7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
7.3 Factors that Negatively Affect the Performance of the Sugarcane Milling Areas
7.3.3 Common, shared and unique factors across the milling areas
The factors that were perceived to negatively affect the performance of the sugarcane milling areas can be categorised into three; viz. (1) the factors that were common to all the four milling areas, (2) the factors that were shared by at least two milling areas (3) the factors that were unique to a milling area. The first, second and third categories are termed common, shared and unique factors, respectively. Figure 7.3 shows the categories of factors in the four milling areas.
65
Figure 7.3 Categories of factors that negatively affect the performance of the South African sugarcane milling areas
It is evident from Figure 7.3 that 31 factors were common to all the four milling areas.
Common and shared factors constitute more than 60 % of factors in the milling areas. This suggests that a majority of factors that negatively affect the performance of the sugarcane milling areas are similar. This can be attributed to the following; viz. (a) most of the processes in sugarcane production and processing are similar and (b) the milling areas under study are located in one country and are therefore subjected to many similar conditions, such as the same laws and cane payment system. Figure 7.3 also shows that there were 42, 15, 4 and 45 unique factors in the Eston, Felixton, Komati and Umfolozi milling areas, respectively. The presence of the unique factors is a manifestation of the relatively diverse configurations of the four milling areas.
Common factors across milling areas
Table 7.4 depicts the factors that were common across the four sugarcane milling areas. The factors are grouped into eight thematic areas using colour codes; viz. (1) cane production and harvesting (2) transport and supply of cane to mills, (3) cane milling, (4) environment, (5) cane quality, (6) economics, (7) labour, and (8) cross cutting factors.
31 31 31 31
36 36 33 43
42
15
4
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Eston Felixton Komati Umfolozi
Numbers of factors
Names of sugarcane milling areas
Unique Shared Common
66
Table 7.4 Common factors that negatively affect the performance of South African sugarcane milling areas
Behind allocation Harvest efficiency reduction Higher non sucrose % Less logistics transparency Lower cutter productivity Lower cane density
Longer cycle time More field damage Lower cane quality
Longer queue More lodging Lower sucrose %
Lower cane supply reliability Poor variety More deterioration More times no-cane at zone on arrival Shorter crop cycles More foreign material
More under loading Yield decrease Aged equipment
Not meeting daily rateable delivery Yield increase More mechanical breakdowns Transport efficiency reduction More mechanical mill stops Less spending on inputs
Drought Mill throughput reduction
Wind Fewer cutters
Cane production and harvesting Cane transport and supply Cane milling Environment
Cane quality Economics Labour Cross cutting
It is evident from Table 7.4 that most of the factors that were common across the four milling areas fall under three thematic areas; viz. (a) cane transport and supply to sugarcane mills (≈29 %), (b) cane production and harvesting (≈26 %) and (c) cane quality (≈19 %).
Shared factors across milling areas
Table 7.5 contains a list of shared factors in the four milling areas. The factors have been grouped into eight thematic areas using colour codes (see Table 7.3). It is apparent from Table 7.5 that approximately 65 % of the shared factors fall under three thematic areas; viz. (1) cane production and harvesting, (2) cane transport and supply and (3) cane milling. This finding reinforces the argument that a majority of factors that negatively affect the performance of the SA sugarcane milling areas are directly related to sugarcane production and processing.
67
Table 7.5 Shared factors that negatively affect the performance of South African sugarcane milling areas
No. Vertex label Eston Felixton Komati Umfolozi
1 Extended LOMS
2 Higher harvest rate variability
3 Higher topping
4 Less replanting
5 More carry-over
6 More mechanical harvesting
7 More trashing
8 Over irrigation
9 Reduced LOMS
10 Poor burn efficiency
11 Low stacking efficiency
12 More in-field loading
13 Few load sensors
14 Fewer trucks
15 Less knowledge of stock at loading point
16 Less stock stored at loading point
17 Less stockpile
18 Longer BHTCD)
19 Low loading efficiency
20 More no cane stops
21 Ahead of estimate
22 Cane depletion end of season
23 More road damage
24 More stock stored at loading point
25 More trucks
26 RTMS implemented
27 A-pan saturation
28 High viscosity
29 Higher crush rate variability
30 Higher energy requirements
31 Incomplete crystallisation
32 Low factory capital utilisation
33 Lower diffuser percolation
34 Lower exhaustion
35 Lower extraction
36 Lower sugar recovery
37 More diffuser flooding
38 More diffuser residence time
39 More inversion in diffuser
40 More mill chokes
41 Poor clarification
42 Heat
43 High moisture content
44 More pests and disease
45 Rain
46 Higher fibre %
47 More silica % cane
48 More soil % cane
49 More ash % cane
50 Cane supply area shrinkage
51 Less income
52 More spending on input costs
53 Operating cost increase
54 HIV/Aids
55 Lower Cutter availability
56 Pay days
57 Poor Nutrition
58 Strikes
59 Lack of skills
60 Less preventative maintenance
61 Poor communication
62 Poor stakeholder trust
63 Breakdowns and accidents
Cane production and harvesting Cane transport and supply Cane milling Environment
Quality Economics Labour Cross cutting
Unique factors across milling areas
Table 7.6 shows the unique factors in the four milling areas. The numbers of unique factors correspond with the numbers of factors that were perceived to negatively affect the performance of the milling areas (i.e. the higher the number of factors in a milling area, the
68
higher is the number of unique factors). Some of the unique factors suggest that the analyses that were done in this study can bring forth accurate results.
Table 7.6 Unique factors that negatively affect the performance of South African sugarcane milling areas
Eston 28. Less profit
13. Poor
communication infrastructure
20. Less cane volume 1. Harvesting of immature
cane 29. More expenses 14. Unsynchronisation
of operations
21. Vehicle schedule implemented 2. Less land use plans 30. Higher fixed cost
component
15. More grower/miller conflict
22. Transport efficiency increase
3. Less seed cane 31. High labour cost Komati 23. Longer hauls
4. Incorrect time for
applying inputs 32. Less farmers 1. Bullwhip in transport
24. Fewer times no-cane at zone on arrival
5. More runaway fires 33. Land bond repayments 2. More evaporator
scaling 25. Shorter BHTCD
6. Inability to burn 34. Alternative
industries/crops 3. More mud recycling 26. Lower heat transfer coefficient 7. Stool death 35. Other industries 4. More pulping 27. More heater scaling
8. Lower cane supply 36. Labour problems Umfolozi 28. Higher evaporation
requirements 9. More trash included in
load 37. Absenteeism 1. Crop damage 29. More coal utilisation
10. Cane supply variability 38. Social grants 2. More reluctance to
burn/harvest 30. High evaporation rate 11. Overestimates 39. Legal cutters 3. Less burning 31. More encrustation in
crystalliser
12. Cane diversions 40. Poor knowledge 4. Less ripening 32. More imbibition water 13. Standing trucks 41. Skills shortage 5. Harvest efficiency
increase 33. Higher sugar recovery 14. Low milling efficiency 42. Poor training and
management
6. More harvest scheduling
34. Increased environmental impacts
15. Slower diffuser
throughput Felixton 7. Lower topping 35. High rainfall
16. Lower front-end
efficiency 1. Less carry-over 8. Incorrect harvesting
time 36. More upstream floods
17. Low crush rate (not stops)
2. Cane excess at end of
season 9. More cane rolling 37. Lower environmental priority
18. More operational mill stops
3. Higher above ground
cutting 10. Poor ratoonability 38. Lower non sucrose % 19. More wear on hammers
and shredders 4. More burning 11. Shorter queue 39. Low quality syrup 20. Lower dewater milling
efficiency
5. Impact on haulage
capacity 12. Shorter cycle time 40. Higher sugar quality 21. Low boiler efficiency 6. More consignments 13. Slow response 41. More silt on leaves 22. More undetermined
losses 7. Phosphate shortage 14. Fewer
consignments 42. Less willingness to invest 23. Lower back-end
efficiency
8. Increase in weekly crush rate
15. Low infield
transport efficiency 43. More income 24. Lower boiler capacity 9. High humidity 16. Less vehicle
maintenance needed 44. More land claims
25. Frost 10. Poor VHP 17. Increase logistics
transparency 45. Higher sugar price
26. Hail 11. Low juice purity 18. Poor road
maintenance
27. Cold 12. Lower pol factor 19. Less in-field
loading
Cane production and harvesting Cane transport and supply Cane milling Environment
Cane quality Economics Labour Cross cutting
For example, Table 7.6 shows that frost and high humidity are some of the unique factors that negatively affect the performance of the Eston and Felixton milling areas, respectively. These
69
findings match the milling areas’ descriptions in Chapter 5. The factors in Table 7.6 have been grouped into thematic areas using colour codes (see Table 7.3). It is evident that the unique factors in the Eston, Felixton, Komati and Umfolozi milling areas fall under seven, six, two and six thematic areas, respectively.
7.4 Cause-and-Effect Relationships between the Factors that Negatively Affect the