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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1.4.3 Regeneration issues Mallee system Mallee regeneration is considered reliable and some wild stands in Victoria and NSW have been harvested for over a century for eucalyptus oil. However there are some unknowns to be discovered and limitations that must be recognised, and it is only with extended operations will we gain a proper understanding of their significance: • Frequent harvesting will deplete the reserves of the mallee and there has been anecdotal evidence of high mortality with young mallees harvested twice in quick succession. • Wildy et al (2003) observed that starch reserves in mallee lignotubers fell rapidly and remained low for 12-18 months after harvesting, and the root biomass took up to 2.5 years to start increasing after harvesting the above ground biomass. • Very high mortality was observed on specific sites in the work of Peck et al (2011) where the sites had shallow soil over a saline water table. • There is the possibility that season of harvest may be important (for example autumn harvest may increase the risk of mortality), especially if harvest frequency is high (Peck et al, 2011). Generally, with proper management, site selection and appropriate harvest scheduling, it is anticipated that mortality will be low. However part of this appropriate harvesting may involve suspending harvesting in dry autumn conditions in winter-dominant rainfall zones of southern Australia. Stockpiling is necessary for a number of reasons and the seasonal influence on regeneration adds some importance to that requirement. Sugar System Sugarcane is a robust crop, however crop regeneration will be affected by multiple factors including, harvesting practices, nutrient management, fertiliser management, irrigation practices as well as weed and disease control. The use of minimum tillage and green cane trash blanketing has helped improve soil structure and organic matter resulting in improved regeneration performance. In southern, wetter and cooler areas, or areas under furrow irrigation, burnt cane harvesting is generally practiced as cane regeneration after harvest is detrimentally affected by wet and cool soil conditions under a trash blanket. In general between 2 and 4 crops can be grown economically from a sugarcane plant before replanting is required. The factors outlined above will influence the extent yield and profitability will be compromised by growing a further ratoon rather than replanting. Disease and stool damage during harvest in wet conditions have been shown to have a significant impact on poor ratoon performance. A detailed assessment of sugarcane harvesting and ratoon management can be found in Schroeder et al (2009). 1.4.4 Optimal harvesting windows Mallee system Regeneration from the lignotuber is typically vigorous, but current frequency and season of harvest work has not demonstrated a difference between spring and autumn harvests in WA (Peck et al, 2011). It is commonly assumed that spring harvests will be followed by more vigorous regeneration than autumn harvests as the strongest flush of growth occurs in early summer. However this 25
inconclusive result may have been due to the variable nature of seasons, in that summer or autumn rain does occur, albeit unreliably, and autumn harvests sometimes occurred after such events. In operations, harvest timing may be varied according to specific site conditions. Sites most sensitive to harvest mortality will be those with shallow soil due to impeding layers in the soil or shallow saline water tables. These sites would need to be harvested only in optimal seasonal conditions such as spring and early summer. Sites on deeper soils and a history of sustained growth from year to year will presumably indicate greater access to soil moisture and could be harvested at any time of the year. Other sites may be suitable for harvesting in autumn if there has been some late summer or early autumn rainfall. Soil conditions and soil strength will also be a factor for the use of heavy machinery. Even with highflotation undercarriages, machines will leave ruts at the wettest times of the year and the haulouts working at high speed and with high payloads may be the worst offenders. The harvesters will spend the majority of their time on the tree belts supported by the root mats around the mallees, but the haulouts will range widely and cross concave slopes and creek lines repeatedly as they follow fences to the nearest landing. Bogging is the worst case result for both farmers, who will be left to repair the damage, and the harvesting contractor who will lose significant time. The annual cropping programme in the paddock may also be a factor. Trafficking by harvesters and haulouts will damage crops, and to a lesser extent, pastures. High value crops late in the season may require mallee harvesting to be excluded altogether until after harvest. Precision guidance of mallee machinery to restrict soil damage to defined tracks will help to minimise the impact on annual crops and cropping soils. Sugar System Mill operating periods are aligned around optimal harvesting windows for sugarcane. This is driven by three key factors. Firstly sugarcane quality (in terms of extractable commercial cane sugar) which increases from winter, peaks in September and then declines with onset of the hot wet summer season, when plant photosynthesis focusses on biomass growth at the expense of sugar quality. Second the available mill processing capacity relative to sugarcane volume from the supply area. Finally the risk of rainfall and wet infield conditions which will impact harvester and hauler access and infield damage to the crop and future ratoons. The optimal harvest window will vary across the industry but typically is from July to November. Variations within a mill area will occur based on cane variety, soil type and topographical position. A rateable delivery system, where all growers supply equal proportions across the season is in place to provide equitable access to optimal harvesting windows. 1.5 Discussion and Recommendations 1.5.1 Discussion Sugarcane and mallee systems have many similarities as outlined in this chapter. They both represent high volume, relatively low value crops, which require considerable processing and value addition to meet the selected market. Both systems have significant harvest and transport requirements using specialised equipment. In both cases delivered cost is high relative to the market price. Sugarcane industries have spent many years researching and refining their crop production systems and associated harvesting and transport arrangements. While sugarcane farming systems have 26
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: Mallee system Most of the mallee bi
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 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?