lack of skill or even acquired capacity. “Lost time” is made up of machine breakdown time, unexpected stops such as harvester plugging, time waiting for transshipment and others. “Worked time” results from the total accumulation of productive and accessory time.

Therefore, due to the systemic relationship between operational and economic performance factors, field efficiency has a considerable influence on the economic performance of the mechanized sugarcane harvesting system, as it has a strong impact, whether negatively or negatively. positive for the factors production cost, gross and net income from the Plant's harvest.

To prepare this work, the computational modeling methodology was adopted, opting to use the computational model called “ColheCana”, developed and validated in an electronic spreadsheet, from Excel and in programming language by Visual Basic. Computational modeling is adopted for the management of agricultural equipment, because it has proven to be very viable, as it is a tool that simplifies the development of a proposed idea, in order to represent structures and develop scenarios (situations), without having to carry out the work proposal in field conditions. However, a computational model intended for the planning and management of agricultural machinery and implements will always be developed in order to provide an efficient solution.

O “ColheCana” considers the basic production characteristics of the mechanized sugarcane harvesting system. The model has its basic functioning through the characteristics inherent to sugarcane cultivation, technical/operational equipment and economic characteristics of the machines. For the equipment, self-propelled sugarcane harvesters were considered, with one and two lines, both with a nominal power of 342 hp and an estimated acquisition value of R$ 900 thousand and R$ 1,3 million. The transshipment, comprised of two trailers with a capacity of 13t, with a purchase price of R$50.000,00 each, pulled by a 4x2 TDA tractor with 220hp nominal engine power, with a purchase price of R$220.000,00.

For “ColheCana” To be able to generate the simulated results, a Standard Plant was considered, with its own area of ​​22 thousand hectares, an average sugarcane productivity of 80t/ha, working speed of the one and two line harvesters being 5,00 km/h and 4,00. 4,18km/h, the total loss of raw material in the order of 3,34% and 1,5%, the spacing between simple cultivation rows of 2,5m and double alternating of 53,05m respectively. The estimated price of a ton of sugarcane delivered to the field and not to the Plant, being 2012 R$/t, according to the Union of Bioenergy Producers (80) and a field efficiency – EFC – reference of XNUMX%.

With the results simulated by the model, a scenario was created, as shown in Figure 2. In this scenario, the production cost of the mechanized sugarcane harvesting system is expressed, which is made up of the harvester, agricultural tractor and transshipment. Given the scenario in question, it is observed that the production cost with one- and two-row harvesters decreases as field efficiency increases, as its increase increases the operational capacity of the mechanized harvesting system.

As long as an EFC is much lower than the reference (80%), both for the mechanized harvesting system using a single or two-line harvester, it results in a practically prohibitive production cost. For example, harvesting with a one and two line machine at an EFC of 20%, the production cost corresponds to 81,36 R$/t and 65,77 R$/t, while for the EFC considered a reference 80 % was 7,40 R$/t and 6,64 R$/t, resulting in a difference of 73,96 R$/t and 59,13 R$/t, respectively. By increasing the EFC of the mechanized harvesting system from 20% to 80% with a single- and two-row harvester, it represents a gain in net harvest income of around R$42.249.655,81 and R$37.040.737,09 respectively.

Mechanized sugarcane harvesting trials are works carried out in order to achieve equivalent results to harvesting in the field conditions of a plant. The test is different from testing, as it takes place with specific standards, which were established by standards of entities belonging to the agricultural mechanization segment. In a test carried out by Nery (2000) using a single-row harvester, at an operating speed of 5,00km/h, with a spacing between simple crop rows of 1,4m, at EFCs of 45%, 55%, 65% and 75%, resulted in production costs of 1,40 R$/t, 1,20 R$/t, 0,81 R$/t and 0,66 R$/t, respectively. Under the same operating conditions previously mentioned, Carvalho Filho (2000) carried out a mechanized harvesting test of this raw material and presented production cost values ​​of 2,61 R$/t, 2,26 R$/t, 2,00 R$/t and 1,82R$/t, respectively.

If the EFC of the mechanized sugarcane harvesting system is increased from 80% to 90%, using a one- and two-line machine, it represents a gain in production costs of 1,01 R$/t and 0,92 R$/t and also in net income from the harvest in the order of R$1.223.807,78 and R$1.193.002,00 respectively. However, the Efc being greater than 80% for both types of harvesters, results in a slight gain in reducing production costs, making it important for the Plant's agricultural manager to analyze whether the investments necessary to obtain these gains are viable.

However, the increase in Efc reduces the production cost of the mechanized harvesting system and increases the Plant's net harvest income. For high EFC, large managerial investments are necessary for the means of execution and service times (operational). As a recommendation, it is necessary for the Plants to better observe their means of execution to achieve optimal management of the mechanized sugarcane harvesting system.

Neisvaldo Barbosa dos Santos, UFPI; Diego Soriano Cavalcante, USINA VALE DO TIJUCO; Haroldo Carlos Fernandes, UFV; Casimiro Dias Gadanha Júnior, ESALQ/USP

Article published in issue 149 of Cultivar Máquinas.