Top Banner

Click here to load reader

PROCEEDINGS American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists · PDF file American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists Douglas P. Stevens, Jr 13 Savoie Farms, Inc. Mosaic Control Program

May 09, 2020

ReportDownload

Documents

others

  • P R O C E E D I N G S

    American Society of Sugar

    Cane Technologists

    Volume 72 - Papers for 1965

    December, 1965

  • FOREWORD

    This is the twelfth volume of proceedings of the Society which has

    been published since its founding in 1938.

    The first volume published in 1941 included papers presented during

    1938, 1939 and 1940. Mr. Walter Godchaux, Jr., the then Secretary-Treasurer,

    edited that edition.

    The second volume published in 1946 included papers presented during

    1941-1945 inclusive. Dr. E. V. Abbott, Secretary-Treasurer, edited that

    edition.

    The third volume published in 1953 included papers presented during

    1946-1950 inclusive. A fourth volume was published in 1955 and presented

    papers for the years of 1950 through 1953. Volume five contains papers

    for the years of 1954 and 1955. The sixth volume included papers presented

    during 1956. The third through the sixth volumes were edited by Dr. Arthur

    G. Keller.

    The seventh volume, which is in two parts, 7A and 7B , contains papers

    presented during 1957 through 1960 inclusive. The eighth, ninth, tenth

    and eleventh volumes contain papers presented during 1961, 1962, 1963 and

    1964 respectively. These volumes, as well as this, the twelfth volume,

    which includes papers for the year 1965, have been compiled by the writer.

    Denver T. Loupe Secretary-Treasurer

    December, 1965

  • I N D E X

    Agricultural Section - February 1965 PAGE

    Difficulties Encountered in Harvesting the 1964 Sugarcane Crop Ramon E. Billeaud 1

    Harvesting Problems After Hilda Calvin Burleigh 6

    The Effects of Hurricane Hilda on the Sugarcane Harvesting Operation in St. Mary Parish Minus J. Granger 11

    American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists Douglas P. Stevens, Jr 13

    Savoie Farms, Inc. Mosaic Control Program Raymond B lanchard 18

    Mosaic Disease Situation in St. Mary Parish Minus J. Granger . 20

    Manufacturing Section - February 1965

    Gatke Moulded Fabric Bearings on Sugar Cane Journals and Auxiliary Equipment N. Radloff 24

    Application of "Stearns" Magnetic Separators in Sugar Cane Milling Wm. J. Bronkala ...................... .................... 31

    Some Ideas and Remarks About Evaporation Carlos M. Alonzo .................................. 36

    Agricultural Section - June 1965

    Twelfth Congress - I.S.S.C.T. 1965 A Report Denver T. Loupe .......................................... 52

    A Report on Sugar Cane in Puerto Rico Lloyd L. Lauden 55

    Some Research Papers Related to Louisiana Problems Presented at the 12th Congress of the International Society of Sugarcane Technologists R. D. Breaux 59

  • Agricultural Section - June 1965 PAGE

    The Use of Chemical Herbicides in the Culture of Sugarcane for Sugar Production in Louisiana Ernest R. Stamper 66

    Manufacturing Section - June 1965

    Moving Cane Storage Away From the Mill - Is it Feasible? Harold A. Willett 84

    Inclined Feeder Table and Dumping System at the Raceland Factory J. L. Mathews 89

    Cane Handling at Cajun Sugar Cooperative, Inc. Luis A. Suarez 93

    The Side Dump System of Sugar Cane Handling Larry G. Fowler 96

    General

    Banquet Address

    Warren J. Harang, Jr., President, ASSCT, 1964 141

    Minutes of the Annual Meeting, February 4, 1965 143

    Minutes of the Summer Meeting, June 3, 1965 146

    Constitution of the American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists (As amended, July 22, 1963) 148

  • DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN HARVESTING THE 1964 SUGARCANE CROP

    by Ramon E. Billeaud

    Billeaud Sugar Factory

    Prior to Hurricane Hilda, everyone in our area was estimating

    that their crops would exceed the record-breaking crop of 1963. Probably,

    this was true throughout the sugar belt.

    Then, along came the 'big blow', and we were suddenly in the position

    of picking up the pieces, and seeing where we stood. Never before in

    anyone's memory had a hurricane of such force struck the crop on the very

    eve of harvest.

    It is reasonable to say, then, that we entered the 1964 harvest

    season with many unpredictables.

    As had been our custom for many years, we had been taking maturity

    tests since early September. We found that, despite the fact that the

    cane was later than normal in maturity, it was nevertheless progressing

    satisfactorily. By the 1st of October, the cane was gaining about one-

    half point per week in sucrose, and we began to plan our harvest.

    Of course Hilda changed this.

    Immediately after the hurricane, we resumed our maturity tests. We

    found an immediate drop in sucrose, down to the 8.00 to 9.00 levels.

    Obviously, our harvest was to be delayed.

    Finally, by October 23, the cane again reached desirable sucrose

    levels of 10.50 and we felt that, although a little lower than normal,

    it was time to get started. Accordingly, we began our harvest on October 26.

    At this time, it was generally felt that a substantial portion of

    the crop would be lost due to the normal freezes which could be expected

    in the latter part of the year.

    1

  • Having begun our harvest, we immediately made several observations

    with regard to mechanical harvesters:

    1. The capacity of the harvesters was greatly reduced because of several

    factors:

    A. They could operate in one direction only, most of the time.

    B. They had to operate at a slower rate of forward speed.

    C. The operators had trouble making the adjustment to the abnormal

    conditions.

    D. There was a much greater amount of stoppage due to chocking

    than usual.

    E. The mechanical break-down time was abnormally high, because of

    the heavier work being done by the machines.

    After several days of trial and error, however, we were able to

    make certain modifications in the sprockets of the gathering arms which

    had the result of coordinating the speed of the gathering chains with

    the forward speed of the machines. Along with this, our operators began

    to get the feel of the conditions, and consequently, the efficiency of

    our machines improved somewhat. However, they never operated at a normal

    rate throughout the season.

    Early in the season, we sought to contract on reasonable terms

    with hand laborers from the St. Landry and Evangeline Parish areas.

    However, it was not until the latter part of the season that we were

    able to obtain any of these hand-cutters in quantity. We won't even

    mention the quality of the laborers at this time. Even then, we had to

    accede to their wishes and pay them at the end of each working day. Our

    rate of pay was $8.10 for a nine-hour day, plus $1.00 per day for trans-

    portation. When we add normal overhead costs, we can see that the total

    cost per man approached $10.00 per day. In our heavier cane, they cut

    2

  • an average of 3 1/2 tons per man-day, amounting to a cost of roughly

    $3.00 per ton harvested. Ultimately, we had to harvest approximately

    20% of our crop at this high cost figure.

    This condition, of course, materially affected any profit-motive

    which we had for the year. In addition, the following conditions adver-

    sely affected profits:

    1. Although the tonnage of cane was above normal, the actual amount

    harvested and delivered to the mill was reduced considerably by

    breaking. This was especially true in the variety C.P. 52-68, where

    we estimate that we lost three to five tons from breaking.

    2. The actual weight per stalk of the cane was found to be less than

    usual, because the cane was pithy in nature, and seemed to lack the

    normal amount of juice. However, as the season progressed, this

    condition improved to a degree.

    3. The reduced rate of mechanical harvesting resulted in a higher cost

    per ton for harvesting.

    4. AND, as in most years, the price remained below the price-objective

    of the Sugar Act throughout most of the season.

    These factors, then, all added up to less production than anticipated,

    less income than anticipated, and much higher than anticipated harvesting

    cost.

    Despite these things, however, our area perhaps fared better than

    some other areas of the Belt, for these reasons:

    1. We were on the Westward side of the Hurricane, and the winds were

    less damaging in our area. Although our cane was very severely

    whipped by the winds, they were blown in one direction only. It

    is my understanding that in many other areas, the cane was whipped

    back and forth by the changing direction of the winds.

    3

  • 2. Throughout the season, we experienced very little rainfall, and

    consequently, mud and boggy conditions were no real problem this

    year.

    3. We escaped early freezes, although we did register a bud-killing

    freeze on November 30. However, up to the last day of our harvest,

    on January 16, the eyes on the cane remained sound.

    With regard to the trash content of the cane this year, as compared