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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

delivered cost to a processor of $28/green tonne. This would provide a more appropriate cost of supply when compared with what the market would be prepared to pay. This area could theoretically be served by a single harvester working 11 hours per day. Sugarcane harvesting and infield transport systems have a much lower cost of around $6.50/tonne. This is based on the large scale of the industry (good capital utilisation), high crop yields (170tonnes/ha) and high delivery rates. A key requirement for the mallee supply chain will be developing appropriate scale of supply, improved field layout to maximise harvest efficiency and larger harvester capacity to achieve pour rates in excess of 50 green tonnes/hr. 181
Appendix 1: Comparative Assessment with Sugarcane Supply Chain Key components of and differences between the sugar and mallee supply chain as well as key issues and recommendations are outlined below based on review of each industry and workshop discussions including industry discussions at Perth (8 September 2011) and at Ballina (5 October 2011). Sugar Industry Mallee Woody Crop Differences/Contrasts Key Issues and Recommendations Crop Production and Field Layout 1. Strong commercial focus on profitable sugarcane production. 2. Field and farm layouts and crop production practices are planned to maximise sugarcane production (quantity and quality). This applies to variety selection, row spacing, harvest cycle, ratoon management, field size and shape. 3. Sugarcane production land is typically prime agricultural production land producing high biomass yields based on good soils, high rainfall or supplementary irrigation. 4. Sugarcane supply areas are generally concentrated within 50-100km of the mill with intense production and cane covering >80% of the landscape. 5. Typically yields are 80-200tc/ha and cane will cover between 60-80% of the land area. 1. The focus is on profitable wheat production with Mallee initially seen as environmental service that had to pay its way. More recently it has become seen an alternative land use to diversify agriculture. Social-economic benefits are difficult to quantify economically. More recently recognition of economic opportunities for bioenergy and other products. 2. Field and farm layout focussed on wheat production. Typically 2 rows 2-3m apart separated by 70m of wheat with long alley row lengths. Increasing the number of Mallee rows reduces yield per row (moisture competition), reducing spacing between alleys compromises wheat production. 3. Mallee production is sparse and supply distance will be much higher for the same volume of material supplied to processor. 4. There has been a recent decline in mallee planting and there is a limited resource base to meet requirements of full scale industrial market or 100,000 to 200,000 green tonnes per year within 100km of a central factory. 5. Typically mallee production in alleys will be between 2-6gt/ha and will cover 5- 10% of the land. 1. The sugar industry has evolved to maximize profitability and sustainability from sugarcane production. Mallee plantings were initiated in WA to control salinity while generating some profit. More recently the emphasis upon mallees as an alternative enterprise on a small proportion of the farm has become the equal or predominant driver, while environmental drivers remain a significant factor in some regions.. 2. The sugar growing system is structured around maximum sugarcane production and reduced harvesting and infield transport costs. The Mallee system is structured around wheat production and layouts are not efficient from a harvest and transport perspective. 3. Biomass production potential of mallee (2-6t/ha) is very low when compared with sugar (80-200t/ha). This has an impact on vehicle utilisation and efficiencies. 4. Sugarcane has to be harvested at optimum age and quality whereas the value of mallee product does not change significantly. Mallee has less risk attached to harvest date. 5. Long alley length could result in high harvester field efficiencies when compared with sugar however distance to haul to loading pad will be greater than in sugar 1. Greater incentive in sugar to integrate supply chain with key driver being enterprise profitability. Returns from Mallee production seen as secondary to core business of wheat production and marginal so less incentive to optimize. 2. Changing Mallee farming systems is unlikely while wheat production remains the main economic driver. The only changes are likely to be in frequency of harvesting. 3. Consideration has been given to alternative mallee field layouts. Economic modelling has been undertaken to evaluate the most effective cropping of mallee and wheat (yield vs moisture competition) and changes to recommended configuration are unlikely in integrated plantings. 4. Consideration could be given to alternative denser mallee plantings in closer alleys (10- 30m) on marginal land (ie without annual crops in the alleys) close to the processor to supplement existing and future mallee plantings that are wide-spaced belts integrated with annual cropping 5. Block plantings close to a processor will be important for large scale industry development. Planting would need to be in row configuration to improve harvesting efficiency. Row spacing would need to minimise suppressed growth due to 182
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 and 150:
is conducted into tariff levels on
Page 151 and 152:
Bx is % brix in first expressed jui
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: While diversification can add value
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?