A multiple objective methodology for sugarcane harvest management with varying maturation periods
- 75 Downloads
This paper addresses the management of a sugarcane harvest over a multi-year planning period. A methodology to assist the harvest planning of the sugarcane is proposed in order to improve the production of POL (a measure of the amount of sucrose contained in a sugar solution) and the quality of the raw material, considering the constraints imposed by the mill such as the demand per period. An extended goal programming model is proposed for optimizing the harvest plan of the sugarcane so the harvesting point is as close as possible to the ideal, considering the constrained nature of the problem. A genetic algorithm (GA) is developed to tackle the problem in order to solve realistically large problems within an appropriate computational time. A comparative analysis between the GA and an exact method for small instances is also given in order to validate the performance of the developed model and methods. Computational results for medium and large farm instances using GA are also presented in order to demonstrate the capability of the developed method. The computational results illustrate the trade-off between satisfying the conflicting goals of harvesting as closely as possible to the ideal and making optimum use of harvesting equipment with a minimum of movement between farms. They also demonstrate that, whilst harvesting plans for small scale farms can be generated by the exact method, a meta-heuristic GA method is currently required in order to devise plans for medium and large farms.
KeywordsMultiple objective optimization Goal programming Genetic algorithm Sugarcane harvest planning
The authors wish to thank the Brazilian foundations FAPESP (Grant Nos. 2014/01604-0 and 2014/04353-8), CNPq (Grant No. 303267/2011-9), PROEPE (UNESP) and FUNDUNESP. Also, to the Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Scientific Computation belonging to UNICAMP and FAPESP (Grant 2013/06035-0), for their financial support. The authors also wish to thank the two anonymous referees whose comments helped shape the final version of this paper.
- Bagdon, B. A., Huang, C. H., & Dewhurst, S. (2016). Managing for ecosystem services in northern arizona ponderosa pine forests using a novel simulation-to-optimization methodology. Ecological Modelling, 324, 11–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.12.012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380015005803.
- Baraku, B., Shahu, E., & Mulliri, J. (2015). Goal programming as a method utilized in production planning at the farm level. International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Science-IJEES, 5(3), 447–452.Google Scholar
- Bowman, V. J. (1976). On the relationship of the Tchebycheff norm and the efficient frontier of multiple-criteria objectives. In H. Thieriez (Ed.), Multiple criteria decision making, lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems (Vol. 130). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Conab: Companhia nacional de abstecimento. acompanhamento da safra brasileira. (2016). Cana de açúcar. oservatório agrícola. levantamento de agosto http://www.conab.gov/OalaCMS. Accessed 25 Nov 2016.
- da Silva, A. F., Marins, F. A. S., & Dias, E. X. (2015). Addressing uncertainty in sugarcane harvest planning through a revised multi-choice goal programming model. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(18), 5540–5558. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2015.01.007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X15000086.
- Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley-interscience series in systems and optimization. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Demirci, M., & Bettinger, P. (2015). Using mixed integer multi-objective goal programming for stand tending block designation: A case study from turkey. Forest Policy and Economics, 55, 28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115000568.
- Ehrgott, M., & Ruzika, S. (2008). An improved \(\varepsilon \)-constraint method for multiobjective programming. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 138, 375–396.Google Scholar
- Florentino, H. O., Pato, M. V., Jones, D., & Cantane, D. R. (2015). Biomass production and uses, chap. Production and management of sugarcane biomass process optimization. InTech.Google Scholar
- González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2001). Aggregation of partial ordinal rankings: An interval goal programming approach. Computers and Operations Research, 28(8), 827–834. doi: 10.1016/S0305-0548(00)00010-1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305054800000101.
- Haimes, Y. Y., Lasdon, L. S., & Wismer, D. A. (1971). On a bicriterion formulation of the problems of integrated system identification and system optimization. IEEE Transactions on Systems, 3, 296.Google Scholar
- Higgins, A. J. (1999). Optimizing cane supply decisions within a sugar mill region. Journal of Scheduling, 2(5), 229–244. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1425(199909/10)2:5<229::AID-JOS29>3.0.CO;2-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hofsetz, K., & Silva, M. A. (2012). Brazilian sugarcane bagasse: Energy and non-energy consumption. Biomass and Bioenergy, 46, 564–573. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.038. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341200284X. International Conference on Lignocellulosic ethanol.
- Jones, D., Mirrazavi, S., & Tamiz, M. (2002). Multi-objective meta-heuristics: An overview of the current state-of-the-art. European Journal of Operational Research, 137(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00123-0. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221701001230.
- Jones, D., & Tamiz, M. (2010). Practical goal programming, international series in operations research and management science (141st ed., Vol. 141). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Landers, I. N. (2007). Tropical crop livestock systems in conservation agriculture: the Brazilian experience. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
- Magalhães, P., & Braunbeck, O. A. (2014). Trm: Agriculture component (pp. 897–908). doi: 10.5151/BlucherOA-Sugarcane-SUGARCANEBIOETHANOL-75. URL openaccess.blucher.com.br/article-details/trm-agriculture-component-19294?articles/details/155
- MATLAB: Version 7.10.0 (R2010a). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts (2010)Google Scholar
- Prišenk, J., & Turk, J. (2015). A multi-goal mathematical approach for the optimization of crop lanning on organic farms: A slovenian case study. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4, 971–979.Google Scholar
- Supsomboon, S., & Niemsakul, J. (2014). A linear programming for sugarcane cultivation and harvest planning with cane survival rate. Agricultural Engineering International, 16(4), 207–216.Google Scholar
- Vianna, M. D. S., & Sentelhas, P. C. (2014). Simulação do risco de deficit hídrico em regiões de expansão do cultivo de cana-de-açúcar no Brasil. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 49, 237–246.Google Scholar
- Weintraub, A., & Murray, A. T. (2006). Review of combinatorial problems induced by spatial forest harvesting planning. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 154(5), 867–879. doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2005.05.025. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X05003124. IV ALIO/EURO Workshop on Applied Combinatorial OptimizationIV ALIO/EURO Workshop on Applied Combinatorial Optimization.
- Worldwatch institute: Vision for a Sustainable World. http://www.worldwatch.org/biofuels-transportation-selected-trends-and-facts/. Accessed: 18 Nov 2015.
- Yirsaw, T., Woldetsadik, K., & Workneh, T. (2000). Effect of harvest time on quality of sugar cane cultivars. Advanced Materials Research, 824, 293–300.Google Scholar