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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

evolved to meet a specific market (ie. sugar), the mallee woody crop industry has yet to define its market. Innovation in sugarcane farming has been largely driven by growers of a monoculture crop aiming to meet a specific product requirement (high yield, fresh, clean cane of good quality). Mallee growers in Western Australia have had multiple objectives (land rehabilitation as well as production), in integrated wheat and mallee cropping systems and have only recently started to consider mallee markets and harvest and transport costs. The comparative assessment provided in this chapter provides mallee and other biomass supply industries the opportunity to learn from the successes and mistakes made in the sugarcane supply chain and crop production systems. Of relevance is the sugar industries move over time to: • Modify its farming systems (eg field layout, row spacing, harvest age, input management) to maximise crop production. • Adapt harvesting and transport systems to minimise damage to the field and plant and improve the quality of the product delivered (e.g. through trash separation, billet length, bulk density management). • Implement harvesting best management practices which address harvest and transport requirements as well as crop agronomic requirements. The sugar industry has also placed considerable effort in understanding and managing the various components of the harvested crop (sugar, trash, dirt) and the impact on transport and sugar processor arrangements. Expansion in the sugar industry has generally been driven at a local mill area scale in response to market forces. Future expansion in mallee production will be driven by the market for biomass. Farming systems and layouts will need to adapt to the economics of this supply arrangement. Management of supply areas and volumes in the sugar industry has evolved into a sophisticated system supported by the milling company. The foundation of this system is accurate GIS information on supply area, daily cane deliveries to the mill (bin weight, cane quality and field source), GPS tracking of harvesting and transport units (supporting delivery scheduling) and integrated information systems allowing real time communication to all in the supply chain (processor, haulier, harvester and farmer) on delivery information and performance. These systems could be readily customised and provide powerful tools for the biomass industry to improve its performance. The sugar industry has limited potential to stockpile (due to cane deterioration), short harvest to crush delays (less than 12 hours) and has a 20 week processing season, all of which have driven supply chain improvements. The mallee industry has less stringent constraints on storage and supply operations but has more challenging harvesting constraints owing to the nature of the plant. Key considerations regarding sugar and mallee crop production systems and the impact on the supply chain are tabulated in Appendix 1 of this document. 1.5.2 Recommendations The current mallee production system (especially in WA) has been driven by the need to maximize wheat returns with potential economic returns from mallee being of secondary importance. Economic modelling to date aimed to optimize wheat production systems based on widely spaced alleys of mallee to control soil moisture and salinity. 27
For a sustainable woody crop industry the farming system will need to be optimized. This may be for maximum mallee profitability, where mallee is the only crop, or maximum enterprise profitability for combined wheat and mallee farming systems. This will require assessment of optimum block planting arrangements for exclusive mallee systems, or intra and inter-row spacing for integrated mallee/wheat systems. In both cases the economic return from the mallee crop and associated harvesting costs needs to included. Considerable capital has already been expended on establishing > 13 000 Ha of mallee in Western Australia. Changing established mallee farming systems is unlikely, due to the capital invested in establishing the crop and given that wheat production remains the main economic driver. Many plantings have been in the ground for over a decade and will need to be harvested to reduce competition with existing cereal crops. This will require alternative harvesting systems (e.g. feller buncher), which is unlikely to be economical. Thereafter a more frequent harvesting schedule can commence using the chipper harvester. This will depend on a market that can afford to cover harvest and transport costs and required margins. Appropriate layout of block plantings will need to be determined to maximize plant growth and minimize harvest and transport costs. It is likely that mallee biomass supply to a processor will comprise block plantings close to the processor, supplemented by existing feedstock from dispersed alley plantings integrated in wheat farming systems. Block cultivation may comprise closely spaced belts (10-30m) on marginal land close to the processor. Spacing will be determined by soil moisture competition and yield. Harvest and transport logistics should be considered in determining layouts. Harvesting efficiency will be improved when the concentration of biomass per metre of row is maximised and distance between rows is minimised. Where mallee planting is not intended for biomass removal, consideration needs to be given to protocols for carbon credits. Existing guidelines indicate 2 row mallee planting is not eligible for carbon credits. Approval should be sought for existing 2 row mallee layouts to be eligible for carbon credits. Future plantings will need to take account of carbon accounting protocols. High accuracy GPS autosteer systems are now becoming common place on the modern farm. As mallees are a permanent feature in the landscape, any issues with compaction due to transport will be a compounding problem. As the harvest and haul equipment will have considerable mass, confining the wheeltracks to the same location will limit compaction. The ease of planting in straight line versus on the contour should be considered. GPS guidance of both the planting and harvest equipment (harvester + haulout) could prove beneficial. Current knowledge on the importance of mallee plant structure and the influence on harvesting ability and economics (age and size of tree, number and size of stems, species differences and opportunities for genetic improvements) are based on the current alley system. This needs to be investigated for the block planting scenario. Optimum harvest age will change with conditions and market requirement which influences harvester performance. Mallee planting, even in their current form, provides vegetative biodiversity in a wheat monoculture. The collateral benefits of this biodiversity and the associated environmental dividend needs to be quantified. 28
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: inconclusive result may have been d
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?