Browsing by Author "Morley, G"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Assessing the impact of biochar in the Herbert cane industry.
(2015) Morley, G
Biochar is the charred by-product of biomass pyrolysis, the heating of plant-derived material in the absence of oxygen in order to capture combustible gases. It is generally accepted that biochar is a highly stable form of carbon and as such has the potential to form an effective C sink, therefore sequestering atmospheric CO2. The objective of this report was to report on the findings of a SRDC/SRA funded Grower Group project that was undertaken in the Herbert cane growing region between 2012 and 2014 to assess the impact of biochar and compost in a sugarcane farming system. The trial was conducted on a low cation exchange capacity soil in the Lannercost farming area west of Ingham. A large number of studies (on numerous crops) have been conducted where biochar application has shown significant agronomic benefits, with a minor number of studies showing no significant effects on crop productivity and some studies reporting adverse effects (Sohi et. al., 2009). These results clearly suggests that crop productivity is variable due to a multiple number of reasons which are not fully understood. The mitigation potential of biochar with regard to other greenhouse gases, such as N2O and CH4, through its application to soil is less well established and requires further research (Sohi et. al., 2009). In this particular trial there were no significant difference in levels of greenhouse gases measured for the various treatments accessed. In the trial conducted for this project, there was no significant cane productivity (being measured as cane and sugar yield) or economic advantage from applying biochar. The only way biochar may become viable is if a carbon market is established. The economic value of sequestered carbon is still being researched and debated in scientific and political arenas, so while this is occurring it will be challenging for biochar to be economically viable based upon the results from this trial. If biochar is to be considered as a part of a carbon sequestration program, a whole of carbon life cycle analysis will be required to better understand the carbon pathways and potential loss mechanisms. In this trial the use of biochar in a sugarcane farming system is uneconomical based upon the results obtained. The only way that biochar may be economically viable in a sugarcane farming systems is through a government or community carbon credit program whereby a grower may be paid for the amount of carbon sequestered. Composts can be a useful source of nutrients, however the nutrient content of parent materials will need to be considered. This trial has shown that sugarcane can be produced using compost as a nutrient source. If composts are to provide the nutrients for cane growth, an assessment of total nutrients present and their availability and speed of release will be required. Because the nutrients are in organic forms in compost, the availability of nutrients may be variable. Composts should only be applied when they are “stabilised” and are not being acted upon by microbial activity. In this trial it is suspected that the composting process was still active when the product was applied and the compost was not yet “stabilised”. Germination and establishment of the plant cane were negatively impacted upon, with the crop showing nitrogen deficiencies in early stages of growth due to the compost not releasing sufficient nitrogen for crop growth. Composts could be a useful source of nutrients to grow a crop, however the economics associated with purchase and application will need to be considered.
SRDC Grower Group Innovation Project final report Herbert cane growers strategic grub management implementing BSES decision making tools
(BSES, 2013) Morley, G
This project was a continuation of previous SRDC/BSES grub monitoring projects in Mulgrave and Mackay, and aimed to value add the previous findings of the very high importance of thorough grub monitoring Grower involvement to spread the message was identified as a key factor in grub management, so the Herbert Cane Grub Management Group was formed through this Grower Group Project. This concept has proven to be very successful due to the active grower involvement, grower feedback and data collection, which aided in data interpretation, decision making and dissemination of information to the wider growing community beyond the actual growers in the project. 15 Herbert growers initially participated in the project , with six growers (Geoff Morley, Mario Porta and his two farm managers, Bert Bonassi, Frank and Alan White and Darren Harragon) being very actively involved. Staff from Herbert Productivity Services Ltd ( Graeme Holzberger, Lawrence Di Bella, Ash Benson and Ron Kerkwyk) as well as BSES Ltd was heavily involved. The actual field work and data collection was carried out by HCPSL and BSES staff with BSES entomologist Dr Nader Sallam and his entomology research team, processing and interpreting data and also making the district and farm predictions. 41 sugarcane blocks were used to monitor grub numbers and damage levels as well as to predict greyback cane grub numbers and potential damage across the Herbert district over 3 consecutive years (2010-2012). Some of these blocks were not sampled in 2011 due to the effects of 5 flood events and as many blocks had been left as standover in 2010.Due to the extreme weather associated events (cyclone Yasi and the we prolonged wet weather coupled with low grub numbers in dug fields which made the predicted grub numbers and the likely area that may be damaged the following year less reliable an extension of the project was requested and granted so data could be collected for the whole of the 2012 calendar year Emphasis had been placed on “Managing Grubs across the Whole Farm”. The growers mentioned above plus others in predicted “Likely damage Areas” had their predictions of future population dynamics and potential damage levels conducted for their whole farms. Strip trials with new product formulations, and comparing existing products were also undertaken after discussions with the growers within the grower group. Predicting the future grub dynamics and damage levels was made possible through the prediction models developed by Dr Frank Drummond, Maine University, USA. Dr Drummond used monitoring results generated through previous GrubPlan projects to build and develop the models. During the 3 seasons the selected blocks were dug for grubs. All grubs found were identified and recorded and then raised in the laboratory in the Herbert and Meringa and regularly checked for diseases. Various other factors were recorded (these are recorded in the methodology section) and results entered into the prediction models. The predictions and damage estimates that were generated for each season were discussed with growers at GrubPlan meetings and during one on one extension activities. Grower’s actions for managing their farms grub issues were recorded and compared to the BSES recommendations. This project proved to be very successful as it engaged the growers in a planned approach to grub management, reinforced the need for continual monitoring of population dynamics, and also raised the profile and awareness of grub levels and damage across the whole Herbert region. Previous to this, management tended to be reactionary with the rise and fall in insecticide treatment following the rise and fall in area damaged. This project has let to growers and indeed whole of districts treating to prevent grub damage, based on the predictions of increasing grub damage. Most Herbert growers can see the benefits of the current project in assisting to predict grub damage as well as assist in selecting areas at highest risk to treat, and seek to continue this work as a part of the district work program.