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
54 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 54
Item 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, MUsing 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.Item Economic evaluation of sugarcane harvesting best practice (HBP) : ASSCT peer-reviewed paper(ASSCT, 2019) Thompson, M; Nothard, B; Patane, P; Landers, G; Norris, CAMechanical 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.Item 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, CIn 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.Item WinRHIZO software for evaluating effects of farming systems on sugarcane root systems : ASSCT peer-reviewed paper(ASSCT, 2019) Di Maggio, L; Olsen, D; Verrall, RSugarcane roots are notoriously difficult to study. The opaque nature of the soil matrix, large biomass, and ratooning habit of the crop make studying roots challenging. WinRHIZO is a specialist root analysis software that provides rapid and accurate measurement of a host of root characteristics in a fraction of the time that it would take by traditional methods. This paper demonstrates the use of WinRHIZO to evaluate root systems under different farming systems management. A paired site was identified in the Herbert district consisting of two commercial sugarcane blocks. One was conventionally managed while the other was under an improved farming system. Importantly, both blocks had been farmed this way for more than 14 years. WinRHIZO analysis found root systems in the fields managed under improved farming systems showed significant improvement in total root length, proportion of fine root hairs, root biomass, and many other root properties. This technology has wide ranging applicability as a tool for measuring the impact of farming decisions on root health.Item 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, SThis 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.Item Masterclasses in soil health and soil biology for the sugar industry : Final report 2016/025(Sugar Research Australia Limited, 2018) Stirling, G; Evers, A; Young, A; Anderson, J; Garcia-Cuenca, SA total of 252 sugar growers, productivity services staff and others attended a series of Master Classes in Soil Health/Soil Biology that were held in 2017 and 2018. During those classes they had the opportunity to see some of the microscopic organisms that are found in soil and learn how sugar farming systems could be modified to improve soil biological health. The classes were run by Dr Graham Stirling (Biological Crop Protection), Dr Anthony Young (University of Queensland), Dr Jay Anderson (University of Queensland) and Mr Sebastien Garcia-Cuenca (Sugar Research Australia). However, the highlight of each class was the presentation by one of three growers: Ashley Petersen, Tony Chapman and Simon Mattsson. They explained how they were able to modify their farming system and discussed the soil health and economic benefits they had obtained. Each class concluded with a discussion on how growers could move forward and improve the health of their soils. The process involved identifying the key soil constraints that were limiting productivity; developing an action plan to rectify the problems; modifying the farming system in some way; and then instigating a monitoring program to confirm that benefits had been obtained. Feedback from the participants indicated that the classes were a resounding success. Comments were overwhelmingly positive and compliments such as “excellent course: engaging and interesting”, “the use of microscopes, practical application was great!” and “continue this every year!” were received. Those who attended clearly enjoyed the classes and most indicated that they were willing to accept the challenge of implementing a soil improvement plan.Item Smarter Irrigation; educating growers in innovative on-farm water management and scheduling practices : Final report 2017/802(Cotton Research and Development Corporation, 2018) Jaramillo, AThe general objective of the project was to realise significant productivity and profitability improvements for sugarcane growers. Engage in coaching and training activities with seven sugarcane growers in the use of innovative irrigation scheduling tools available and supported by the extension community in the Burdekin. Deliver a report on the actions and activities taken in the education of sugarcane growers in innovative on-farm water management and irrigation scheduling practices.Item An assessment of the potential of remote sensing based irrigation scheduling for sugarcane in Australia : Final report 2015/082(Cotton Research and Development Corporation, 2017) Sinha, P; Lamb, DW; Robson, AThere is currently no operational method of managing irrigation in Australia’s sugar industry on the basis of systematic, direct monitoring of sugar plant physiology. Satellite remote sensing systems, having come a long way in the past 10 years now offer the potential to apply the current ground-based ‘FAO’ or ‘crop coefficient (Kc)’ approach in a way that offers a synoptic view of crop water status across fields. In particular, multi-constellation satellite remote sensing, utilising a combination of freely available Landsat and Sentinel 2 imagery, supplemented by paid-for imagery from other existing satellite systems is capable of providing the necessary spatial resolution and spectral bands and revisit frequency. The significant correlations observed between Kc and spectral vegetation indices (VIs), such as the widely used normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) in numerous other crops bodes well for the detection and quantification of the spatial difference in evapotranspiration (ETc) in sugar which is necessary for irrigation scheduling algorithms.Item Evaluation of scheduling tools for the sugar industry : Final project 2015/082(Cotton Research and Development Corporation, 2017) Jaramillo, AThis study was commissioned to Sugar Research Australia (SRA) and AgriTech Solutions to evaluate the irrigation scheduling tools in the sugar industry and assess the feasibility of using satellite imagery as part of a scheduling platform for the sugarcane industry. In the sugarcane industry in Australia, the use of irrigation scheduling tools has been rather limited in spite of the recognition that water is one of the main drivers of production. In September 2017, Sugar Research Australia (SRA) held an industry wide Irrigation Forum, in which the general consensus was that irrigation was the biggest single driver of productivity above other factors that the industry could control. Recent grower surveys1, indicate the over 63% of the growers interviewed do not use any irrigation scheduling tool; so three out of five sugarcane farmers do not measure water in the soil or as inflow applied in each irrigation event. Statistics from the last decade, indicated that only 9% of growers plan future investment in soil water monitoring equipment.Item Modernisation of furrow irrigation in the sugar industry : Final report 2014/079(Sugar Research Australia Limited, 2017) Gillies, MIrrigation is an essential part of sugarcane production in many of the sugarcane regions in Australia. Like all agricultural industries, the Australian sugarcane industry is under continuous pressure to demonstrate that it is using water resources in a profitable and responsible manner. Much of the industry is situated on the Queensland coast in close proximity to the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon, which increases the importance of good management and minimising offsite impacts. The industry has been proactive in this regard, most recently through the Smartcane BMP programme. These initiatives are a formal recognition that growers are actively engaging with the principles of sustainability and minimising adverse environmental outcomes.