Click here to load reader
Click here to load reader
May 09, 2020
P R O C E E D I N G S
American Society of Sugar
Volume 72 - Papers for 1965
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
D. There was a much greater amount of stoppage due to chocking
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
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
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.
2. Throughout the season, we experienced very little rainfall, and
consequently, mud and boggy conditions were no real problem this
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