Farming systems and production management

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://elibrary2.sugarresearch.com.au/handle/11079/13844

Research outcomes: Growers and harvesters benefit from the ongoing research in productivity improvement, production management and agronomical techniques. Developed technologies and management practices that enhance productivity and demonstrate a high rate of return on investment.

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6

Investigating losses from green and burnt cane harvesting conditions : ASSCT peer-reviewed paper
(ASSCT, 2020) Patane, P; Landers, G; Thompson, M; Nothard, B; Norris, CA; Olayemi, M
Despite much research into the impact of high harvester pour rates and fan speeds on harvested cane yields, there has been low adoption of HBP (harvesting best practice) across the industry. Full adoption across the Australian sugarcane industry could increase industry revenue with no necessity for horizontal expansion (increase in cane land). In order to inform industry of the potential for significant gains, 95 replicated harvesting trials and workshops were undertaken during 2017 and 2018 across 12 sugarcane regions in Queensland and New South Wales. The performance of settings recommended by HBP was compared with each harvesting operation’s standard practice by assessing yield, CCS, bin mass, extraneous matter (EM), fibre, sugar loss and revenue. To highlight the strong relationship between cane loss and excessive pour rates and fan speeds, treatments with higher pour rates and fan speeds and lower pour rates and fan speeds were also trialled. Cane loss, production and revenue data from the fully replicated and randomised trials were analysed to identify differences between industry standard harvesting practices and those recommended by HBP. Harvesters typically operate at ground and fan speeds at on average of 0.9 km/h and 95 rpm above those recommended under HBP parameters. The higher ground speed overloads the cleaning capacity of the harvester in delivering an average 21 t/h more cane though the machine. Consequently, fan speeds are increased to remove the additional EM (extraneous matter) entering the machine, which then removes additional cane via the extractor. This cane often disintegrated in the process, making much invisible. Trials indicated the average sugar loss out of the extractor increased by 0.15 t/ha over the HBP settings. However, there was no significant improvement in EM or bin mass. As a result of cane loss though the extractor, less cane per hectare was delivered to the mill. Mill analyses across the trials identified cane and sugar yields for the recommended practice were 4.9 t/ha (cane yield) and 0.7 t/ha (sugar yield) higher than standard practice. Neither CCS nor fibre levels were significantly different. Increased cane and sugar yields generated by the recommended practice translated to an increase in grower gross revenue of $181/ha., but reduced ground speeds increased the cost of harvesting by $61/ha. Subtracting the additional harvesting costs and levies from the additional grower revenue leaves a net benefit of $116/ha for the grower. Preliminary results of “good” burn trials indicate an improvement of $207/ha in grower gross revenue with lower fuel. Based on the green-cane results, full adoption of HBP could improve annual industry revenue by $44 million for growers at an additional cost of $17 million for harvesting (excluding incentives). Milling revenue would also improve by $25 million per year but this does not account for additional milling or transport costs.
Cost assessment of the adoption of harvesting best practice (HBP) : ASSCT peer-reviewed paper
(ASSCT, 2019) Nothard, B; Thompson, M; Patane, P; Landers, G; Norris, CA; Poggio, M
Using ground speeds and extractor fan speeds recommended by Harvesting Best Practice (HBP) will minimise cane loss and stool damage. While these benefits provide an incentive for growers to request contractors use HBP settings, little research based on trial data has examined the full impact on harvesting costs. Given that reduced ground speeds increase harvesting time, it is expected harvesting contractors would incur higher labour, fuel and machinery costs per tonne. To incentivise the move to HBP, additional compensation would need to be paid to harvesting contractors by growers. It is anticipated that providing growers and contractors with information about the harvesting cost implications from implementing HBP would enhance adoption. The difference in harvesting costs between conventional (standard) harvesting practice and HBP (recommended) are evaluated at nine harvesting-trial sites undertaken across Queensland in 2017 by Sugar Research Australia. The analysis draws upon the production and operational information collected during the trials along with detailed information collected from each of the nine harvesting operations. A customised economic spreadsheet was developed to model the difference in harvesting costs between standard practice and recommended settings. Harvesting costs per tonne were generally found to increase when using recommended settings, with the exception of trials that attained large reductions in cane losses due to the change in practice. The results showed that changing to recommended settings increased harvesting costs by between $11 and $101/ha. Changes per tonne showed far more variability at –67 c/t (saving) to 96 c/t (increase), where some cases showed cost increases offset by yield improvements. Moreover, harvesting costs varied among harvesting contractors due to differences in machinery-management strategies and labour-payment terms. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken to investigate the response of harvesting costs to different scenarios.
Economic evaluation of sugarcane harvesting best practice (HBP) : ASSCT peer-reviewed paper
(ASSCT, 2019) Thompson, M; Nothard, B; Patane, P; Landers, G; Norris, CA
Mechanical sugarcane harvesting is commonly undertaken at ground speeds that exceed the cleaning capacity of modern harvesters, which is likely to increase extraneous matter (EM) levels in the cane supply. To attempt to reduce the higher EM levels, operators typically increase extractor fan speeds above recommendations, resulting in unintended cane loss. Past research indicates that using harvesting best practice (HBP) settings can minimise cane loss and stool damage. These benefits would increase grower revenue and be an incentive for growers to request harvesting contractors operate using HBP settings. Reduced ground speeds would, however, increase harvesting time and generate higher costs per hectare. The key issue remains as to whether the increased grower revenues outweigh the additional harvesting costs. Nine replicated and randomised trials undertaken by Sugar Research Australia in 2017 compared harvesting performance when using both conventional and HBP settings through identifying production and grower revenue differences. Detailed information was collected from each harvesting operation to identify harvesting costs under both conventional practice and HBP. This allowed the net benefit for the grower and harvesting operation from using HBP settings to be determined. On average over the nine trials, recommended harvesting settings generated more grower revenue than the added harvesting costs from reducing ground speeds and generated a net economic benefit of $163/ha (or $1.97/t). The trials show that, while growers would need to pay additional compensation for cane harvested using HBP settings, the compensation would be less than the additional revenue they received, increasing overall grower profitability.
Improving yield and cane quality through implementation of harvesting best practice - 2019 Herbert demonstration : ASSCT peer-reviewed paper
(ASSCT, 2021) Patane, P; Nothard, B; Norris, CA; Douglas, A; Pfumayaramba, T; Stringer, J; Olayemi, M
In 2019, the Australian sugarcane industry conducted a month-long demonstration with 12 trials to determine the commercial viability of harvesting best practice. Initiated by a small group of innovative growers and contractors from the Herbert region, the concept of a commercial demonstration sought to determine both agronomic and economic impacts of adopting HBP, including the assessment of possible yield gains without having a detrimental impact on extraneous matter, and economic implication for growers and harvesting contractors arising from revenue and harvesting cost changes. Two Herbert harvesting contractors participated in the demonstration comparing their standard harvesting practices to Sugar Research Australia Harvesting Best Practice (HBP or recommended practice). The results identified an average 4.8 t/ha increase in yield with no additional increase in extraneous matter for the recommended setting. A comprehensive economic analysis was conducted on each of the trials. Detailed harvesting costs and operational information, including machinery, labour, and fuel data, were collected from the respective harvesting operations. Harvesting costs and levies were $37/ha ($0.07/t) higher for the recommended setting due to higher yields, reduced harvester ground speeds and lower extractor fan speeds. Despite the higher harvesting costs, recommended settings obtained significantly higher total revenue ($151/ha, +4.7%). This resulted in an overall net benefit of $114/ha in the adoption of recommended settings (based on a 4.4% higher net revenue calculated as total grower revenue minus harvesting costs and levies). The Herbert demonstrations have proven instrumental in the acceptance of harvesting best practice for the region. The results again confirm that adapting and aligning commercial-scale harvesting practices to crop and paddock conditions have positive impacts on both yield and economic outcomes.
Harvesting groups; the key to improving harvesting practice : ASSCT peer-reviewed paper
(ASSCT, 2019) Patane, P; Milford, B; Landers,G; Nothard, B; Norris, CA; Venables, C
In the 2017 and 2018 crushing seasons, Sugar Research Australia Limited (SRA) conducted a project to assist harvesting groups to reduce sugar loss. The principles of harvesting practice to reduce loss have been well known in the industry for many years. However, at the start of the 2017 season few harvesting groups were operating according to these principles. The harvesting adoption team concluded that there were several socio-economic impediments to harvester operators changing practice, but that many of these could be overcome by working with individual harvesting groups (a harvester owner and the farmers serviced) as these could make decisions on changing arrangements. A demonstration trial evaluating sugar loss from a suite of harvester settings (typically commercial standard, recommended (guided by harvesting best practice (HBP) principles), aggressive and ‘low-loss’ control) was provided for each group involved, with all group members encouraged to attend. This was followed up with at least one workshop where the trial results and economic analysis were presented and groups were encouraged to consider improving harvester setup, optimising harvester settings to reduce loss and changing harvesting payment arrangements. In 2017, 43 groups were involved, and a further 52 in 2018. To date, the uptake of HBP harvester settings has been impressive. Groups that participated in the demonstration trials had, on average, reduced both fan speed and pour rates. Unfortunately, 50% of participants continued to operate above the generic recommended rates, which is reflective of the need for a robust estimate of the cost and benefits of harvesting to allow improved payment arrangements and acceptance by harvesting groups. Of the 40 groups for which data is currently available, 25 groups had optimised their harvester feed trains, 11 had installed after-market (low loss) choppers, 6 groups had changed payment arrangements and 20 were considering or negotiating changed payment arrangements. Many participants are now supporters of best practice; they accept that sugar losses are real, significant and able to be addressed. It is intended to continue this project into the 2019 through to 2022 seasons.
Adoption of practices to mitigate harvest losses : Final report 2019/951
(Sugar Research Australia Limited, 2020) Patane, P; Norris, CP; Nothard, B; Pfumayaramba, T; Venables, C
Patane (et al. 2019) determined that Harvesting Best Practice (HBP) is predicated by two essential objectives. 1. Defining the critical point where harvesting losses can be minimised and delivered yields improved to achieve the best economic return for the grower and harvesting operation; and 2. Balancing losses with cane quality, which is determined by sound billet quality with an acceptable level of Extraneous Matter (EM). Despite significant research into the impact of higher harvester pour rates and fan speeds on harvested cane yields, use of HBP recommendations prior to the commencement of the adoption program across the industry was relatively low. Full HBP adoption across the Australian sugarcane industry could substantially increase industry revenue without the need for horizontal expansion (increase in cane land). In 2019, continuing on from the work conducted by Patane (et al. 2019), Sugar Research Australia in partnership with the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries delivered further trials.

Farming systems and production management

Browse

Filters

Advanced Search

Filter by

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results