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

Hildebrand (2002) estimated that there were approximately 1,200 harvesters in Queensland with a
requirement for less than half, although some areas do have high productivity harvesting
arrangements. Generally high cost, difficult to cut farms are cross subsidised within a harvesting
group by an easier to cut low cost neighbouring property. Many harvesting contractors operate with
little documentation; while machinery has a 4-5 year lifetime with a replacement cost greater than one
million dollars (includes harvester and haul out equipment)
Some rationalisation of harvesting structures and operations has occurred and are likely to continue
within the industry. Although harvesting represents a significant cost and importance to the sugar
industry, harvesting contractors are not normally included in industry negotiations between farmer and
miller. A large proportion of the harvesting sector however is administered by farmers.
Harvesting is generally carried out during daylight hours despite mills operating for 24 hours a day
(between June and November). In recent years the move towards double shift harvesting (i.e. operate
outside of daylight hours) has become more common to increase machine throughput and to cover
high machinery replacement costs. In some areas harvesters also continuously harvest 24 hours a day.
Other recent changes have included the consolidation of harvesting groups so that harvesters operate
on a large area i.e. improve utilisation of equipment.
Rostering and scheduling creates inefficiencies for transport and machine utilisation. This results in
sub-optimal utilisation of harvesters, ancillary equipment, delivery infrastructure (sidings), rolling
stock and locomotives (Sugar Industry Oversight Group, 2006). Given harvesters are not operating
over the same 24 hour period as the mill, cane bins are used as a buffer / temporary storage which can
lead to protracted cut to crush delays and detrimental effects on sugar quality (and cost to the value
chain).
A large driver of green cane harvesting was the flexibility of harvesting in excessively wet conditions.
In the early adoption of green cane harvesting the significant increase in biomass was somewhat of a
barrier as machines could only cut 30-50% of their burnt cane capacity. Within the industry today,
the majority of farmers have adopted green cane harvesting.
Generally across the sugar industry harvester operators are paid on an agreed rate per tonne of cane
(including extraneous matter and soil) across a harvesting group. This system encourages harvester
operators to harvest at high pour rates and machine settings which maximise the amount of cane cut
per hour. This behaviour results in increased cane losses, EM levels and soil which impacts on the
amount of cane received (i.e. tonnes paid), recoverable sugar (i.e. CCS) obtained and additional costs
within the value chain (i.e. increased milling costs). In addition, this payment system doesn’t
encourage improvements to farm layout (i.e. row length and haul distance) within a harvesting group.
Farm layout is particularly sensitive to the actual cost of harvesting.
Within the sugar industry there is scope to explore more effective harvest payment systems which are
considerate of the whole supply chain (Figure 5.1). This can be achieved by linking grower, harvester
and miller interests and using economic incentives to drive harvester performance and implement
Harvest Best Practice, HBP (Jones, 2004). At a regional level the Sugar Industry Oversight Group
(2006) identified harvesting as the segment within the value chain with the greatest productivity gains.
130