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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Ensuring that no party has excess power over the others. • Minimising of adversarial relations between parties. • Ensuring that season length has a minimal impact on all stakeholders. • Maximising the economic return to the whole industry through optimum yield of sugar and other products sold. The best way for the whole supply chain to maximise its net revenues from the three inter-linked business groups is to create strong direct commercial links between the three, using whole-of-chain incentives based on available sugar in the field and the payment for sugar and other products at the market. If these net incentives were in place, operational decisions made by farmers, harvesters and millers would be likely to be focused on a common goal of maximising returns. This goal should become part of an agreed harvest plan that maximises net incentives and therefore maximises net revenues across the whole supply chain. The allocation of shared returns must be equitable to millers, farmers and harvesters and reflect the costs incurred and risks taken by each party in contributing to the whole-of-chain result. An analysis of alternative harvest payment systems is summarised in Table 2.11. It should be noted that several of the options do not offer sufficient commercial incentives to the parties to improve sugar recovery but focus instead on mechanisms to allocate current revenue rather than on first increasing the amount of revenue available across the supply chain. 67
Table 2.11 Alternative harvest payment systems options, consequences and incentives (SRDC, 2004 and Jones, 2004) Payment System Advantages and Disadvantages (advantages in bold) HBP = Harvest Best Practice Consequences Feasibility and Attractiveness 1. Dollars per • Widely known system • Easy to administer as relates to tonnage tonne of cane along supply chain —Not open to abuse • Inbuilt HBP disincentive-rewards high (Current System) speed harvesting • Heavy cross subsidisation of poor productivity • No incentive for extra work or harvest quality • Does not encourage improvements in farm layout • Discounts the importance of the key parameter viz capturing the total tonnage of available sugar 2. Dollars per hour • Enables full HBP economic incentives to capture “economically viable” sugar to flow to harvester and grower • Allows automatic accounting for variable yield • Enables full economic incentives to flow to growers from better farm design • Encourages improved crop presentation • Promotes closer pre-harvest planning between harvester & grower • Penalises growers distant from receival pads/ sidings, especially in wet weather • Requires detailed accurate time recording by machine operators and authorisation by farmers • Opportunity for human error in recording of time • Opportunity for unscrupulous charging of 3. Base Price + Fuel ($/t fuel supplied by grower) time by harvest operators • Easy to manage for both fuel and tonnage • Partially accounts for farm layout variations • Introduces flexible fuel pricing options • Enables partial economic incentives to flow • Some cross subsidisation of poor productivity • Partial disincentive for extra work or harvest quality • Limited incentive for improvements in farm layout 4. Quoted Price • Provides verifiable economic quotations • Significant effort required to understand Using BSES Model & use the model the first time • Needs annual review, possibly between harvest rounds to recognise changes in yield estimates 5. Dollars per • Easy to administer based on agreed field areas • Harvester will not perform a quality harvest as there are no incentives • Farmer will lose sugar in the field and may suffer stool/field damage • Miller will receive higher EM and incur higher costs • Harvester has power to agree specific commercial incentives with farmer and miller • Farmer faces greater risk of poor admin and time keeping, but will capture added revenues if arrangements are on clear contractual terms • Miller will receive increased volume of clean cane with positive impact on net revenue. • Harvester will focus on cost management rather than quality. • Farmer assumes more cost risk without guarantee that harvester will capture maximum sugar. • The Miller’s cane supply and quality will not be improved • Uncertain, subject to components of model • Harvester will focus on cost management • Currently feasible but results in significant losses along supply chain. Does not create net incentives to maximise economic sugar • Limited attractiveness • Currently feasible and commercially attractive • Requires enhanced pre-harvest planning and contractual arrangements between the parties to agree how time will be managed and risks and returns allocated • Currently feasible • Focus will be on cost competitiveness; not incentives to maximise sugar • Limited attractiveness • Uncertain, subject to components of model • Currently feasible • Focus will be on 68
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: experience of the sugar industry wi
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?