BETTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN SUGARCANE FIELDS … Kingston, BETTER... · BETTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN SUGARCANE FIELDS By ... management practices in sugarcane ... while excessive

Kingston, G. et al. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., Vol. 26, 2007 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

BETTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN SUGARCANE FIELDS

By

G. KINGSTON1, J.H. MEYER2, A.L. GARSIDE1, K.F. NG KEE KWONG3,

A. JEYABAL4 and G.H. KORNDÖRFER5

1BSES Limited, Australia, 2South African Sugar Research Institute, 3Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute, 4EID Parry India, 5Federal University of Uberlandia, Brazil

[email protected]

KEYWORDS: Sustainability, Integrated Management, Farming Systems, Management Framework.

Abstract IN RECENT times there has been considerable national and international focus on the sustainability and productivity of the world’s sugarcane growing industries. Concerns have been raised about exploitive management practices with critics suggesting that the world’s sugarcane production systems are focussed almost solely on productivity. In particular, criticism of the environmental sustainability issues has received substantial publicity. In this paper, we analyse the research, development and adoption of improved sugarcane production systems worldwide and opportunities for further improvement. Key benefits of adoption are identified and supported by case studies. Further, we argue that sustainability will not be achieved without profitability and will only be achieved in a socially equitable environment. Within this broad context of sustainability (profitability, environmental sustainability and social equity), we believe that worldwide sugarcane production systems can be implemented that are no more exploitive than any other agricultural production systems. In this review we propose a framework of seven key topics that can be used to guide the identification and application of better management practices in sugarcane fields. These topics include soil management, crop management, water management, pest and disease management, workplace health and safety, recognition of heritage and conservation principles and business management. We believe this framework has international relevance, but the importance of risk, opportunities and response mechanisms will vary between industries and regions.

Introduction Sugarcane industries around the world are facing multiple challenges to their sustainability.

They face declining margins between returns and cost of production, as there is a long-term downward trend in the inflation adjusted price for sugar (FAO, 2006). Therefore there is a common international interest in improving production efficiency by either yield improvement, cost reduction or ideally a combination of both options. Some industries have identified a plateau or decline in cane and sucrose yield (Garside et al., 1997; Meyer and Van Antwerpen, 2001). Sugarcane is also a high biomass crop that requires application of significant water and nutrient resources for optimum yield. Competition for these resources and their potential for negative off-site impacts has led to increasing scrutiny from regulatory agencies [Everglades for ever Act (Anon, 1994); Reef Water Protection Plan (DEH, 2006)], from community and consumer groups of the environmental sustainability of current sugarcane production systems [Acid sulfate soils (Beattie et

3


al., 2001); Better Sugarcane Initiative, (BSI, 2006)]. Many of these challenges have led to recent national and international activities to identify, collate and disseminate the elements of better management practices for sugarcane production [Australia, COMPASS evaluations (Azzopardi et al., 2002), NSW Industry Code of Practice (McGuire, 2005); Brazil, Jalles Machado ISO14001; India, EID Parry (2006) and South Africa, Standards and Guidelines for Conservation and Environmental Management [SASA, (2002), Noodsberg Growers EMS (Mayer and Schulz, 2003) and more recently revised as SuSFarMS—Sustainable Sugarcane Farm Management System]

We propose that better management of sugarcane production should include the tenants of the triple bottom line strategy for the development of a sustainable production system (Elkington, 1998) i.e.:

Production needs to be profitable. The management system needs to maintain or improve quality of production

resources, while minimising or avoiding off-site impacts on the environment. Production needs to take place in a socially equitable environment.

Seven key areas are identified through which these principles can be applied globally to sugarcane growing. Those areas deal with management of soil, crop, pests and disease, water, workplace health and safety and skills, the landscape and biodiversity, and finally, the farm business. The principles should be common to different agro-ecological and socio-economic environments and may guide assessment of opportunities for improving management systems. However, the priority or risk associated with each key area will vary across environments, as will the method and level of technology applied to implementing better management.

Soil management Soil in sugarcane fields is the crucial buffer between the crop and impacts of climate and

management, through provision of an environment for root growth and supply of water and nutrients to plants, while also supporting beneficial and non-beneficial biota. Much of the recent literature on sustainable management of soils focuses on soil health or biological fertility, but the balance and interactions between biological, chemical and physical properties of soil are also important for a soil to be healthy. There has been considerable emphasis in South Africa on customising management practices that minimise the impacts of the latter factors on the production process (Meyer, 1995).

Cane fields are most vulnerable to soil erosion when they are ploughed and fallowed before replanting and before the plant crop has formed a complete canopy. Soil erosion results in loss of fertile top soil and its organic matter and contributes to sediment load in streams and accession of nutrients and bound pesticides to the water column. In order to combat erosion and make most effective use of both rain and irrigation water, all cane lands need good surface water management based on block layout and contour soil conservation structures that are appropriate to the slope, soil type and rainfall environment. Effective management of soil erosion also includes grassing of water-ways, maximising the length of ratoon cycles, maintaining soil surface cover with crop residues and green manures, minimising tillage and crop eradication with herbicide, strip cropping to avoid whole slope exposure to erosion risk and timing of high risk operations to avoid summer rains.

Soil organic matter Particulate organic matter from trash mulches protects the soil surface from erosion,

suppresses weed growth, conserves soil moisture and is a resource for production of labile carbon, nitrogen and other nutrients. Labile carbon is the most active and important organic fraction in soil for maintenance of soil structure, water holding capacity, water infiltration (Bell et al., 2001), besides being an energy source for soil micro-flora. The labile carbon pool is also most vulnerable to depletion by tillage, while progressive loss of soil organic matter and microbial biomass is a

4


major factor leading to soil degradation in burnt sugarcane production systems (Dominy and Haynes, 2002). Therefore, inputs of organic matter for a better management system must be accompanied by reduced or strategic tillage to sustain and enhance labile carbon pools and to promote colonisation by beneficial macro-fauna (Lee and Pankhurst, 1992; Bell et al., 2003). Jeyabal (2005) demonstrated improvements in soil organic carbon and yields of plant and ratoon crops by active culture of earthworms in cane fields. Nutrients and factory by-products

Sugarcane biomass producing 97 t cane/ha contains 137, 24, 237, 44, 41, 36, 0.1, 0.5, 7 and 3 kg/ha of N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Cu, Zn, Fe and Mn respectively (based on Calcino, 1994). These nutrients come from soil reserves, applied fertiliser and amendments. There is potential for approximately 50% of nutrients in the biomass to be returned to the soil in trash and tops after green cane harvest, contributing to longer-term reductions in inputs of some fertilisers.

Sustainable strategies for management of nutrients other than nitrogen are based on concepts of maintaining soil nutrient supply at or slightly above critical values, and nutrient recommendations are based on periodic soil analysis and leaf analysis to monitor soil-crop interactions. Fertiliser nitrogen recommendations can be based on regional response experiments for irrigated or rain-fed conditions (Calcino, 1994) or modified according to soil organic matter status (SASRI, 1993–2004), yield expectation (Keating et al., 2000), crop removal of nitrogen (Thorburn et al., 2003) and inputs from legumes as rotation crops (Garside and Bell, 2001; Jeyabal, 2005) or as inter-crops (Jeyabal, 2005) and other sources of N such as filter mud (cachaza).

A nutrient management strategy based totally on replacement of all nutrients in the biomass is not sustainable on economic or environmental grounds. Failure to integrate the supply capacity of the soil may not give an economic yield response and may lead to over supply and luxury uptake of elements such as potassium with adverse effects on sugar recovery and quality (Irvine, 1978); high soil levels of P have potential for adverse environmental impact (Rice et al., 2002; Noe et al., 2004), while excessive levels of fertiliser N can reduce juice quality and elevate leaching losses and accession of nitrates to groundwater and streams (OECD, 1986; Biggs et al., 2001; Hunter and Armour, 2001). Further, there is emerging evidence that, in some sugarcane cropping systems, nitrogen fertiliser is being used to mask the effects of poor soil health (Garside, 2007).

Filter mud and boiler ash mixtures and vinasse are valuable nutrient sources and excellent media for recycling nutrients to cane fields (Chapman, 1996; Turner et al., 2002; Jalles Machado, 2005).

Better management regimes ensure that these products are used at economic rates meeting nutrient demands of the soil/crop situation, rather than being applied at disposal rates on fields close to factories and distilleries. Soil acidity

Sugarcane soils can acidify due to release and subsequent leaching of protons during nitrification of ammonium ions from organic matter or nitrogen fertiliser and removal of bases from soil in harvested product. While sugarcane is more tolerant of acidity than most crops, it is desirable to maintain soil pH at or slightly above 5.5 to minimise solubilisation of aluminium and subsequent acidification of sub-soil (Noble et al., 2000), and to retain flexibility for growing break crops.

Tactical liming strategies rely on soil analysis and use an aluminium index (Schroeder et al., 1993) or lime requirement algorithms based on pH and indices of soil buffering capacity such as organic carbon (Aitken et al., 1990). However 150 kg calcium carbonate/ha/100 tonnes of cane yield are required to neutralise acidity generated by export of bases in harvested cane (Noble et al., 2000). Thus pH can be maintained with a liming regime of approximately 1.6 t/ha every five years, where 100 t cane/ha is harvested annually from application of 150 kg N/ha and where 30% of the N is leached.

5


Salinity and sodicity Elevated levels of salts in irrigation water and soil restrict cane yield and have an adverse

effect on sugar recovery and quality (Kingston, 1982; Kingston and Anink, 2005; Whitbread et al., 2004), and thresholds are available for classifying salinity in irrigation water and for impact of soil salinity on cane yield. Severely degraded saline lands are prone to wind and water erosion in the absence of vegetative cover.

Better management of salinity commences with recognition that the hazard may be linked to geological salt stores, irrigation water quality, existing salinity and potential for watertable induced salting. JDW Sugar Mills in Pakistan are using earth conductivity measurements from an electromagnetic induction instrument to classify the salinity risk and guide management decisions for planting cane or more tolerant crops and rehabilitation or non-development for agriculture. Sodicity level and drainage characteristics of soil and capacity to leach salt must also be considered. Rainfall may provide sufficient leaching in seasonal rainfall environments but, in arid areas, a leaching factor must be included in the annual irrigation plan. This can be determined with the assistance of models such as WATSUIT (USDA, 2006). However, the efficiency of conveyance and field delivery of irrigation water and the size of each irrigation must be understood to minimise system losses and watertable elevation. A steady decline in elevation of shallow watertables has been observed at TPC Estates in Tanzania as a result of improved maintenance of the farm drainage system and irrigation management over the past five years.

Sodic soils (exchangeable sodium percentage, ESP>15%) mainly restrict cane yield through adverse effects of sodium on soil hydraulic properties. The surface layer of a sodic soil will often disperse to form a surface seal during irrigation or rainfall events. This restricts infiltration and results in a surface crust. Dispersed sub-soils are massive, poorly drained and unfavourable for root development. Sodic soils are usually alkaline (pH>8) and trace elements such as copper and zinc are less available. These soils develop as a result of soil forming processes in prior saline conditions, usually in arid areas and as a result of using alkaline irrigation water. Therefore, parameters such as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and residual alkalinity (RA) and electrical conductivity (EC) are critical to determining suitability of irrigation waters. We are aware that JDW Sugar Mills and TPC Estate have established laboratories to monitor water quality and are working towards amelioration of water quality and/or decommissioning unsuitable water sources on their farms.

Waters with unacceptable SAR or RA may be ameliorated with acids to neutralise most of the RA (Miyamoto et al., 1975) or with gypsum to adjust RA and SAR to regional thresholds. Calculation of acid requirement is facilitated by a calculator developed by Whipker et al., (1996). Sodic soils may also be ameliorated by application of gypsum in irrigation water, or broadcast onto soil, at rates that will reduce ESP to a desired value, or from a specific soil test (USDA, 1954, method 22d). However, this test is not recommended in soils with high levels of exchangeable potassium (Jackson, 1958). Crop management

Crop management includes principles associated with tillage and fallowing, choice and management of varieties and the harvest/production system. Issues discussed under soil, water, pest and disease and landscape management clearly interact with crop management. Tillage and fallow management

The tillage tradition has developed around crop destruction and preparation of a seed bed, management of surface crusts and post-harvest compaction and for mechanical weed control. This paradigm is now being questioned as a result of the previously discussed adverse effects of tillage on organic matter and soil fauna and the increasing cost of heavy cultivation. A controlled traffic farming system has been proposed (Norris et al., 2000; Garside et al., 2006) to minimise some of the above issues which previously called for tillage. Braunack et al., (1999) showed that reduced

6


and zero tillage systems produced similar cane yields to conventional systems and at reduced cost. Bell et al. (2001) showed that row spacing matching harvester and in-field transport track width reduced the area of compacted soil when compared with 1.5 m rows and furthermore reduced tillage and improved retention of labile carbon and improved water entry rates. Destruction of the old crop with herbicide allows the residual biomass to protect soil from erosion during a fallow, and is suitable for direct drilling of a legume (Garside et al., 2006), or zonal tillage (Riera, 2005. This practice is starting to improve sugarcane yields (Garside et al., 2006).

A more sustainable crop management system therefore includes the elements of controlled traffic with minimum tillage and a leguminous rotation crop while retention of trash residues will enhance physical and chemical properties of soil. Harvest systems

Choice and implementation of better harvesting systems involves analysis of manual and mechanical harvest options within relevant socio-economic contexts, upon which economic, agronomic and environmental consequences of burnt or green cane systems must be over-layed (Meyer and Fenwick, 2003; Kingston et al., 2005). Imposition of mechanical harvest upon row spacing designed for manual harvest systems (1.4–1.5 m) results in compaction of 64–90% of the soil surface (Norris et al., 2000), with previously mentioned adverse impacts on soil properties and damage to the stool from in-field traffic. Therefore, serious consideration should be given to adoption of a controlled traffic production/harvest system where row spacing matches multiples of in-field machinery track width. Integration of GPS guided harvesters into fields also planted with GPS guidance is a recent refinement of the controlled traffic system (Norris et al., 2000; Smith, 2001).

Burn to cut and cut to crush delays should be minimised to avoid deterioration of burnt cane prior to milling. This is particularly important for mechanically harvested cane billets. Sugar recovery in the factory benefits from minimal inclusion of soil and trash in consigned cane due to adverse impact of soil on wear and tear of milling machinery and loss of pol in the additional filter mud and sugar losses associated with operation of cane laundries in some industries. While the adverse effects of trash and extraneous matter on recovery and sugar quality are still relevant, diversification of the industry into ethanol and cogeneration of electricity indicates that these paradigms must be re-evaluated. Lower pol material in immature upper stalk and tops contains fermentable material and strategies such as the Brazilian technique of using A massecuites for sugar production may minimise requirement for higher capital investment to recover sugar from lower purity massecuites. The adverse impact of trash on transport payloads and milling can also be re-evaluated in relation to its fuel value for cogeneration or other value adding applications such as paper or building materials (Sutherland, 2002). In-field operation of harvesters can be optimised to achieve desired physical cane quality while minimising loss of cane and damage to the stool (Sandell and Agnew, 2002). Choice and management of varieties

Outcomes of business and agronomic management decisions are influenced strongly by the choice and mix of varieties on the farm. Production potential, environmental adaptation and reaction to pests and disease are highlighted in variety guides produced by industry organisations. Most industries can relate experiences of negative impacts of disease from over-exposure to a high proportion of a single though highly productive variety. Therefore the variety mix should be optimised to minimise this risk. While a mix of maturity times is also desirable, management intervention is required to ensure this potential is realised and to minimise harvest of cane less than 12 months of age.

Lodged cane is often regarded as a reflection or consequence of high cane yield. However, Muchow et al. (1995) identified reduced rates of yield accumulation in high yielding crops after

7


lodging and this was confirmed by Singh et al. (2000) who showed the negative impact of lodging on sugar yield varied from 15–35%, depending on the timing, nature, extent and number of lodging events. Lodging may not be preventable in high yielding regions, but it appears relevant to ask the question about what management options might exist (varieties, nitrogen, water or growth regulators) for limiting early and heavy lodging of crops to facilitate harvest and improve cane quality and profitability for both grower and miller.

Suitability of varieties for mechanical and/or green cane harvest is another consideration if the impact of these technologies is not already recognised in the germplasm selection program (Kingston et al., 2005). Use of good quality seed-cane is crucial not only to good establishment of disease free plant crops but the whole crop cycle. Water management

Sugarcane is grown in a diverse range of tropical and sub-tropical environments where water related issues include management of irrigation, the quality of irrigation water, making best use of limited rainfall, implementing surface and sub-surface drainage and reducing impact of farm effluents on the environment. Irrigation and rainfall efficiency

Yield of sugarcane is a linear function of crop evapotranspiration for annual cane (Thompson, 1976; Kingston, 1994), but maximum sugar yield can be obtained at less than maximum cane yield. Productivity benchmarks (Thompson, 1976; Kingston, 1994) are useful tools in the initial assessment of performance of irrigated cane production. Though approximately 12 tonnes of cane can be produced for each 100 mm of evapotranspiration, 7–9 tonnes / 100 mm represents achievable efficiency under commercial conditions. This concept has been adopted in Australia to monitor outcomes of extension activity to improve irrigation efficiency (Haines and Linedale, 2006) where the commercial benchmark improved from 7.4 to 9.7 tonnes / 100 mm over 15 years. A less than acceptable benchmark value indicates need to examine both irrigation and other agronomic management, as cane yield can be affected by limitations in both areas.

Efficient use of irrigation in sugarcane relies on knowledge of water holding capacity of the root zone and the amount of water that can be removed to meet yield expectations, a rational method of determining irrigation frequency (Soil moisture measurement, Class A pan, Computer assisted water balance) and efficient conveyance and application of water. Operational norms and opportunities for improving the field efficiency of surface and over-head irrigation systems are reported by Raine and Bakker (1996), Schmidt (2002) and Klok et al. (2003). Change to more efficient irrigation systems has been fostered by incentives [adoption of low pressure over-head irrigation, RWUE II, (2004–06) and capital under-writing for installation of drip irrigation by small growers in Tamilnadu, EID Parry, (2006)]. Accession of water and anthropogenic materials by deep drainage to the watertable can be minimised by use of piped or lined water conveyance structures and correct sizing and scheduling of irrigation.

Rainfall effectiveness can be maximised in rain- fed regions, or areas with only supplementary irrigation, by retention of trash after harvest. South African and Australian data indicate yield increases of 7–11 t cane/ha after trash retention in moisture stressed environments (Thompson, 1977; Smith, 1993). The benefit of trash is associated with improved infiltration and with the surface mulch reducing evaporation. Strategic tillage has also been used to improve capture of rainfall in compacted or crusted soils. Permanent beds in controlled traffic systems are also having a beneficial impact on infiltration. Water quality

Water quality entering the farm enterprise for irrigation was discussed in the section on ‘Salinity and sodicity’. However, quality of waters leaving the root zone as drainage or runoff should be managed in accordance with triple bottom line sustainability principles. Risks for loss of

8


nitrogen by leaching are minimised by use of recommended rates of N fertiliser (Keating et al., 2000), application as several splits in sandy soils in Florida (Anon, 2006) and by not applying surface irrigation immediately after N application (Klok et al., 2003). However, an application of 20–50 mm of overhead irrigation is beneficial in minimising volatilisation losses of surface applied urea. Loss of particulate phosphorus is minimised when erosion is controlled with trash blankets. Pesticide performance can be enhanced and losses in drainage or runoff minimised by consideration of Kd or soil sorption properties of the pesticide in relation to irrigation and rainfall probability, while proximity of treated fields to watercourses should also be recognised. (Simpson et al., 2001b). Drainage management

Better management of sub-surface and surface drainage waters has potential for beneficial impact on both productivity and the environment. McMahon and Ham (1994) showed a 19% increase in cane and sugar yield with ridge planting as a result of reduced waterlogging at planting, while adverse impact of waterlogging on rate of ratooning, particularly in the presence of trash blankets, was noted by Kingston et al. (2005). Shallow watertables (0.45–0.5 m) during the peak growth phase have an adverse impact on cane yield (Rudd and Chardon, 1977), but Glaz et al. (2002) noted varietal differences in the impact of a shallow watertable during summer, with yield loss of up to 25% in Florida. Waterlogged soils in the presence of trash blankets also increase potential for nitrogen loss by de-nitrification (Weier et al., 1998). As trash can also be an impediment to surface drainage and efficiency of furrow irrigation, trash can be aligned in alternate furrows to facilitate water movement (Loeskow et al. (2006). Opportunity to manage quality of drainage and run-off water was discussed above.

Ponding of water in cane fields can be minimised and higher surface irrigation efficiency achieved by laser levelling to create even grades suited to local conditions, while use of mounds or raised beds can minimise risk of crop loss during establishment under wet conditions. Sub-surface drainage has a high capital cost and has greatest application in managing specific wet areas associated with seepage or springs. Careful analysis of risk, probability of successful drainage and economics is required before investing in extensive sub-surface drainage systems, in comparison with alternatives such as improved irrigation efficiency and surface drainage to minimise accumulation of water. The paradigm and drainage benefit of deep (1–1.5 m) open drains in cane fields on clay soils largely has been set aside in Australia as watertable height is more a function of evapotranspiration than lateral movement of water to drains (Cook et al., 2000). Many drains have now been eliminated to minimise export of sulfate acidity (Macdonald et al., 2002). Risk of waterlogging in the absence of significant leaf area must then be managed with better surface drainage and bedding. Pest and disease management

The broad range of pests and diseases having adverse impact on productivity of sugarcane includes: insects, nematodes, rats, wild and feral animals, diseases of leaf, stalk and roots and weeds. The presence and significance of these biotic constraints affect choice and timing of management options as well as potential for adverse environmental impact. Sugarcane is, however, well regarded for reduced impact of pesticides on the environment when compared to horticultural crops and field crops such as soy beans due to its much lower reliance on foliar fungicides and insecticides. There has been a significant change in pest and disease management philosophy in sugar industries over the past few decades with greater emphasis now placed on strategic or integrated pest management rather than strictly tactical approaches (insects, Hunt et al., 2002; SASRI, 2001; rats and weeds, Smith et al., 2002; weeds, Dlott et al., 2005). Insect management

Tactical management of soil living insects was a preferred strategy relying on residual insecticides due to the difficulties in monitoring populations. Withdrawal of organo-chlorine based

9


products in the mid-1980s (Australia), the reduced residual activity of chlorphyrifos in soil above pH 6.2 (Chandler, 1998), increased cost of new products and broader concern for pest/predator interactions stimulated development of an integrated pest management (IPM) strategy. GRUBPLAN (Hunt et al., 2002) is the IPM program for white grubs in Australia where pest risk is assessed by population monitoring to enable balanced consideration of management options which include choice of insecticide, bio-control with Metarhizium spp., trap crop borders on fields, control of grasses in fallows and use of trash blankets. The IPM strategy for management of Sesamia grisescens in Papua New Guinea includes parasites (Cotesia flavipes and Pediobuis furvus), insecticides and varietal resistance (Kuniata, 2001). The extensive and non-insecticidal IPM strategy to minimise adverse impacts of Eldana saccharina in southern Africa include restricting age of cane at harvest, choice of variety, use of recommended N levels and field hygiene (SASRI, 2001), while IPM strategies at E.I.D Parry (India) Limited include Neem cake and Neemazal for early shoot borer and Trichogramma and Tetrastichus for internode borer.

A similar philosophy has been applied to management of nematodes using rotations and low nitrogen organic amendments (Stirling et al., 2002 and 2003) and filter mud in the planting furrow (SASRI, 2004). These approaches have flow-on benefits for greater bio-diversity and improvements in soil (see ‘Soil organic matter’).

Examples of bio-control programs include: JDW Sugar Mills in Pakistan where Cotesia flavipes is used against stem borer Chilo cattelus and Epiricania melanoleuca against Pyrilla perpusella in addition to pheromone baiting strategies for the borers. At Guaíra Mill in Brazil Mahanarva (spittle bug) is managed with Metarhizium anisopilae (author’s experience).

Animal management Rats damage sugarcane through loss of stalk material and deterioration associated with

chewed stalks. Traditional baiting campaigns with rodenticides have been reassessed because of environmental concerns (Robertson et al., 1995: Eason et al., 1999). IPM strategies for rats (Robertson et al., 1995; Smith et al., 2002) now include management of harbourage areas, control of weeds to minimise seeds for food and monitoring populations to enable strategic use of rodenticide baits. Martin et al. (2006) report the integration of barn owls into rat management programs in Florida.

Feral pigs damage sugarcane in Florida and Australia and may be managed by trapping or hunting. Baiting with sodium monofluroacetate (1080 poison) is of limited success and has potential for impact on other animals in the food chain. Management of large animals such as hippopotamus in Southern Africa is a real challenge with some success attributed to deterring electric fences (Ubombo Ranches, personal comm.).

Disease management Release of disease resistant varieties is the major tool for management of disease in above

ground and root sections of sugarcane and these characteristics are published in industry variety guides. Risk of over-exposure to one or two varieties was mentioned in the ‘Crop management’ section.

Availability and use of disease free seed-cane is crucial to minimising exposure to many diseases including ratoon stunting disease, Fiji leaf gall disease, smut, sugarcane mosaic disease, chlorotic streak and white leaf diseases.Clean seed can be supplied from on-farm nurseries or assured plant sources after inspection by qualified personnel and use of appropriate prophylactic measures such as hot water treatment, or tissue culture derived seedlings.

Farm hygiene measures such as control of volunteers and sterilisation of harvesting equipment will minimise carry-over and spread of diseases such as ratoon stunting disease and leaf scald disease.

10


Weed management Weeds reduce cane yield through competition for nutrients, water and light and their seeds

provide food for rodents. The sugarcane crop is particularly sensitive to competition at establishment i.e. prior to the top visible dewlap leaf reaching 10–12 cm height in ratoon cane (McMahon et al., 1989), and greater sensitivity might be expected in plant cane. Vines such as Ipomea spp. and Sicyos spp. can smother cane during the peak growth phase and slow the harvest of green cane.

Weed management in sugarcane relies on combinations of tillage, herbicides and the weed suppression capacity of trash blankets. The availability of a wide range of pre-emergent herbicides has reduced reliance on tillage for weed control in plant cane in mechanised industries to occasions where soil movement is also required to modify the row profile. While adoption of the green cane trash blanket system has resulted in an over-all reduction in requirement for herbicides, the trash has changed focus from pre-emergent to post-emergent chemicals.

Better management of weeds in sugarcane requires that the adverse impact of weeds is reduced, along with more cost effective use of herbicides that do not have adverse effects on the target crop, the soil and broader environment. It is within this context that the old adage ‘One year’s seeding, means seven years of weeding’ is still relevant and supports the integrated weed management (IWM, Swanton and Murphy, 1996) concept. IWM implies a continual focus on weed management that includes the fallow or inter-crop period, choice of appropriate product (for soil conditions, weed species, stage of growth of weeds and crop, product properties including environmental risk, incorporation requirements and cost) and use of alternative weed suppression strategies (trash and crop rotations). Weeds that are particularly difficult to control during the crop such as Cynodon dactylon, Panicum repens and Cyperus rotundus should be targeted during the inter-crop period to maximise opportunity for reduction in rhizome and tuber density.

Better use of herbicides also includes at least four ‘duty of care’ issues. Firstly, sugarcane varieties vary in their phytotoxic response to over-spray with herbicides (Turner, 1980; McMahon et al., 1989), so risk of crop damage should be minimised by consideration of industry variety guide data, the product label and product placement. Secondly, knowledge of the product withholding period before planting other crops is required if diversification with economic crops or rotations are used to break the sugarcane monoculture, e.g. imazapic should not be used for at least 36 months before the planting of potatoes (product label). Thirdly, weeds have potential to develop resistance to herbicides with singular modes of action, so labels should again be consulted for this risk and on-farm strategies should include: rotation of chemicals, use of tank mixes that reflect multiple modes of action, crop rotations, strategic tillage and use of trash blankets. Fourthly, duty of care issues also include ‘the good neighbour principle’ to avoid impact on non-target areas and consideration of product properties that indicate propensity for soil sorption/water solubility (see ‘Water quality’ section). This information is reflected in usage guidelines on product labels, while sustainability criteria have been investigated by industry R&D organisations (Umrit and Ng Kee Kwong, 1996; Ng Cheong, 2001; Simpson et al., 2001a). Health, safety and skills management

Productivity of management and workers in the farm business will be influenced by the general safety of the work environment and the mix of skills that enable completion of designated activities. In the first instance, the enterprise should comply with relevant laws and covenants that regulate employment of staff and issues of work place health and safety and environmental management (Vella and McDonald, 2000; SASA, 2002; Reghenzani and Roth, 2006).

Training, induction and certification are of increasing importance in the capacity of farm enterprises to implement better management strategies to improve productivity and compliance with regulations. For example: In Australia, the CANEGROWERS organisation has organised courses

11


for growers in computer skills and financial recording and analysis; ChemCert training underpins safe usage of pesticides (ChemCert, 2006), while FertCare accreditation (FIFA, 2004) covers safe and responsible handling and use of fertilisers from the warehouse to field, and BSES conducts regional grower workshops to focus on improved nutrient management and a new farming system; In Brazil, STAB provides regular seminars and workshops to expose members to relevant innovative technologies; In South Africa, SASRI and SASA provide modular short courses for growers and workers on topics ranging from the basics of cane cutting to soil and crop management. In southern India, EID Parry have implemented the novel concept of ‘Parry’s Corner’, where 16 agri-business outlets double as Internet kiosks and small growers have facilitated access to others in rural India, to markets and market price information and to weather data, agricultural extension services and crop cultivation practices and to social welfare agencies like Primary Health Centers. Most sugar industries have one or more R&D institutions, or private facilities, to develop new technologies and extension capacity to facilitate the translation into improved sustainability.

Management of landscapes and biodiversity This topic is included to emphasise the contribution that incremental and/or step

improvements in field management make towards minimising the footprint of farming activity on the landscape and its environment.

The first step towards a sustainable farming/landscape system is to ensure the land and the environment is suitable for cane growing. Land/site suitability represents the integration of issues such as slope, depth, fertility, water holding capacity and drainage properties of soil, effective rainfall and requirement/availability of irrigation water, climate risks, distance to the mill and economics.

Once implemented, a better farming system will minimise landscape impact by including some or all of the following principles that were introduced earlier:

Row spacing will match the track width of any in-field machinery to minimise soil compaction and stool damage.

The cropping system will include crop rotations or crop diversification to break the sugarcane monoculture.

A focus on sustaining and building soil organic matter levels through retention of trash and minimum tillage to benefit soil structure, biodiversity and water holding capacity.

Soil erosion will be managed. Fertilisers and nutrient rich by-products will be applied according to industry

recommendations. Pests and weeds will be controlled in a timely manner using integrated strategies

with the most appropriate combination of fallow management, tillage, pesticides and trash retention.

Irrigation systems will be managed according to rational criteria to increase tonnes of cane produced per 100 mm of gross irrigation.

A mix of varieties with appropriate disease resistance will be chosen to suit the production environment and harvested at times to maximise sucrose yield.

Operational and financial records will be available and analysed to allow further refinement of the system.

Any off-site movement of nutrients, chemicals and sediment from fields will be minimised if relevant risk assessment is used to modify field practices (Simpson et al., 2001b), along development of grassed waterways and access tracks (Hunter and Armour, 2001). Preservation or

12


rehabilitation of riparian vegetation plays an important role in reducing sediment load in streams by increasing bank stability and filtering sediment in run-off waters and providing wild life corridors and habitat (Platford, 1988; Werren et al., 2000). Preserved or constructed wetlands are also important for improving water quality in agricultural catchments by filtering sediments and reducing nutrient and BOD loads. Air quality is the main driver towards implementation of the green cane system in several industries. However, the impact of smoke and ash can be reduced by strategies such as cool burning (Seeruttun et al., 2003) or regulated burning on the basis of model forecasts (Dunckleman and Bellamy, 2000) in situations where the economics of trashing are not yet established or where fire must be used tactically.

The extensive research into systems for better management of landscapes, water and air quality that are mentioned in this paper form the basis of the Environmental Management Plans, Codes of Conduct and Guidelines for Good Environmental Practice that were mentioned in our introduction. Business management

The farm business must be profitable within its socio-economic context. This can be fostered by analysis of current records and evaluation of cost/benefits of projected opportunities for better management. Detailed records are commonly available for larger farms and miller/planter operations for fiscal control. Smaller growers may rely only on cash receipts and memory, but maintenance of operational and financial records will become of increasing importance for survival of sugarcane operations in more difficult economic and litigious environments. Tools such as CANEMAN (McGuire, 1998) and PADDOCK journal (BSES, 2005) have been developed to assist record keeping, while the Farm Economics Analysis Tool (FEAT, Stewart and Cameron, 2006) analyses the financial impact of production system or management change. Loeskow et al. (2006) used FEAT to document a significant increase in return on investment and gross margin due to production system change from conventional burnt cane monoculture to a green cane trash blanket system with controlled traffic, minimum tillage and a peanut rotation. Wynne and van Antwerpen (2004) developed a spreadsheet model to analyse the economic impact, from farm gate to mill, of changing from burnt to trash retention systems in South Africa. Larger company operations have facilitated management of natural resources, crop management and productivity data through databases such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS). E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited utilise such an integrated management tool which has proven valuable for routine management and in selection of new production areas.

An annual budget, a management plan and farm productivity data should be reviewed on a regular basis to assess opportunities for improvement. The relevance and capacity of farm infrastructure (tractors and tillage equipment, water supply, drainage facilities etc.) should also be compared with cooperative ownership, leasing of equipment or use of contractors to minimise capital overheads. Opportunities for optimisation of harvesting strategies on a whole farm or regional basis can now be assessed by linking various financial programs to crop growth models such as CANEGRO or APSIM (Van den Berg and Smit, 2005).

Provision for adequate crop insurance and succession planning within the socio-economic context of the business can be critical to contemporary risk management and intergenerational survival of the enterprise. Conclusion

There is clearly a wide body of knowledge and skill available within the world’s sugar industries to address key issues we have highlighted within the seven principles for implementing better management systems of sugarcane growing. As mentioned previously, the priority for addressing the major issues will vary between and within industries, as will the best mix of strategies for producing outcomes. However, the key principles should have great commonality.

13


Therefore, we propose this framework and its detail will act as a resource and check list for industries and producers who wish to implement better management systems, for industries to demonstrate progress towards sustainable sugarcane production and for community groups who may also wish to assess this progress. Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contribution of Alan Hurney and David Calcino in the derivation of the focus areas for better management practice in cane fields along with the many colleagues, growers and personal contacts across the international sugar industry, who have contributed to the body of knowledge that is now being promoted as better management practice.

REFERENCES Aitken, R.L., Moody, P.W. and McKinley, P.G. (1990). Lime requirement of acidic Queensland

soils. I. Relationships between soil properties and pH buffer capacity. Aust. J. Soil. Res., 28(5): 695–701.

Anon. (1994). Everglades for ever Act. Govt. of Florida, Tallahassee FL. USA, http://www.law.miami.edu/library/everglades/statutes/state/florida/E_forever.htm

Anon. (2006). Nutritional requirements for Florida sugarcane. In: Sugarcane Handbook, Cultural practices. IFAS, Univ. of Florida, http://agronomy.ifas.ufl.edu/SC_cultural_P.htm

Azzopardi, M., Salvetti, M., Kaddatz, P. Schmidke, K. and Quirk, R. (2002). COMPASS: Helping Queensland and New South Wales cane growers move in the right direction. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 304–310.

BSES Limited (2005). PADDOCK journal – Technical diary. BSES Limited, Brisbane 2005. Beattie, R.N., Nielsen, P.J., Rayment, G.E., Aitken, R.L., McGuire, P.J. and Quirk, R.G.

(2001). Achieving self-regulation for drain maintenance in the NSW sugar industry. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 23: 51–57.

Bell, M.J., Orange, D.V. and Halpin, N. (2001). Effects of compaction and trash blanketing on rainfall infiltration. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 23: 161–167.

Bell, M.J., Halpin, N., Garside, A.L., Moody, P.W., Stirling, G.R. and Robotham, B.G. (2003). Evaluating combinations of fallow management, controlled traffic and tillage options in prototype sugarcane farming systems at Bundaberg. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 25: CD-ROM, 13 p.

Biggs, J.S., Thorburn, P.J., Weier, K.L. and Hopp, M.L. (2001). Nitrate in groundwater in Mackay and Burdekin regions, Queensland. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 23: 77–83.

Braunack, M.V., McGarry, D., Crees, L.R. and Halpin, N.V. (1999). Strategic tillage for planting sugarcane. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 21: 101–107.

BSI (2006). The Better Sugarcane Initiative, WWF-UK, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/ what_we_do/policy/agriculture_environment/index/our_solutions/better_sugarcane_initiative/index.cfm

Calcino, D.V. (1994). Australian Sugarcane Nutrition Manual. Bureau of Sugar Exp. Stations, Brisbane, Australia, 60 p.

Chandler, K.J. (1998). Limestone can prevent canegrub control with controlled-release insecticide. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 20: 270–275.

Chapman, L.S. (1996). Australian sugar industry by-products recycle plant nutrients. In: Hunter, H.M., Eyles, A.G. and Rayment, G.E. ed. Down Stream Effects of Land Use, 257–260.

ChemCert (2006). ChemCert Australia. http://www.chemcert.org.au/index.shtm

14


Cook, F.J., Rassam, D.W., Carlin, G.D. and. Gardner, E.A. (2000). Acid flow from acid sulfate soils: Measurement and modelling of flow to drains. Proc. 3rd Environmental Conf., 25–26th May, 2000, Brisbane, Australia, 195–199.

DEH (2006). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. Dept. Environ. and Heritage, Australian Govt., Canberra. http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/pollution/reef/

Dlott, J., Perfecto, I., Rossett, P., Buikhan, L., Monterrey, J. and Vandermeer, J. (2005). Management of insect pests and weeds. Agric. and Human Values, 10(3): 9–15.

Dominy, C.S. and Haynes, R.J. (2002). Influence of agricultural land management on organic matter content, microbial activity and aggregate stability in the profiles of two Oxisols. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 36: 298–305.

Dunckleman, J.W. and Bellamy, M.R. (2000). Environmental aspects of pre-harvest burning of sugarcane in Florida. Abstracts. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. Agron. Workshop, Radison Mart Plaza Hotel, Miami, Florida, Dec. 2–6, 2000, 27 p.

Eason, C.T., Milne, L., Potts, M., Morriss, G., Wright, G.R.C. and Sutherland, O.R.W. (1999). Secondary and tertiary poisoning risks associated with brodifacoum. New Zeal. J. Ecology, 23: 219–224.

EID Parry (2006). Company Web site. http://www.eidparry.com/sugar.asp. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks. The Conscientious Commerce Series, New Science

Pub., B.C., Canada. FAO (2006). Consultation on agricultural commodity price problems. FAO, Rome 25–16 March

2006. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4344E/y4344e0j.htm#bm19 FIFA (2004). FertCare accreditation courses. Fertiliser Industry Federation of Australia, Inc.,

http://www.fifa.asn.au/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=1101 Garside, A.L., Smith, M.A., Chapman, L.S., Hurney, A.P. and Magarey, R.C. (1997). The

yield plateau in the Australian sugar industry, 1970–1990. In: Keating, B.A. and Wilson, J.R. ed. Intensive Sugar Cane Production: Meeting the Challenges Beyond 2000, 103–124, CAB International, Wallingford.

Garside, A.L. and Bell, M.J. (2001). Fallow legumes in the Australian sugar industry: A review of recent research findings and implications for the sugarcane cropping system. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 23: 230–235.

Garside, A.L., Berthelsen, J.E., Robotham, B.G. and Bell, M.J. (2006). Management of the interface between sugarcane cycles in a permanent bed, controlled traffic farming system. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 28: 118–128.

Garside, A.L., Bell, M.J. and Moody, P.W. (2007). High input sugarcane production systems can mask the adverse effects of poor soil health. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 29: 204–214.

Glaz, B., Edme, S.J., Miller, J.D., Milligan, S.B. and Holden, D. (2002). Sugarcane cultivar response to high watertables in the Everglades. Agron. J., 94: 624–629.

Haines, M. and Linedale, A.I. (2006). Impact of a sustained water use efficiency program in the Bundaberg District. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 28: 173–180.

Hunt, W., Chandler, K.J., Horsfield, A., Cocco, R. and Sgarbossa, P.J. (2002). Developing and extending GRUBPLAN for management of greyback cane grub damage in Queensland sugarcane. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 207–212.

Hunter, H. and Armour, J. (2001). Offsite movement of nutrients: Contrasting issues at three Australian study sites. In: Offsite movement of agrochemicals in tropical sugarcane production. Extension Workshop, Bundaberg, Australia, 8–9 May 2001, 69–76.

Irvine, J.E. (1978). Variations of non-sucrose solids in sugarcane, I. Potassium. Sugar J., 41(5): 28–30.

15


Jalles Machado (2005). Documentário Jalles Machado S/A 2005. Corporate DVD and http://www.jallesmachadosa.com.br/

Jeyabal, A. (2005). Role of in-situ vermiculture on organic sugarcane. Proc. Sugar Tech. Assoc. of India, 8: 206–215.

Jackson, M.L. (1958). Soil Analysis. Prentis Hall Inc., New Jersey, 72 p. Keating, B.A., Verburg, K., Huth, N.J. and Robertson, M.J. (2000). Nitrogen management in

intensive agriculture: Sugarcane in Australia. In: Keating, B.A. and Wilson, J.R. ed. Intensive Sugar Cane Production: Meeting the Challenges Beyond 2000, 221–242, CAB International, Wallingford.

Kingston, G. (1982). Ash in first expressed juice at Rocky Point – I. Factors affecting the inorganic composition of juices. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 4: 11–17.

Kingston, G. (1994). Benchmarking yield of sugarcane from estimates of crop water use. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 16: 201–209.

Kingston, G. and Anink, M.C. (2005). Use of in-field measurements to refine salinity tolerance thresholds for cultivars of sugar cane. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 25(2): 147–152.

Kingston, G., Donzelli, J.L., Meyer, J.H., Richard, E.P., Seeruttun, S., Torres, J. and Van Antwerpen, R. (2005). Impact of the green cane harvest and production system on the agronomy of sugar cane. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 25(1): 521–531.

Klok, J.A., Charlesworth, P.B., Ham, G.J. and Bristow, K.L. (2003). Management of furrow irrigation to improve water use efficiency and sustain the groundwater resource – Preliminary results from a case study in the Burdekin delta. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 25: CD-ROM, pp. 7.

Kuniata, L.S., Chandler, K.J. and Korowi, K.T. (2001). Management of sugarcane pests at Ramu, Papua New Guinea. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 382–388.

Lee, K.C. and Pankhurst, C.E. (1992). Soil organisms and sustainable productivity. Aust. J. Soil Res., 30(6): 855–892.

Loeskow, N., Callow, B. and Cameron, T. (2006). Grower case study on the economics of an improved farming system. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 28: 96–102.

MacDonald, B.C.T., Quirk, R.G., Melville, M.D., Waite, T.D., White, I., Desmeir, R., Smith, J., Tunks, M. and Beattie, R.N. (2002). Sugarcane acid sulfate soils: Techniques for reducing acid discharge. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 311–315.

McGuire, P. (1998). CANEMAN 2 arrives at last. Australian Sugarcane 2(5): page 12. McGuire, P. (2005). NSW Sugar Industry Farming Code of Practice. NSW Sugar Milling Coop.,

Ballina, NSW, 17 p. McMahon, G.G., Williams, R.C. and McGuire, P.J. (1989). The effects of weed competition on

ratoon sugar cane yield. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 11: 88–92. McMahon, G.G. and Ham, G.J. (1994). Ridge planting sugarcane on heavy clay soils in the

Burdekin. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 16: 70–74. Martin, J., Raid, R. and Branch, L.C. (2006). Barn owl (Tyto alba). Univ. Florida EDIS sheets 1–

4. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/UW/UW21600.pdf Mayer, G.W. and Schulz, L. (2003). An environmental management system for sugarcane in the

Noodsberg area of South Africa. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc., 77: 189–195. Meyer, J.H. (1995). Soil management research for sustainable ratoon cane production in the South

African sugar industry. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 22(2): 14–21. Meyer, E. and Fenwick, L.J. (2003). Manual sugarcane cutter performance in southern Africa.

Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc., 77: CD-ROM.

16


Meyer, J.H. and Van Antwerpen, R. (2001). Soil degradation as a factor in yield decline in the South African sugar industry. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 8–15.

Miyamoto, S., Ryan, J. and Stroehlein, J.L. (1975). Potentially beneficial uses of sulphuric acid in southwestern agriculture. J. Envir. Quality, 4(4): 431–437.

Muchow, R.C., Wood, A.W. and Robertson, M.J. (1995). Does stalk death set the yield ceiling in high-yielding sugarcane crops? Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 17: 142–148.

Ng Cheong, L.R., Ah-Koon, P.D., Umrit, G. and Ng Kee Kwong, K.F. (2001). Sustainability of sugarcane production in Mauritius as indicated by soil erosion and agrochemical movement. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 127–130.

Noble, A.D., Gillman, G.P. and Ruaysoongan, S. (2000). A cation exchange index for assessing degradation of acid soil by further acidification under permanent agriculture in the tropics. Europ. J. Soil Sci., 51: 233–243.

Noe, G.B., Childers, D.L. and Jones, R.D. (2004). Phosphorus biogeochemistry and impact of P enrichment: Why is the Everglades so unique? Ecosystems, 4(7): 603–624.

Norris, C.P., Robotham, B.G. and Bull, T.A. (2000). High density planting as an economic strategy: A farming system and equipment requirements. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 22: 113–118.

OECD (1986). Water Pollution by Fertilisers and Pesticides. OECD, Paris, France. Platford, G.G. (1988). Protection against flood damage. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc., 62:

226–232. Raine, S.R. and Bakker, D. (1996). Increased furrow irrigation efficiency through better design

and management of cane fields. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 18: 119–124. Reghenzani, J.R. and Roth, R.H. (2006). Best-practice surface drainage for low-lying sugarcane

lands in the Herbert District. Reid, R.E. (ed). BSES Limited Tech. Pub. TE06004, Oct. 2006, 85 p.

Rice, R.W., Izuno, F.T. and Garcia, R.M.S. (2002). Phosphorus load reductions under best management practices for sugarcane cropping systems in the Everglades Agricultural Area. Agric. Water Management, 56(1): 17–39.

Riera, L. (2005). The Riera Family. A Sugar Industry Case Study. BSES Limited, Publication CS05001, Indooroopilly, Australia.

Robertson, L.N., Story, P.G. and Wilson, J. (1995). Integrated pest management for rodents. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 17: 70–74.

Rudd, A.V. and Chardon, C.W. (1977). The effects of drainage on cane yield as measured by water-table heights in the Macknade mill area. Proc. Qd Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 44: 111–117.

RWUE II (2004–06). Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative. Qld. Dept. Natural Resources and Water. http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/rwue/case_studies.html#sugar

Sandell, G. and Agnew, J. ed. (2002). The harvest best practice manual for chopper-extractor harvesters. Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, 2002, 98 p.

SASA (2002). Standards and guidelines for conservation and environmental management in the South African sugar industry. South Afr. Sugar Assoc., Mt. Edgecomb, Natal, 58 p.

SASRI (1993–2004). Nutrition. SASRI Information Sheets 7.1–7.16, Aug.1993 – Nov. 2004. SASRI (2001). Eldana borer – control measures. SASRI Information Sheet 8.6,May 2001. SASRI (2004). Nematodes. SASRI Information Sheet 8.25, June 2004. Schmidt, E. (2002). Field tests of irrigation uniformity and application efficiency. In: Irrigation,

The Link, SASRI, May 2002.

17


Schroeder, B.L., Meyer, J.H., Wood, R.A. and Turner, P.E.T. (1993). Modifying lime requirement for sandy to sandy clay loam soils in the Natal Midlands. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc., 67: 49–52.

Seeruttun, S., Zuel, N. and Rughoo, M. (2003). Cool burning reduces particulate matter emission in Mauritius. Abstracts. Int. Soc. Sug. Cane Technol. Agron. Workshop, MSIRI, Mauritius 21–25 July 2003, p.33.

Simpson, B., Fraser, G., Armour, J., Hargreaves, P. and Ruddle, L. (2001a). Pesticide studies in Australia. . In: Offsite movement of agrochemicals in tropical sugarcane production. Extension Workshop, Bundaberg, Australia, 8–9 May 2001, 87–100.

Simpson, B., Calcino, D. and Pillay, K.P. (2001b). Managing environmental risks. In: Offsite movement of agrochemicals in tropical sugarcane production. Extension Workshop, Bundaberg, Australia, 8–9 May 2001, 101–111.

Singh, G., Chapman, S.C., Jackson, P.A. and Lawn, R.J. (2000). Lodging – A major constraint to high yield and CCS in the wet tropics. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 22: 315–321.

Smith, M.A. (1993). Is green cane trash blanketing as productive as the burnt cane alternative? BSES Technical Report TE93003.

Smith, M.A. (2001). The use of GPS guidance systems for controlled traffic in mechanised cane farming. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 51–52.

Smith, M., Staples, L., Dyer, B. and Hunt, W. (2002). Incorporation of a zinc phosphide rodenticide into integrated management of rats. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 228–234.

Stewart, P.F. and Cameron, T. (2006). Improving the sugarcane farming system with FEAT: A decision-making tool to facilitate on-farm change. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 28: 310–316.

Stirling, G.R., Blair, B., Wilson, M. and Stirling, M. (2002). Crop rotations for managing nematode pests and improving soil health in sugarcane cropping systems. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 129–134.

Stirling, G.R., Wilson, E.J., Stirling, A.M., Pankhurst, C.E., Moody, P.W. and Bell, M.J. (2003). Organic amendments to enhance biological suppression of plant parasitic nematodes in sugarcane soils. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 25: CD-ROM, 14 p.

Sutherland, R.F. (2002). New energy options in the Australian sugar industry. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 24: 19–23.

Swanton, C.J. and Murphy, S.D. (1996). Weed science beyond the weeds: The role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agro-ecosystem health. Weed Sci., 44(2): 437–445.

Thompson, G.D. (1976). Water use by sugarcane. South Afr. Sugar Ind. Agronomist’s Assoc., Review paper No.8: 12 p.

Thompson, G.D. (1977). Irrigation of sugarcane. South Afr. Sugar Ind. Agronomist’s Assoc., Review paper No.9: 14 p.

Thorburn, P.J., Park, S.E and Biggs, I.M. (2003). Nitrogen fertiliser management in the Australian sugar industry: Strategic opportunities for improved efficiency. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 23: CR-ROM.

Turner, P.E.T. (1980). The effects of some post-emergence herbicide treatments on a range of sugarcane varieties in South Africa. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 17: 107–123.

Turner, P.E.T., Meyer, J.H. and King, A.C. (2002). Field evaluation of concentrated molasses solids as a nutrient source for sugarcane in Swaziland. Proc. Sth Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc., 76: CD-ROM.

18


Umrit, G. and Ng Kee Kwong, R. (1996). Leaching and persistence of selected herbicides used in sugarcane fields in Mauritius. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 22(2): 124–131.

USDA (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In: Richards, L.A. ed. Agriculture Handbook 60, United States Dept. of Agric., Feb. 1954.

USDA (2006). WATSUIT – Water quality suitability determination model. United States Dept Agric.-ARC US Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, CA. http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/software/download.htm?softwareid=107

Van den Berg, M. and Smit, M. (2005). Growth models for deceision support in the South African sugar industry. Proc. Sth Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc., 79: 495–509.

Vella, K. and McDondald, G. (2000). Institutional arrangements for environmental management and the sugar industry. In: Bruce, R.C., Johnston, M. and Rayment, G.E. ed. Environmental short course for sustainable sugar production. CRC for Sustainable Sugar Production, Townsville, 15–28.

Weier, K.L., Rollston, D.E. and Thorburn, P.J. (1998). The potential for nitrogen losses via denitrification beneath a trash blanket. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 20: 169–175.

Werren, G., Hunt, R. and Brodie, A. (2000). ‘Arteries of the landscape’ – Wetlands and the nature and function of riparian systems – implications for best practice management in cane-growing areas. In: Bruce, R.C., Johnston, M. and Rayment, G.E. ed. Environmental short course for sustainable sugar production. CRC for Sustainable Sugar Production, Townsville, 75–90.

Whipker, B., Bailey, D.A., Nelson, P.V., Fonteno, W.C. and Hammer, P.A. (1996). A novel approach to calculate acid additions for alkalinity control in greenhouse irrigation water. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 27: 959–976, and for software: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/floriculture/software/alk.html

Whitbread, M., Lionnet, G.R.E., Meyer, J.H. and Wood, R.A. (2004). Ash and sugars in cane juice at Nchalo Sugar Estate, Malawi: Relationships with inorganic constituents in soil. Proc. South Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc., 78: 349–357.

Wynne, A.T. and van Antwerpen, R. (2004). Factors affecting the economics of trashing. Proc. South Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc., 78: 207–214.

PRATIQUES CULTURALES AMÉLIORÉES DANS LES CHAMPS DE CANNE À SUCRE

Par G. KINGSTON1, J.H. MEYER2, K.F. NG KEE KWONG3,

A. JEYABAL4 et G.H. KORNDÖRFER5 1BSES Limited, Australia, 2South African Sugar Research Institute,

3Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute, 4EID Parry, India 5Federal University of Uberlandis, Brasil

MOTS CLÉS: Durabilité, Gestion Intégrée, Système de Production, Cadre de Gestion. Résumé

DEPUIS quelques années un effort particulier a été mis en place, tant au niveau national qu’international sur la durabilité et la productivité de l’industrie cannière mondiale. Des inquiétudes ont été émises sur les pratiques culturales basées sur la surexploitation des ressources ainsi que des critiques sous-entendant que les systèmes de la production cannière mondiale sont pour la plupart axés uniquement sur la productivité. En particulier, les critiques axées sur les sujets de protection de l’environnement ont reçu une large publicité. Dans ce papier, nous avons analysé la recherche, le développement et l’adoption de systèmes de production améliorés dans le monde et leurs

19


possibilités d’amélioration dans le futur. Les bénéfices essentiels de cette adoption ont été identifiés et confortés par des études de cas. De plus, nous affirmons que cette durabilité ne sera pas complète sans profitabilité, ni sans un environnement socialement équitable. Dans ce contexte étendu de durabilité (profitabilité, durabilité environnementale et justice sociale) nous croyons fermement que les systèmes de la production cannière mondiale peuvent être mis en pratique sans surexploitation des ressources excessive en comparaison avec les autres systèmes de productions agricoles. Dans ce bilan, nous proposons un cadre comprenant sept thèmes majeurs qui peuvent être utilisés comme guide d’identification et d’application des pratiques culturales améliorées dans les champs de canne à sucre. Ces thèmes englobent la gestion du sol, de la culture, de l’irrigation, des maladies et ravageurs, de la santé et la sécurité au travail, de la reconnaissance de l’héritage et des principes de conservation et des affaires. Nous croyons que ce cadre d’études est pertinent au niveau international, mais l’importance des risques, des chances de réussite et des mécanismes de réponse seront variables suivant les industries et les régions.

MEJORES PRÁCTICAS GERENCIALES EN CAMPOS CAÑEROS Por

G. KINGSTON1, J.H. MEYER2, K.F. NG KEE KWONG3, A. JEYABAL4 y G.H. KORNDÖRFER5

1BSES Limited, Australia, 2South African Sugar Research Institute, 3Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute, 4EID Parry, India

5Federal University of Uberlandis, Brasil [email protected]

PALABRAS CLAVE: Sostenibilidad, Gerencia Integrada, Sistemas de Cultivo, Marco Gerencial.

Resumen EN LOS ÚLTIMOS años ha existido una considerable atención tanto nacional como internacional acerca de la sostenibilidad y productividad de las agroindustrias de la caña de azúcar. Las preocupaciones surgen acerca de las prácticas gerenciales de explotación, con las críticas que sugieren que el sistema mundial de producción de la caña de azúcar se enfoca casi exclusivamente a la productividad. Las críticas acerca del aspecto de la sostenibilidad ambiental, en particular, han recibido una publicidad sustancial. En este trabajo analizamos la investigación, el desarrollo y la adopción de sistemas avanzados de producción de caña de azúcar en el mundo, así como las oportunidades de avances mayores. Se identifican los beneficios clave de la adopción y se respaldan con estudios de caso. Además argumentamos que la sostenibilidad no se alcanzará sin ganancias y solamente se alcanzará en un ambiente social equitativo. Dentro del amplio contexto de estos términos de referencia (ganancias, sostenibilidad y equidad social), consideramos que sistemas mundiales de producción de la caña de azúcar pueden implementarse sin resultar más “explotativos” que cualquier otro sistema de producción agrícola. En esta revisión proponemos un marco de referencia de siete tópicos que pueden utilizarse para guiar la identificación y aplicación de mejores prácticas de gerencia en los campos de caña de azúcar. Estos tópicos incluyen manejo de suelos, gerencia de cosecha, gerencia del agua, gerencia de plagas y enfermedades, seguridad y salud en los sitios de trabajo, reconocimiento de los principios de la herencia y la sostenibilidad y gerencia de negocios. Estimamos que este marco de referencia tiene relevancia internacional, pero la importancia de riesgos, oportunidades y mecanismos de respuesta variará entre las diferentes industrias y regiones.

20

Documents

BETTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN SUGARCANE FIELDS … Kingston, BETTER... · BETTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN SUGARCANE FIELDS By ... management practices in sugarcane ... while excessive