Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2003 Sugar Industry Guidance Group is established to prepare an overarching Industry Reform Plan. 2004 The Queensland Sugar Industry Reform Act 2004 partially deregulates the industry to dismantle statutory cane production areas and permits sugarcane growers to enter supply contracts with the mill of their choice. It also provides for exemption of the compulsory vesting powers when raw sugar is used for specified alternatives, such as ethanol and direct consumption. The Sugar Industry Guidance Group draft industry report is released. 2005 The Queensland Government repeals the vesting powers of Queensland Sugar Limited (effective from 1 January 2006) and deregulates the marketing of Queensland’s raw sugar exports. 5.2.2 Cane Payment The method for making payment for delivered cane has evolved over time in the sugar industry as outlined below. Payment formulae which reward best practice and product quality will be important for the biomass industry, particularly when multiple product streams and markets are being served. Historically cane payment was arbitrated by government. The cane payment formula was initially developed to divide net proceeds from the sale of raw sugar between the miller and farmer in proportion to their assets. The cane payment formula is a function of the price of sugar and the recoverable sugar content known as commercial cane sugar or CCS. When introduced in 1916 the cane payment formula was based on industry production and performances at the time (i.e. mill standard efficiency of 90%; average cane quality of 12 CCS). The proceeds were effectively split in the ratio of two thirds to the farmer and one third to the miller. Over time this formula provided the basis for cane payment with minor modification by adding a constant that has grown to $0.578. Calculating CCS (Source: Canegrowers, 2010) In most sugarcane growing areas payment of cane is a function of Commercial Cane Sugar otherwise known as CCS (see above). The calculation of CCS assumes that sugarcane contains pure sugar, impurities, water and fibre and that for every kilogram of impurities which is removed at the mill, half a kilogram of sugar is also removed. In effect CCS is equal to the sugar in the cane minus half the impurities. Both the sugar and impurities are difficult to measure directly, however they are relatively easily measured in juice. Sugar is traditionally measured with a polarimeter, which measures how the sugar solution influences polarised light (called pol). Impurities are determined by measuring all of the material which is dissolved (called brix) and taking away the sugar (ie pol). Therefore: Because brix and pol in juice are not the same as brix and pol in cane, correction factors which include the cane fibre are built into the CCS formula, which becomes: Where: P (1- P is % pol in first expressed juice 127
Bx is % brix in first expressed juice F is % fibre in cane Procedures have been standardised for determining pol, brix and fibre within the industy. Most mills are now using NIR (Near Infra Red Spectroscopy) which allows for a direct measurement of fibre and CCS on each sample. Today government no longer has a role in negotiating cane supply arrangements. Under the Sugar Industry Act each mill area has to specify cane payment arrangements as part of a cane processing and supply agreement. The price of cane can be totally different to the traditional “cane payment formula” (i.e. unrelated to sugar price) providing it is agreed to by farmers and millers. To a large extent the traditional cane payment formula still provides the basis (or similar) for cane payments to the grower with some modification in various regions (hence its importance). The cane payment formula traditionally passes on proceeds to the grower from raw sugar production only. Other outputs such as molasses and bagasse have traditionally been treated as belonging to the mill. Bagasse is used as a fuel source for generation of mill process steam and electricity. Some mills now include a separate factor for a share in molasses sales. Mackay Sugar has extended this to include income from cogeneration and other sources of revenue. The sugar content or CCS varies during the crushing season. Early in the season, CCS is relatively low before it rises to a peak around September and then falls towards the end of the season. In order to normalise these differences a relative payment system is also applied so that farmers aren’t penalised for supplying early or late in the season. Where the sugar price was once the same for all growers (i.e. outcome of sugar pool through Queensland sugar) it may now vary between mills, depending on the markets in which sugar is sold and local arrangements. Increasingly growers are also marketing their own sugar through futures contracts and hedging the price of sugar over a longer term. Where this occurs, the sugar price locked in by the grower is applied to the cane payment formula to determine both the payment received and the quantity of cane to be supplied (Canegrowers, 2010). 5.2.3 Cane Supply and Processing The supply of sugarcane to a mill can be negotiated collectively or individually. The sugar act provides the framework for these negotiations and agreements. Where collective negotiating takes place a negotiating team is nominated by millers and farmers and elected to decide on collective agreements. Collective bargaining suits the milling sector given the increased administrative burden of separate agreements if extrapolated across a region. The exception is larger enterprises supplying relatively large volumes of cane or special arrangements. The Sugar Act sets the framework for negotiations on issues including harvesting, delivery to the mill, transport and handling, acceptance and crushing by the mill and payment by the mill owner for cane. Beyond these minimum requirements farmers and millers can include other terms. Negotiations between a miller and an individual farmer can occur providing an agreement has no adverse effect on other farmers particularly with regards to equitable access during peak sugar. Cane price can also be negotiated between farmers and millers and is subject to the price of sugar unless the negotiation team decides otherwise. As joint producers of raw sugar farmers and millers can decide on how proceeds will be split although as indicated usual / traditional pricing formulae are adopted. 128
Page 1 and 2:
Sustainable Biomass Supply Chain fo
Page 3 and 4:
Foreword This report provides an as
Page 5 and 6:
include business development (new p
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgments The authors would l
Page 9 and 10:
4.1 Product Options and Supply Chai
Page 11 and 12:
Table 4.2 Assessment of current val
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 3.4 Tracked rigid self-prope
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary What the report i
Page 17 and 18:
• Biomass production potential of
Page 19 and 20:
• As the Industry expands, the mo
Page 21 and 22:
Harvesting, transport and storage s
Page 23 and 24:
Biomass processing, supply chain pl
Page 25 and 26:
Key barriers to biomass industries
Page 27 and 28:
Crop-Biomass Production Production
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 1.1 The cropping and pasture
Page 31 and 32:
Table 1.1 Mallee species used for p
Page 33 and 34:
1.1.4 Growth Cycle Mallee System Ma
Page 35 and 36:
northern New South Wales (where it
Page 37 and 38:
Almost 80% of the industry now cuts
Page 39 and 40:
Bark has relatively high ash but as
Page 41 and 42:
Carbon sinks Planting of mallees to
Page 43 and 44:
Table 1.5(a) State Land area devote
Page 45 and 46:
out the fluctuations in farm income
Page 47 and 48:
Mallee system Most of the mallee bi
Page 49 and 50:
inconclusive result may have been d
Page 51 and 52:
For a sustainable woody crop indust
Page 53 and 54:
changed significantly since they we
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 2.2 Biosystems Engineering p
Page 57 and 58:
Whole-of-crop harvesting represents
Page 59 and 60:
During the last decade the harvesti
Page 61 and 62:
single row, as this would improve t
Page 63 and 64:
2.2.2.2 Weight Sugar System The Aus
Page 65 and 66:
Table 2.1 Harvester Comparison Tabl
Page 67 and 68:
The quality of cut may be less impo
Page 69 and 70:
ate than a 170 tonne/ha crop of sta
Page 71 and 72:
Dry Leaf 6.1 - 3.5 17.0 58.9 53.2 T
Page 73 and 74:
Bulk density will be a key consider
Page 75 and 76:
Table 2.4 EM levels in cane supply
Page 77 and 78:
L/T L/T 60 0.97 0.71 80 0.92 0.66 1
Page 79 and 80:
Total 7.5-26 16.5 Mallee System The
Page 81 and 82:
• waiting for mill delivery of em
Page 83 and 84:
perhaps at 10 - 20 km intervals. Th
Page 85 and 86:
transport arrangements, harvest gro
Page 87 and 88:
contractors and growers, and the fa
Page 89 and 90:
experience of the sugar industry wi
Page 91 and 92:
Table 2.11 Alternative harvest paym
Page 93 and 94:
onto the harvester. BR+F still send
Page 95 and 96:
Repairs and maintenance 2.10 Capita
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 2.14 and Table 2.14 describe
Page 99 and 100: Sichter et al. (2005)), harvest and
Page 101 and 102: Transport efficiencies may be possi
Page 103 and 104: 3. Transport and Storage Systems Tr
Page 105 and 106: same time, the potential problems o
Page 107 and 108: Figure 3.3 Articulated self-propell
Page 109 and 110: • The harvester will not have any
Page 111 and 112: Figure 3.7 Gross mass compared with
Page 113 and 114: external factors dramatically impac
Page 115 and 116: Figure 3.11 The effect of haulout t
Page 117 and 118: 3.3 Road Transport 3.3.1 Configurat
Page 119 and 120: Figure 3.15 shows an example of the
Page 121 and 122: Road distance one way < 20 km 70 km
Page 123 and 124: Haul distance is largely outside th
Page 125 and 126: 3.6 Recommendations The nature of t
Page 127 and 128: • The strategy offered lower tota
Page 129 and 130: sugarcane billets are such that wit
Page 131 and 132: • Transfer the whole tree product
Page 133 and 134: Figure 4.5(b) Energy balance of con
Page 135 and 136: 2010). Table 4.2 presents a summary
Page 137 and 138: 4.4.2 Activated charcoal Activated
Page 139 and 140: Nett Product Value ($/t) $475.00 $
Page 141 and 142: Table 4.9 presents an estimation of
Page 143 and 144: • Oil from leaf @ $2/kg • Synth
Page 145 and 146: • The mallee oil would be extract
Page 147 and 148: 5. Industry and Business Structures
Page 149: is conducted into tariff levels on
Page 153 and 154: Hildebrand (2002) estimated that th
Page 155 and 156: also has a flow on effect to the sp
Page 157 and 158: Sugar Industry Illustrative Example
Page 159 and 160: with super size multi-lift bins ove
Page 161 and 162: farmer vs. harvester) is the next l
Page 163 and 164: 6. Supply Chain Planning and Manage
Page 165 and 166: Figure 6.1 Building blocks of the s
Page 167 and 168: weighed against the costs of operat
Page 169 and 170: • There is close contact between
Page 171 and 172: 6.4 Planning, Management Tools and
Page 173 and 174: • Harvest and transport logistics
Page 175 and 176: interface. The system allows users
Page 177 and 178: Case Study 6.2 - Model Application
Page 179 and 180: Relationships between sectors and p
Page 181 and 182: 7. Supply Chain Modelling and Econo
Page 183 and 184: It was assumed that there was a fif
Page 185 and 186: Table 7.2 Scenario two capital equi
Page 187 and 188: Table 7.4 Fuel burn rates harvester
Page 189 and 190: Figure 7.5 Effect of capital equipm
Page 191 and 192: Figure 7.7 Effect of annual tonnes
Page 193 and 194: 30 1.8 7.0 12.3 17.5 50 1.1 4.3 7.6
Page 195 and 196: 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 197 and 198: Biomass bulk density has a large im
Page 199 and 200: Vehicles used for infield haulout w
Page 201 and 202:
This can be compared with harvest a
Page 203 and 204:
While diversification can add value
Page 205 and 206:
Appendix 1: Comparative Assessment
Page 207 and 208:
and transport conditions. Billet le
Page 209 and 210:
that cane production is the most pr
Page 211 and 212:
on sugar only, other proceeds (mola
Page 213 and 214:
References Agnew, J 2002. A Partici
Page 215 and 216:
Enecon 2001. Integrated Tree Proces
Page 217 and 218:
Keating, BA, Antony, G, Brennan, LE
Page 219 and 220:
Ridge, DR and Linedale, AL, 1997. T
Page 221:
Willcox, T, Hussey, B, Chapple, D a
show all

Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?