Browsing by Author "Ginns, S"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Commercial scale economic evaluation of post-harvest cane cleaning to maximise the returns to the supply shain : Final report 2016/953
(Sugar Research Australia Limited, 2019) Ginns, S
This project examined three cane supply treatments; Commercial harvesting, Low Loss harvesting and Low Loss Harvesting plus cleaning; to determine if post-harvest cane cleaning offered benefits over harvesting alone. As a basic concept, it was expected that reducing harvester extractor fan speed would reduce cane loss, resulting in increased CCS yield but also increased trash content, and that the post-harvest cane cleaning operation would remove the additional trash, maintaining the higher CCS yield. To facilitate this project, a mobile cane cleaner (MCC) was purchased from Norris ECT by SRA. The MCC was leased by the project from SRA. Major modifications to the cleaning chamber of the NorrisECT 180 mobile cane cleaner (MCC 180) were necessary. The MCC was a prototype machine not suitable for commercial use. The results did support the expectation of higher CCS yield with lower extractor fan speed, but much of the higher yield measured by low loss harvesting was lost after post-harvest cane cleaning. Economic analysis quantified harvesting costs and the resulting product income. In an experiment on Rajinder Singh’s farm, the treatment with post-harvest cane cleaning was found to be less economically attractive than the normal harvesting treatment, even with the lower transport cost in getting cane to Mossman Mill, a distance of 95 km. The project did not measure an increase in CCS yield from the low loss harvesting plus cane cleaning treatment to improve upon sugar income.
Strategies to limit the impact of nematode pressure on sugarcane productivity in the Isis : final report 2013/071
(BSES, 2015) Jakins, A; Quinn, B; Halpin, N; Ginns, S
Two trials were done in this project. One was a continuation of work started under a previous GRDC/SRDC-funded activity, 'Strategies to improve the integration of legumes into cane based farming systems'. This trial aimed to assess the impact of trash and tillage management options and nematicide application on nematodes and crop performance. Methods and results are contained in the following publication: Halpin NV, Stirling GR, Rehbein WE, Quinn B, Jakins A, Ginns SP. The impact of trash and tillage management options and nematicide application on crop performance and plant-parasitic nematode populations in a sugarcane/peanut farming system. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 37, 192-203. Nematicide application in the plant crop significantly reduced total numbers of plant parasitic nematodes (PPN) but there was no impact on yield. Application of nematicide to the ratoon crop significantly reduced sugar yield. The study confirmed other work demonstrating that implementation of strategies like reduced tillage reduced populations of total PPN, suggesting that the soil was more suppressive to PPN in those treatments. The second trial, a variety trial, demonstrated the limited value of nematicide application in sugarcane farming systems. This study has highlighted that growers shouldn’t view nematicides as a ‘cure all’ for paddocks that have historically had high PPN numbers. Nematicides have high mammalian toxicity, have the potential to contaminate ground water (Kookana et al. 1995) and are costly. The cost of nematicide used in R1 was approx. $320 - $350/ha, adding $3.50/t of cane in a 100 t/ha crop. Also, our study demonstrated that a single nematicide treatment at the application rate registered for sugarcane is not very effective in reducing populations of nematode pests. There appears to be some levels of resistance to nematodes within the current suite of varieties available to the southern canelands. For example the soil in plots that were growing Q183 had 560% more root knot nematodes / 200mL soil compared to plots that grew Q245. The authors see great value in investment into a nematode screening program that could rate varieties into groups of susceptibility to both major sugarcane nematode pests. Such a rating could then be built into a decision support ‘tree’ or tool to better enable producers to select varieties on a paddock by paddock basis.