KEEPING IT SWEET
SUSTAINABILITY AND SUGAR CANE
by Larry Geno
edited by Jason Alexandra KEEPING IT SWEET:-
SUSTAINABILITY AND SUGAR CANE
Larry Geno
edited by Jason Alexandra
Australian Conservation Foundation 340 Gore Street,Fitzroy, 3065. Ph. 03 94161166 Fax 03 94160767 281115XB
PRODUCED BY THE AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION 340 Gore Street Fitzroy Vic 3065 ph (03) 9416 1166, fax (03) 9416 0767
Copyright ACF 1996
ARBN 007498482
ISBN 0 85802 123 4 Acknowledgments
Dedicated to the cane farmers of Mackay.
Specifically we would like to thank all those who contributed to project by participating in the project through coming to the workshops, reviewing documents etc.
ACF would like to thank the following: -
• Larry Geno for consulting with the growers, doing the project research and writing the basis of this report;
• Jason Alexandra for project management, editing Larry's report and developing the ACF recommendations;
• Christine Lander for project administration and layout.
• Sandra Haffenden for final layout. And to others too numerous to mention who assisted in the project work.
• John Cameron and Jane Elix whose ideas generated the project.
Finally we acknowledge the financial support of the Commonwealth Government's National Landcare Program. Background to the project
This report examines the practicalities of moving towards more sustainable cane farming and is an outcome of an extended project investigating the adoption of sustainable sugar cane farming practices in the Mackay district of Queensland.
This document: — describes a unique participatory research project which explores the application of sustainability principles to cane farming in the Mackay area of Queensland. — outlines the participatory process used to identify issues, constraints and opportunities in moving toward more sustainable systems in cane farming. — and hopefully will assist in improving the environmental performance of cane production in coastal Queensland and elsewhere.
Cane farming is widely regarded as an industry with major environmental impacts but therefore with great scope for improvement.
The project is one of the Australian Conservation Foundation's regional studies into sustainable agriculture and has been made possible by funds provided by the National Soil Conservation Program (now called the National Landcare Program).
Two earlier ACF regional studies focused on Queensland's mulga lands and northern New South Wales wheat/sheep systems. These resulted in the ACF publication Recovering Ground. A further case study of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA) resulted in a report The Challenge of Working Together. ACF's National Landcare Program Project pioneers practical applications of ESD theory within established agricultural industries.
All three studies attempt to assist regional communities to define the dynamics and nature of sustainable landuse by applying a case study approach. The ACF case studies combine consultation and scientific research in an effort to define issues, opportunities and priorities for change. It is hoped that this approach will help accelerate the shift towards sustainable landuse. People directly involved in the industry were consulted extensively to provide guidance in policy reform and industry direction. The project relied on community participation and adopted a broad definition of sustainability which included environmental, economic, and social dimensions.
The proposal to undertake the case study into the sugar industry was first conceived by the ACF in late 1989, however funding for this work from the National Soil Conservation Program was only approved in 1992. The ACF advertised for a consultant. The contract for the consultative and research phase of the project was awarded to independent consultants in organic and sustainable land use; Agroecology Associates of Lismore, New South Wales. The principal of Agroecology Associates, Larry Geno, implemented the research and industry consultation phase between September 1992 to June 1993. This involved the following three phases:
iv Phase I - Where are we now? - descriptive: defining the current situation and the nature of sustainability for cane growing in and around Mackay.
Phase 2 - What is the sustainable cane farming system/where do we want to be? - Scenario building: developing scenarios of what a sustainable sugarcane farming system in Mackay might look like in 50 years.
Phase 3 - Planning for action: How do we get there from here and how do we know? establishing how to get from the current situation to a sustainable one; identifying practical opportunities and limitations, and who will need to do what. More detailed descriptions of the project methodology are contained in the main text.
The consultants report to the ACF was refined by a further stage of review during which this document was circulated, reviewed and recommendations developed and refined. This document, therefore, has three main sources: (1) Larry Geno's documentation of survey responses and workshops arising from the consultative phase; (2) secondary materials gathered by research; and (3) conclusions and recommendations developed from the project by the consultants and the ACF.
In this document, we start with conclusions and recommendations, followed by a summary of research, before presenting community generated descriptions of current farming practices, scenarios of future cane farming and a mud map of how to get there. It is worth noting that during the consultative phase of the project growers were not presented with any outside information on either the sugar industry or ecological sustainability until after they generated their definitions of the current status of Mackay cane farming through involvement in phase one. This forms chapters 4-9 of this report. At the end of this first stage, the consultant circulated the documentation of the consultation for feedback, plus ideas about sustainability (Chapter 1), the environmental performance of the sugar industry (Chapter 2) and conditions in the Mackay region (Chapter 3) derived from literature reviews.
Based on the findings of this project work, the ACF has developed a set of recommendations which we believe are crucial to achieving a more sustainable sugar industry. Many of these recommendations concentrate on R & D as we believe that it is this sector which can provide the techniques, technologies and intellectual leadership to accelerate the transition to a sustainable industry. This will only develop if better relationships are established between the practitioners, farmers and researchers. Harnessing this potential requires R&D organisations to critically examine their roles, responsibilities and goals, and work out with the industry how these can be best achieved.
We have no doubt that many growers recognise the scope for improving the performance of their industry — it is now important that their representative organisations and those funded to work on solving the industry problems and preparing it for the challenge of the 21st century also accept the ESD challenge. Addendum
Since this report was finalised there have been a number of events which effect the recommendations outlined.
Most significantly, in 1995 the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Sugar Production was established. This CRC is a collaborative and unincorporated joint venture between the sugar industry, public research and development agencies and tertiary education institutions. The CRC's mission is to 'conduct excellent, collaborative and multi-disciplinary research, development and extension to build the knowledge, skills and technology for a sustainable and environmentally responsible Australian sugar industry.'
It is hoped that the CRC will adopt a number of the recommendations detailed in this report. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is represented on the CRC's Advisory Committee and Environmental Protection Program Consultative Group and welcomes the opportunity for direct input into future research and monitoring projects of the sugar industry. Keeping It Sweet - ACF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS USED 7
SECTION 1: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
ACHIEVING A SUSTAINABLE SUGAR CANE INDUSTRY - CAN IT BE DONE? 8
A Scenario for Sustainable Cane Farming - 2013 ad 10
Government And Growers — Policies And Practices 11
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14
What Does 'Sustainable Cane Farming' Mean? 14
Sustainability Planning And Education - Whose Responsibility? 15
Sugar Industry Planning 16
Resource Barriers to Adoption of Sustainable Cane Farming 19
Institutional Barriers 26
Secrecy and Science For Agribusiness 28
Effective Research and Extension — Farmers First 31
Regionalism, Centralism and ESD Strategy Planning 33
Landcare, landcare and Sustainable Agriculture 35
SECTION 2: LITERATURE REVIEWS 38
1 DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY FOR AGRICULTURE: A BRIEF REVIEW 38
Introduction 38
1.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) 38
1.2 Historical Evolution of the Concept 38
1.3 Definitions Of Agricultural Sustainability 40
1.4 Some Principles of Sustainable Agriculture 41
2 CANE FARMING IN QUEENSLAND: A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 44
2.1 The Cane Plant: Saccharum Officinarum 44
2 _Keeping It Sweet - ACF
2.2. Environmental Impacts of Cane Farming 44 2.2.1 Soil Loss 44 2.2.2 Declining Soil Quality 47 2.2.3 Herbicides and Insecticides 48 2.2.4 Water Use 51
2.3 Nutrient Pollution of the Great Barrier Reef 51
2.4 Carbon Cycle/Nitrogen Cycle and the Greenhouse Effect 53
2.5 Benefits Of Green Harvesting 54 54 2.5.1 Soil Conservation — Erosion Control 55 2.5.2 Moisture Conservation 2.5.3 Soil Biology 56 2.5.4 Nitrogen Component 56 2.5.5 Herbicidal Effect 57 2.5.6 Retention Of CCS 57 2.5.7 Implications for Millcrushing 57 2.6 Fertility Management 58 2.6.1 Fertiliser Use, Productivity and Minimising Waste 58 2.6.2 Biological Nitrogen Fixation 59 2.6.3 Alternative Fertility Management 60 2.6.4 Trash Incorporation 62 2.6.5 Innovative Equipment for Fertilising Under Trash Blankets 62 2:6.6 Min/Zero Till Planting 62
2.7 Pest/Disease Management 63 2.7.1 Cane Grubs 63 2.7.2 Controls for Cane Grubs 64 2.7.3 Control of Soldier Fly 66 2.7.4 Borers 66 2.7.5 Resistance to Insecticides 66 2.7.6 Soil Pests and Organic Matter 67 2.7.7 Weed Control 67 2.7.8 Rotation in Cane Farming Systems 67 2.7.9 Cover Cropping During Ratoon Growth 68 2.7.10 Integrated Weed Management Model 68
2.8 Yield Decline 69
2.9 Economics of Cane Farming Systems 70 2.9.1 Trade 73 2.9.2 Sugar Replacements 74 2.9.3 Diversification and Value Adding - Mushrooms and Pigs 74
2.10 Other Sustainable Practices 74
3 MACKAY SUGAR CANE FARMING SYSTEMS 75
3.1 The Study Area 75
3.2 Mackay Region Cane Farming 75
3.3 Land for Cane Farming 76
3 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
3.4 Water and Irrigation 78
3.5 Harvesting equipment 79
3.6 QDPI Survey on Adoption of Sustainable Practices 79
SECTION 3: MATERIAL DERIVED FROM CONSULTATION WITH GROWERS IN THE MACKAY REGION 82
4 AGROECOLOGY ASSOCIATES' GROWER CONSULTATION 82
4.1 Methodology 82
4.2 Farmer Sample 83
4.3 Survey Farm Characteristics 84
4.4 Mackay Farming Systems 84
4.5 Harvesting and Trash Management 85
4.6 Fertility Management 85
4.7 Water Management 87
4.8 Pest/Disease Control 87
4.9 Green/Burnt Harvest Practices 88
4.10 Technical Feasibility 91
4.11 Soil and Moisture Conservation Benefits 91
4.12 Limits to Green Cane Harvesting 92
4.13 Disadvantages, Real and Perceived 93
5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SURVEY 94
5.1 Important Local Environmental Issues 94
5.2 Off/On-farm Environmental Impacts 95
5.3 The Landcare Movement 95
6 SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES 95
6.1 Unsustainable Practices 96
6.2 Sustainable Practices Put Forward By Growers 97 6.2.1 Contouring 97 6.2.2 Water Management 97 6.2.3 Miscellaneous Practices 98 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
98 6.3 Historical Practices of Value
6.4 Adoption Of Sustainable Practices 98
7 SOCIAL ISSUES 99
7.1 Family Farming in Communities 99 7.1.1 Ethnic Elements 100 7.1.2 Population Growth 100 7.1.3 Tourism 100 7.1.4 Social Change Over Time 100
7.2 Agricultural Education 101
7.3 Farmer Confidence in the Future 101
8 ECONOMIC ISSUES 102
8.1 Reduced Income 102
8.2 Privatisation 102
8.3 Assignment/Peak Deregulation 103
8.4 Industry Expansion 104
8.5 Alternate Crops 105
8.6 Yield Decline 106
9 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 107
9.1 Research/Advisory Services 107
9.2 Sources of Information on Farming Techniques 107
9.3 Institutional Interaction 109
9.4 Adoption 109
SECTION 4: REPORT ON PHASE I AND III: THE FUTURE AND HOW WE GET THERE.1
10 SCENARIOS OF SUSTAINABLE CANE FARMING 112
10.1 Project Process Review 112
10.2 Focus Groups 112
10.3 Focus Group Method 113 10.4 Focus Group Mission Statements, Roughly sorted into paragraphs corresponding to social, economic and ecological sustainability. 115
5 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
11 GETTING ON WITH THE TASK-HOW DO WE GET THERE FROM HERE? 118
PHASE III 118
Project Review 118
Phase HI Process 118
Sustainability Indicate rs 119
11.1 Cooperating to grow cane sustainably 128
11.2 Sustainability Indicators - a discussion 129
11.3. Sustainability Indicators for the Sugar Industry 130
11.4 Collaboration Map To Sustainability Cane Farming In Mackay 137
11.5 Strategies Inherent in Achieving Outcomes. 138
BIBLIOGRAPHY 140 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Abbreviations used CCS- Commercial Cane Sugar (% sugar) ACF- Australian Conservation Foundation BSES- Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations QDPI- Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Energy DPIE- (Commonwealth) Department of Primary Industries and Energy CSR- Colonial Sugar Refiners CSIRO- Commonwealth Scientific Industry Research Organisation SRI- Sugar Research Institute ESD- Ecologically Sustainable Development FNQ- Far North Queensland SRDC- Sugar Research And Development Corporation ACF A- Australian Canefarmers Association N- Nitrogen P- Phosphorous K- Potassium DEAP- Downstream Effects of Agricultural Practices Government QDPI Ministerial Committee C02- Carbon Dioxide LWRRDC - Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation GBRMPA - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
7 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
SECTION 1: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations This section summarises the projects findings, provides an overviSw and puts forward the ACF's conclusions and recommendations for accelerating the transition to a more sustainable sugar cane industry.
Achieving A Sustainable Sugar Cane Industry - Can It Be Done? Australia's sugar cane industry has for nearly one hundred years been the dominant land use of the fertile coastal plains of Northern NSW and Queensland and is an economic mainstay of these regions. Today the industry is threatened from many quarters. Fluctuating world sugar prices are placing increasing pressure on growers to cut costs. The strong culture of mutual support and information exchange developed in the grower community over generations appears to be stressed. As the economic rewards and social status of cane farming diminish, farm children are increasingly looking elsewhere for their employment futures. A tourism and lifestyle-related boom in coastal real estate is driving demand for the rezoning and subdivision of cane land for development.
Environmental impacts of the industry are also increasingly in the spotlight. The sugar industry is based on some of Australia's best alluvial soils. Farms using conventional tillage have an average erosion rate of between 50 and 150 tonnes per hectare per year. This equates to 4-15 tonnes of soil lost per tonne of sugar produced. This is clearly not sustainable. Scientific research suggests that cane farming has serious environmental consequences with potentially severe economic implications for the tourism and fishing industries. Preliminary studies indicate that nutrients and eroded sediment entering water sheds from grazing lands and cane fields are damaging the coral of the Great Barrier Reef. Similarly, it is a widely held belief in the fishing industry that pesticides used to protect cane from insect predation are escaping into river systems, poisoning prawn rookeries in estuaries and contributing to declining populations of adult pawns. While the causality of such environmental problems is both hard to prove and expensive to investigate scientifically, reducing the impacts of chemicals, erosion, and agricultural runoff is clearly a desirable objective. But how is this to be achieved?
None of the above problems can be solved in isolation or are solely the responsibility of the cane industry. Properly, they are issues deserving of regional and national attention. But while government develop plans and policies, and research continue to attempt to understand these complex relationships cane farmers must act— planting and harvesting, managing their land and crops, and planning their economic future.
So how can the industry be made more sustainable — economically, socially and environmentally? How can change be directed, better farming systems developed and adopted and environmental impacts reduced.
This project involved cane growers in examining such questions in order to lay foundations for improving environmental performance and accelerate transition to more sustainable practices.
There are well defined techniques for growing sugar cane which are more sustainable than many current industry practices. Foremost is the use of harvesting green cane, instead of burning cane
8 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
leaves before harvest. But the rates of adoption are not uniform throughout the industry, raising significant questions as to the impediments to change in farming systems, be they technical, economic, institutional or psychological.
These questions were investigated through a case study focusing on the adoption of sustainable practices in the Mackay district of Central Queensland.
Harvesting cane green (unburnt) is widely regarded to be a significant improvement over the more traditional approach of burning cane fields prior to harvesting. Burning cane releases nutrients to the atmosphere, or leaves them prone to leaching or erosion from the ash bed into ground or surface waters. It also leaves soils exposed, increasing the risk of erosion, particularly during cyclones and tropical storms. In contrast, green cane harvesting reduces risks of erosion, protecting soils with a mulch of crop residue (trash). It enables more effective nutrient cycling through incorporation of unburnt crop residues, and lowers fertiliser inputs. The retention of up to 40 tonne per hectare of organic matter improves soil, conserves moisture and nutrients and reduces soil erosion.
Reducing erosion also has many benefits including minimising the input of nutrient laden sediments on sensitive estuarine and coastal ecosystems, including the Great Barrier Reef and fisheries.
Green cane harvesting has been widely adopted in more northern Australian cane growing regions, but not in the Mackay district. In 1992, only about 15-20% of Mackay growers harvested green cane (17% of crop) compared with close to 100% of growers in some North Queensland regions.
Influenced by an intensifying cost/price squeeze and recent high erosion events like Cyclone Joy in 1990, many Mackay growers have considered the benefits of green cane harvesting but there remain significant material and attitudinal barriers to its wide adoption.
With the assistance of local cane farmers and other industry players this study examined the nature of current sustainability, future directions and the potential for accelerating a shift to more sustainable practices. Within this broader context the role and potential of green cane harvesting was investigated. This included identifying the processes and impediments involved in shifting to green cane harvesting, its technical feasibility, advantages, disadvantages, its potential to increase sustainability, and its suitability to the Mackay region.
Focus groups consisting mainly of cane farmers developed scenarios of their ideal future - illustrating a sustainable future for cane farming in the Mackay region (see summary below). After the scenarios were developed participants created a "collaboration map". This map roughly outlines who needed to do what to bring the desired future into reality. In this 'sustainability mapping exercise' growers accepted the majority of the responsibility for implementing sustainable practices on their farms but identified the importance of the various roles of government. (See collaboration map - Chapter 11.) The focus groups also generated a set of sustainability indicators which could be used to measure progress towards their desired, sustainable future, (see chapter 11) Keeping It Sweet - ACF
A Scenario for Sustainable Cane Farming - 2013 ad In Mackay, by 2013, the cane farm management is based on minimum tillage systems, green harvest and organic and mineral fertility management. Soil erosion has been greatly reduced thanks to increased through-put of organic matter, improved drainage, optimised row lengths, contour tillage, and better irrigation. Compaction has been reduced through use of high flotation equipment. Improved harvesting, irrigation and drainage practices, and reduced use of pesticides and synthetic fertilisers means that impacts on river systems and the atmosphere are minimal compared by '90s levels. Through these and other measures, profitability and economic sustainability have been greatly increased.
To ensure fairness - no free rides or short cuts - management practices for conform to conservation standards. These standards have been established by a consensual process involving the local farming community and are economically and technically realistic.
In general, off-site impacts are much better monitored and understood by growers and the public is well informed of progress. Urban/rural communication has improved and there is better understanding of the necessary temporary compromises. One result is an increased sense of land stewardship in both rural and urban populations. Native vegetation has been restored along stream banks, waste areas, and wildlife corridors to reduce local environmental impacts of farming, increase wildlife and provide an improved aesthetic environment. Pesticides which adversely effect wildlife have been eliminated . Farmers retain, however, the right to control pest wildlife outbreaks where the impact is economically significant.
In recognition of the wider social benefits of total catchment management, some catchment works and stream bank revegetation activities operate under government incentives or assistance.
Chemicals still in use are largely, selective, non-residual and non-volatile. Fertiliser used are released or managed for minimal losses to run-off, leaching or volatilisation. Economic stability is enhanced with the retention of locally controlled self regulation and a flexible, orderly industry regulation. While sugar prices and returns continue to fluctuate due to uncontrollable world markets and seasonal variability; income averaging through self-planned income equalisation deposits dampens variation in income over several years.
Local and regional value adding and new products from raw sugar have increased farm income, with vertical expansion creating higher value from cane production without unacceptable environmental impacts. This process is assisted by improved machinery, designed and engineered specifically for the cane industry. The higher cost of green-capable harvesters and investment in new plant is accommodated by cooperative or contractor ownership in larger groups and higher grower returns.
The skill and culture of cane farming is flourishing and with increased diversity of opportunity, the drain of young people from the community has ended. There is a healthy mix of small family farms, cooperative family farming of larger holdings, and some larger farms. Stable income and increased social responsibility enable farmers to see themselves with pride and there is less stress and more leisure time than in the '90s. Where continuous crushing has been retained, better Keeping It Sweet - ACF
scheduling and other solutions ease the disruption to family life. Altogether, the quality of life of the cane community is far better. Economic viability, less exposure to toxic chemicals, cooperation with environmental needs, and the increased visual aesthetics of the region have put the joy back into farming. Government And Growers — Policies And Practices
Clearly growers are only part of the sugar industry, and therefore no discussion would be complete without also considering the roles of government in relation to the industry. Consequently this report looks towards reforms of government roles to compliment and promote broader reforms within the industry. Governments always have been and probably always will be major players in guiding agricultural production and marketing. Therefore, they have a key role in sponsoring/promoting a shift to more sustainable practices.
Government policies and programs are major determinants in landuse planning and commodity production, having a direct influence on farmer, farming practices and the environment. This relationship is often ignored, with a commonly held view that individual farmers are wholly responsible for land degradation. It is important that the role of governments are also considered — rural industry, like all industry, does not operate in a policy vacuum. The ability of farmers to practice responsible landuse is directly effected by government policies. In the Australian sugar industry there is a long standing and direct involvement of governments.
Governments, both at State and Federal level have a long history of involvement in the sugar industry. This dates back to the time of Federation when Queensland resisted joining the Commonwealth due to the White Australia Policy and its impact on the sugar industry. Both the creation of the Federation and the passing of the first Act of the new Commonwealth of Australia — the "White Australia" Act 1901 — were dependent on a compromise deal worked out between the Commonwealth, Queensland and the sugar industry( Lines, W 1989).
At the time of Federation, the sugar industry was reliant on "Kanakas" — essentially black indentured labour (slave) enticed (forced) to leave their pacific island homes by "blackbirders" (slave traders). Queensland objected to the White Australia Act and the potential loss of cheap labour, but finally compromised with an arrangement for subsidised prices for sugar which would cover the increased price of paying "white fella" wages. The kanakas where then forcibly transported home, dispossessed, disenfranchised and abandoned, (ibid)
Thus the sugar industry began its long standing influence with both State and Federal Governments in Australia. As an industry it has come to have a special place in Australian politics, which has persisted for more than a century. At the last Federal election the four coastal Queensland 'sugar seats' were recognised as both marginal and decisive to the election outcome.
In February 1992 (while consultation work on this project was being undertaken) the Commonwealth and Queensland State Governments issued the 'Sugar Industry Package', a 40 million dollar package of funding initiatives, along with commitments to halt further tariff reductions for sugar — the latest in a long series of 'arrangements' or 'special deals'. But whether the package is anything more than blatant 'pork barrelling' depends on what is done with it.
11 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
The package thus raises many questions about rural policies, for example:
• Why the sugar industry and not other rural industries?
• Why not other coastal Queensland industries for example, fishing and tourism?
• Why are plenty of other primary industries being told to survive on their own?
The Labor (Commonwealth and Queensland) Governments pre-election package to the sugar industry was clearly politically motivated. However, the potential significance of the initiative should not be underestimated. The package has the potential, depending on whether its implementation is consistent with principles outlined in the statement, to address pressing economic, environmental and social needs in cane farming regions.
In its announcement of the sugar industry package, the Commonwealth states unequivocally: "All production expansion must be consistent with sustainable and best land management practices and be consistent with national priorities." The focus of the package on expansion is unfounded as the industry needs to focus on stability not expansion. While the package states a commitment to making expansion sustainable, this is not possible without a commitment to helping existing cane farmers move to sustainable production.
The Commonwealth has specified that its involvement should result in a clear and rapid move to "sustainable and best land management practices". This is welcome and is consistent with the goal of ecological sustainability identified in the National Landcare Program, the recent reforms to Drought Policy and the Rural Adjustment Scheme, as well as the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Commonwealth Government, 1992). However, while it is relatively easy to establish these kinds of broad goals, there is considerable work required to establish and define what are "sustainable and best land management practices". Furthermore, the transition from current practices to best practices needs to be a clearly defined goal that is both achievable, pragmatic and which is supported by those involved in the industry. This ACF project focused on precisely this challenge.
Ecological sustainability may be little more than a poorly understood and ill defined national goal unless throughout the country, communities and industries are involved in operationalising it, in defining paths towards it. Collectively the Australian community must understand the costs, benefits and challenges in the shift to ecological sustainability, while also recognising the consequences of continued environmental degradation. For example, along the Queensland coast, irreplaceable loss of topsoil from farms will jeopardise the potential for sustainable agricultural production and may ultimately undermine the regions economic vitality. It may also threaten the health of aquatic ecosystems, including the Great Barrier Reef, with their sizeable fishing and tourist industries. Unchecked ecological degradation will undermine the economic viability of the nation and poses huge costs on future generations.
In the sugar industry, like elsewhere in Australia, the real costs of land degradation are already impacting on productivity, and increasing the cost of the production but are not fully brought to account. Unless we seriously take stock of where we are going and collectively and intelligently use all the social, economic and technological tools to head towards sustainability, our economy will continue to rely on depleting the natural capital of this continent.
12 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Historically, Governments have well defined roles in agriculture including the provision of sound macro-economic frameworks, industry regulation and statutory marketing, investment in infrastructure, research and development and provision of advice to growers. In this regard, the sugar package is in keeping with Government involvement in the past. It does mark a shift from the 80s when deregulation and reduced government involvement were the prescriptions for improving the economy.
In continuing to spend public money on sugar industry infrastructure governments are continuing a historical relationship. Under contemporary policy circumstances this can only be justified if it is genuinely directed to improving the sustainability and environmental performance of the industry according to governments own mandate.
Whether the industry and governments have the will to use this opportunity to tackle the challenge of sustainable production remains to be seen.
An ongoing commitment to strategic research and development and environmental monitoring must also be a well defined priority. The Queensland and Commonwealth government's can direct that their contribution to research and development focuses on the challenge of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) consistent with their commitment to do so in the National Strategy for ESD (1992).
It is also vitally important that research and development is not dominated by reductionist and centralised experiments but is firmly based in the farming community. Addressing the urgent needs of Australia's rural industries and environment needs multi-disciplinary research which focuses on farming systems and their relationship to the environment. Projects like the ACF's sugar work which rely heavily on participatory processes, will be central in mapping 'routes to sustainability' and ensuring community ownership and grower action.
13 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
Conclusions And Recommendations1 What Does 'Sustainable Cane Farming' Mean?
Upon interviewing growers it became clear that it would be difficult to identify 'sustainable' and 'unsustainable' practices without first agreeing on a definition of sustainability. The concept of 'sustainability' was simply not part of the growers' knowledge system except as an intuitive understanding of'good farming'. Moreover, cane farmers at first didn't see how existing definitions of ecological sustainability related to their cropping systems and economic situation. This definitional problem probably applies in other cane growing areas and in other primary industries.
As yet there has been no systematic approach to defining sustainability in cane farming, either in Australia or elsewhere. While this is hardly surprising (sustainability as an integrative planning framework for agricultural systems is relatively recent) the need for such definition is pressing.
In working towards sustainability, we need to develop terms, concepts and objectives that are understood and agreed on by all players; by farmers, industry and government.
Recommendation 1
Develop operational definitions of sustainability for cane farming. In order to continue the work piloted by this project, further resources need to be devoted to supporting cane growing communities (and other primary industries) in developing detailed operational definitions of sustainability for cane farming and a set of performance indicators that must be endorsed by growers, are part of community, above industry and government
Recommendation 2
In all agricultural sectors, priority should be given to programs supporting farmers in informing themselves about the concept of sustainability and its utility in planning ecologically sustainable development (ESD) of their region. This priority needs to be reflected in the programs of R&D corporations and in the activities of state resource management agencies. Refinements of the community sustainability assessment methodology developed in this study may be a worthwhile approach to such programs.
Drawing on the insight and experience of Mackay cane farmers was a crucial element of the present study. When farmers were asked to define sustainability as it applied to their situation it was found that their intuitive criteria for 'good farming' already included many of the economic, environmental, and social elements of sustainability. These farmers had a very good idea of where their practices were sustainable or unsustainable. Equally, farmers participating in this study demonstrated a grasp of the solutions to many problems. Clearly, farmers' insight and expertise will be used when defining, planning and implementing sustainability programs in agriculture.
'Please note for background of the conclusions and recommendations it is advisable to read the full document.
14 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
Recommendation 3
That the existing expertise of farmers form the foundation for defining and implementing regional sustainability strategies for cane farming and other primary industries and that farmers involvement be actively sought in both the formulation and execution of such strategies. Sustainability Planning And Education - Whose Responsibility?
Existing extension officers advise growers on agronomic or soil conservation practices. They are unlikely, however, to be able to advise on wider issues of social sustainability, on farm economics, or larger scale/off-site environmental constraints. The fragmentation of sugar research and extension activities among three bodies (QDPI, BSES, SRDC) also makes the holistic consideration of sustainability difficult, as does the insular and self regulated nature of the sugar industry. There is a pressing need for greater cooperation between these bodies and other natural resource management agencies such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Wet Tropics Management Authority and the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage.
In addition to the greater cooperation required between agencies, academic institutions and research and extension services need to improve their capacity to support the shift to sustainability. A sustainability perspective may be incorporated into local/regional knowledge bases by processes which integrate local knowledge with outside information.
Membership organisations also play a key role and could adopt a sustainability perspective in their literature and policies. Canegrowers, for example, publishes a journal, Australian Canegrower, that already takes a educational and informative role to growers.
Recommendation 4
That actions be taken to develop understanding of the principles and practice of ecologically sustainable development in cane growing communities and throughout the industry. These include:
•providing government support for communityAndustry sustainability self assessments as the basis of regional ESD plans.
• cane growing communities getting together to discuss and increase their understanding of sustainability and how they are going to achieve it
• training existing research and extension officers in the principles and practices of sustainability
• ensuring that extension workers and other government players understand the definitions and objectives of sustainability used by cane growers.
Related to lack of operational definitions of sustainability, is the lack of suitable economic models for true cost/benefit assessment. Current economic theory cannot easily incorporate benefits such as soil texture improvement, soil health, and long term stability, as they are difficult to value objectively in dollar terms in farm accounts. Economic models and accounting practices must also adequately deal with off-site effects (externalities such as the environmental costs of nutrient
15 Keeping It Sweet -ACF pollution) and future costs (depleted resources) along with risks of irreversibility and loss of resilience. Although economic and accounting theories offer methods for dealing with sustainability and the preservation of the natural resources involved; these are largely developed at a hypothetical level and are not yet operational for the farmer and the local banks in a useable form. This is mostly a problem of valuation, ie. what is soil exchange capacity worth in dollars? As long as farm accounts fail to address land degradation in bringing to account these profit, or loss, then we cannot rely upon any true measure of economic sustainability.
Recommendation 5
That the growers and associated financial and government agencies account for the use of natural assets through the technique of (bio)physical capital maintenance accounting (to complement modified economic cost benefit accounting methods) to facilitate accurate resource accounting and assessment of viability, decision making and long term planning, and a reduction in land degradation. Sugar Industry Planning
Just as growers find the concept of sustainability "just words" until going through a process such as this study, industry organisations appeared to also have difficulty in understanding or addressing the idea.
At the time of the study there were no integrative programs addressing sustainability within QDPI, BSES, or Cane Protection and Productivity Boards in Queensland. Similarly, representative organisations like Canegrowers and ACFA had no existing program to increase understanding or implementation of sustainability (beyond projects focussed on increasing economy efficiency). The Sugar Research and Development Corporation has incorporated the idea of sustainability in its 1992-1997 R&D plan.
The Queensland Government, however, continues to pursue an infinite growth/productivity paradigm in its regulation of the sugar industry. The current Queensland Sugar Industry Act mandates that the sugar industry will expand at least 2.5% per year - a doubling of the sugar yield in 29 years. In 1992 Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr. Casey increased this to 5% expansion per year (doubling in 14 years if sustained). This dream of endless growth fails to respect both environmental limitations and the broad social and economic context in which the industry operates. For example, current rapid development of Queensland's coastal plains for tourism and housing clashes with growth plans for sugar production.
Federal government initiatives show a slightly fuller appreciation of the conceptual basis of sustainability. The February 1992 Commonwealth/State Sugar Industry Statement declared that "all production expansion must be consistent with sustainable and best land management practices". However, without operational definitions of sustainability derived from regions and aggregated at an industry level, it is difficult to see how this requirement could be met. This has not led, however, to amendments to the Queensland Sugar Industry Act and its expansionist goals. Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Recommendation 6
In order to implement national, state and regional ESD policies:
• Industry bodies and government agencies must fully inform themselves of the conceptual basis of sustainability and effectively translate that understanding into action in their respective roles.
• State planning and legislation needs to be reviewed in the context of regional and national sustainability objectives.
• So that industry planning can be consistent with sustainability policies adopted by the Council of Australian Governments (1992), reforms to policies, programs and planning need to be integrated across the three spheres of government
The expectation of continued expansion places great pressures on all segments of the industry. Research and extension services are devoted to increasing production with little room for consideration of social goals or environmental constraints. It could be argued that an over emphasis on increasing production has been a major factor in environmental degradation and higher input costs, and has not necessarily increased economic benefits to farmers.
While many growers, the community and environmentalists question the desirability of exponential expansion, policy makers in Brisbane continue to promote unfettered growth in output. A more prudent and responsible approach would be to focus the industries efforts on production which is both ecologically sustainable and profitable.
This question of how to make current levels of production sustainable needs to be widely asked and critically examined before pursuing the notion of unrestrained growth. Further expansion may impose direct costs on other industries, eg. tourism or fishing (Queensland's fishing industry is worth approximately $500 million per annum). It may also be dependent on once-off exploitation or degradation of natural resources as it seems most of the suitable high-grade, lower-risk agricultural land is already in use. Expansion may also simply defer costs to the future as environmental debt. All the above must also be taken into account in considering the usefulness of further expansion. No industry should be given a mandate to expand without consideration of the full range of costs and benefits. Furthermore it is highly questionable for governments to be setting expansion targets for any industry, particularly one buffeted by variable world market prices, potential climate change and related uncertainties.
Recommendation 7
Legislated goals of continued expansion of the sugar industry should cease and be replaced with a goal of sustainable production defined in terms of measurable performance indicators. Conditional upon adequate social utility and environmental protection, expansion should be driven by market forces.
Examination of current research and extension programs reveals that attention is largely directed to curative rather than preventative approaches, to crisis management rather than system redesign to avoid problems, and tending to treat the symptom rather than the cause.
17 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
The ACF's project has indicated the need for a program of commissioned research into ecologically sustainability in the sugar industry. A commissioned research and development program is required and this would support the Government's policy on ESD and the commitment made to , sustainability in the sugar industry package. SRDC has the capability and mandate to identify research needs and commission research programs (instead of simply relying on applications from the scientific community or industry), but at the time of the project had not done so.
Recommendation 8
That sugar research and extension organisations fully embrace sustainability as the overriding framework for their efforts and that research and extension programs are based firmly on the principles of ESD. This reorientation of research and development focus should be coordinated through the SRDC and the Queensland Sugar Industry Research Coordinating Committee
Recommendation 9
That SRDC provide greater leadership in accordance with their mandate of encouraging and implementing ESD by developing a comprehensive program of commissioned research in sustainable cane farming. This research should adopt a system perspective, emphasise strategic research and incorporate new scientific expertise and participatory methodologies. To further encourage a broad focus, SRDC should investigate the possibility of cooperative research programs with non-sugar focussed agencies such as GBRMPA, LWRRDC and the tourism industry.
While farmers, farms and cane production were the focus of this study, research, extension and representative organisations were also involved in the focus groups. When compared to growers, these participants appeared consistently more resistant to exploring and adopting the concept of sustainability (the exception was their recognition of the necessity of economic sustainability).
Recommendation 10
That the industry addresses the need of substantial retraining of existing research and extension staff in the principles and practice of sustainability based on farmer-centred approaches.
Corporate and cooperative sugar mill managers were generally supportive of increased sustainability in cane production. With respect to on-farm issues, their position was primarily one of "we'll let the growers come up with the solution". Their cooperation in industry reform will be essential to any achievement of sustainability by grower communities.
Recommendation 11
That sugar mill owners, boards and managers actively support the goal of sustainability for cane farming and commit themselves to increasing sustainability of their mill areas. This may be achieved through their involvement in existing cane protection and productivity board mill area committees and other forums where they participate in decision making.
18 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
If the industry can begin to address sustainability on both the conceptual and operational level, and to internalise it as a guiding principle, then the growers will be able to find the support they need to achieve increased sustainability on their farms. Until industry institutions and government accept the ultimate requirement of long term sustainability, they will remain a constraint to its development and a barrier to its adoption. Resource Barriers to Adoption of Sustainable Cane Farming Economic Resources
Economic impediments to the implementation of sustainable practices were frequently mentioned. Growers have found themselves facing increasing costs and decreasing returns largely as a result world price and climatic variables, and high input costs. With such constraints they are hesitant to risk resources on change. Costs are higher than normal and returns can be more variable in any transition to a new farming system. Building farm dams, investing in green harvest capable harvesters, developing alternate products from sugar, and other sustainable alternatives demand an economic liquidity and stability that was not present at the time of the study. Despite this, there has been significant adoption of sustainable practices such as contouring, farm planning, green harvesting, etc.
Study participants evolved useful strategies for overcoming economic constraints - basically, decreasing costs and increasing income. Their general approach was one of self reliance: they did not particularly want outside or government hand outs to rescue them and would prefer to develop locally based strategies. They did, however, see a need for supportive or facilitative action by industry organisations and governments such as tax incentives, investment allowances, income averaging, and full industry consultation when phasing in changes like tariff reduction. The Mackay farming community expects that in return for accepting a larger social responsibility in the way they manage cane lands, they deserve support for conservation infrastructure investments.
Cane farmers need assistance to achieve increased sustainability. If Australia fails to provide a supportive framework for the transition, it will certainly occur more slowly, and possibly not at all.
Recommendation 12
That State and Federal Governments facilitate capitalisation of infrastructure investments for sugar cane production only where those investments assist ecological sustainability.
Recommendation 13
That the Federal Government and the Australian Tax Office support the provision of investment allowances and tax credit arrangements for growers investing in conservation structures, sustainable practices and equipment, and the transition to sustainable cane farming.
19 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Land & Water Resources
The land resources available to Mackay cane farmers present significant constraints to sustainable cane farming in that region. There is little prime agricultural land: Over 100 years of cane culture in the area has resulted in widespread and occasionally substantially degradation. Economic effects of this degradation have so far been masked by increasing inputs (improved cane varieties, chemicals, fertilisers and machinery). It is only over the last two decades that the 'yield plateau' has become clear. A successful transition to sustainable cane farming will require better understanding of the capability of land in the Mackay area and appropriate fanning practices..
Land resources must be considered essentially non-renewable. Each cane farming region must adapt its management practices to its unique conditions.
Recommendation 14
Land capability studies and regular environmental audits done by the community must become a requisite component of regional sustainability assessments. In this regard, recent NSW legislation requiring local government to undertake annual State of the Environment Reports provides a useful precedent
Within the Mackay region there is substantial potential for the adoption of more sustainable practices. Currently only 17% of cane land is green harvested. At a conservative estimate, this could be increased to 50-60%. The moisture conservation benefits of green harvesting on non- irrigated lands would be significant motivation.
Crop moisture constraints due to variable rainfall run-off due to compaction, and limited availability of irrigation water significantly influence the ability of growers to achieve optimal yields. There is great potential for further development of on-farm irrigation storages as currently most farms are laid out to drain surplus water away as quickly as possible. Assuming care is taken to avoid negative ecological or hydrological impacts, further development of on-farm water storage and water efficient cropping systems would enhance productivity. This study does not address the substantive issues raised by the proposals to dam the Pioneer River or any other major stream.2
In using water and in attempting to manage storm water in an area prone to cyclonic storms, growers are aware that they are influencing aquatic systems beyond their farms. Growers participating in the study identified a number of strategies for reducing the impacts of escaping nutrients and sediment on valuable aquatic ecosystems.
There has been very little monitoring of off-site impacts in streams/coast/reef realms but dramatic loss of coral reefs around the world has been partly attributed to sediment and nutrient pollution from coastal catchments. The almost complete lack of ongoing base line data on nutrient, pesticide and sediment transport and impacts means that while growers acknowledge the problems, they cannot monitor progress in resolving them. Despite this lack of data, growers self interest should
Refer to ACF's documents on water management for discussion of major river diversions, eg ACFs current water policy.
20 Keeping It Sweet - A CF motivate them to minimise loss of nutrients and soils from their land. Furthermore, their political instinct should inform them of the need to become self regulated in respect to off-farm impacts, particularly in sensitive coastal areas. It would be prudent for the Queensland Government to substantially increase its efforts to protect terrestrial and marine aquatic systems from the impacts of agriculture.
Recommendation 15
Given the magnitude of the potential economic and environmental consequences of coastal and reef degradation the following actions should be taken:
That governments investigates appropriate policy instruments for protecting terrestrial and marine aquatic systems from the impacts of agriculture
• Substantial increases be made in systematic monitoring of water quality in groundwater, streams, rivers and estuaries and that this information be made readily available to cane growing communities throughout Queensland and New South Wales
That GBRMPA and SRDC and other relevant organisations cooperate in research programs designed to identify the most effective ways to reduce off-farm impacts on aquatic systems
That governments provide greater resources to all parties involved in land management for developing farming systems that minimise diffuse-source water pollution (pesticide, nutrient and sediment run-off)
Equipment Resources
The adoption of sustainable practices in Mackay cane farming requires specific equipment/technology. This includes harvesters capable of green harvesting, a range of appropriate cultivation equipment and monitoring tools for tracking sustainability indicators.
In the Mackay region, the ability to use green cane trash blankets as a part of a sustainable farming system is constrained by the shortage of harvesters capable of handling green cane. To make the required large scale investments in machinery, cane farmers need confidence derived from economic viability and relative price stability. Mackay almost certainly has the oldest harvester fleet in Queensland. As a long-settled area, many growers own older machines not suited to green harvesting. In difficult economic times growers generally choose to nurse as many years as possible from these old harvesters rather than invest in new green-capable machines (at $300,000+). Very few growers will purchase and use new machines on a single farm - most machines will be purchased by grower cooperatives or commercial contractors. Any incentive such as tax credits for growers should not discriminate against non-grower commercial contractors, an important component in Mackay harvesting. These commercial operators often see themselves excluded from industry discussions on harvesting concerns and are seeking greater involvement and recognition of their role
21 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Recommendation 16
The following means of increasing green cane harvesting capacity in the Mackay region need to be carefully evaluated and pursued where appropriate:
• measures that encourage greater involvement of commercial harvesting contractors in the transition to increased green-harvesting
• the systematic evaluation of green harvesting conversion systems by farmer innovators for older machines by research and/or extension organisations
• farmer-led programs for evaluating the opportunities and constraints, and developing and consolidating skills required for efficient green harvesting
• encouragement of ownership patterns which spread the capital costs of machinery (eg cooperative ownership)
• specific incentives to encourage investment in new or used green-capable harvesters
Substantially more grower involvement in research, development and trials is required. At the time of the study some growers expressed concerns about the adequacy of extension advice, for example, confusing recommendations about fertiliser placement, equipment and strategies. Good fertiliser placement results in efficient fertiliser use and minimisation of negative environmental effects. Growers were seeking tools that allow them to deposit fertiliser below ground in both burnt and green trash blanket management. Extension advice, however, had changed several times over the past few years, generating not only confusion in the growers but substantial waste in equipment investment. The result appeared to have been less grower confidence in conventional extension bodies and less willingness to follow their advice. In this light it seems crucial that research planning, evaluation, development and on farm trials are undertaken with much greater involvement of farmers.
Recommendation 17
That research planning, evaluation, implementation and on farm trials of equipment and management strategies are undertaken with much greater involvement of farmers.
Growers identified a number of indicators that they could use to monitor progress toward increased sustainability. While many observations can be made without technology, some tools are needed. First, a farmer-friendly, simple, and indicative method for monitoring biological activity in farm soils is required. While biological assay or soil respiration can be measured in the lab, about all the farmer has now is experience and observation that soils "smell good". Systematic use of simple tools like buried strips of cotton cloth for monitoring rates of microbial degradation of organic matter would be useful. Tools are also needed to augment subjective assessments of soil erosion, moisture holding capacity, infiltration rate, bulk density of soil, and desirable soil structure.
22 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Recommendation 18
That cane farmers and research/extension organisations give priority to identifying, developing and using sustainability indicators which assist in the monitoring of changes on farms.
Fertility Management Approaches
Fertiliser use can have significant off-farm environmental impacts. There is considerable potential to ameliorate atmospheric, soil and aquatic environmental impacts by changing fertility management approaches.
Mackay cane farming uses one-third of all nitrogen fertiliser used in Queensland. Nitrogen fertiliser costs represent a significant proportion of input costs to growers but little is known about how much ends up in the plant. Frequently it appears that much of a growers investment in fertiliser is lost to the atmosphere or streams. Moreover, burning cane leads to large losses of nutrients contained in trash that could otherwise be recycled (through decomposition of trash blankets after green harvesting).
To achieve efficient and environmentally sound use of fertilisers, a concerted effort by growers, researchers, and advisory organisations will be required.
When undertaking economic analysis of specific fertiliser use, environmental impacts (atmosphere, soil, water, energy resources) must be factored in. The environmental costs and impacts of inefficient fertiliser use coupled with the farmers costs provide a clear incentive to improve performance.
Plans to improve fertiliser use must include investigation of biological and mineral fertilisation approaches. Optimal fertility management strategies may not in all cases be able to maintain current per hectare yields. The goal of ecological sustainability is the resilience and persistence of sustainable systems and communities - not gross yield increases in farm products or crude statistics of economic growth.
Recommendation 19
That research is undertaken to enable efficient and environmentally safe use of fertiliser within the cane industry. This will involve:
• the establishment of nutrient budgets for cane producing which identify inputs/outputs and losses from the production system to the wider environment
• investigation of the nutrient consequences of different management strategies such as burning and green cane harvesting.
23 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
• priority being given to developing alternative materials, practices and systems of fertility management
• research and extension which facilitates the transition to biological and mineral based fertility maintenance.
• a review and refinement of current fertiliser recommendations in light of the above work.
System Diversity
Very few monocultural agricultural systems persist over time and the vulnerability of monocultures is well documented. Despite this, study participants persisted in seeing the future of Mackay cane farming as a continuous monoculture of cane with some crop rotation in fallow periods. Alternate crops were seldom seen as serious candidates for diversification by growers and neither alternate crops nor agroforestry are actively promoted by extension organisations. However, strong support for landscape diversity emerged from the study in terms of native forests, riparian zones, revegetation, and tree planting on farm areas not suitable for cropping. This appears to offer a significant opportunity to increase agro-eco-system diversity, but does not address the need for greater diversity in crops, both regionally and in rotations, nor in diversity of income sources.
The vulnerability of monocultures may well be the Achilles heel of the present vision of sustainable cane farming, and may render proposed changes futile. Failure to change from a monoculture approach will certainly challenge maintenance of soil fertility, make 'soft' disease and pest control strategies difficult and restrict wildlife re-establishment. Reliance on monoculture leaves regional agricultural systems economically and ecologically vulnerable.
Recommendation 20
That cane growers actively seek and investigate options to diversify crops in sugar cane growing areas to enhance ecological and economic stability and resilience. Options worthy of investigation include agroforestry, alternate high value crops, high value timber plantings, etc
Human Resources
Cane farmers will inevitably be the central, integral component of sustainable cane farming systems. Without a skilled, committed, and confident community of people on the land, the prospects of industries becoming sustainable will perish.
There are a number of social conditions that present barriers to a sustainable culture of agriculture in the Mackay region. Just as the lack of biological diversity makes the cane farming environment subject to ecological collapse, the present monoculture of cane farmers means that alternate farming skills, equipment, crop and income options, and diverse employment options are less available. The lack of horticultural farmers in the area means that possible small crop rotations in cane must be undertaken by cane farmers or not at all. This lack of diversity in human resources may be a constraint in adopting sustainable cane farming.
24 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Another important potential social resource is the pride and confidence of landowners. One result of the highly regulated nature of the sugar industry has been a certain security derived from contracted rights to grow/sell cane (the assignment system). Participants clearly valued and were concerned about rapid deregulation of the assignment system. Self regulatory systems evolved over more than a 100 years are being dismantled. Fluctuating world prices, and structural changes appeared to have left many growers with an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness.
Many factors appear to contribute to this sense of loss of self determination:
the inability of cane farmers to affect the world price of sugar exported (80% of the Australian crop)
centralised research and extension planning
a degree of distrust of science and extension
the effects of industry decision making that is outside of local mill area control
the apparently arbitrary actions of governments
pressure from urban and conservation interests to change farming practices
concerns about health effects of present farm chemicals and practices
and the lack of effective communication between cane farmers and the rest of society
When growers feel powerless to affect their progress they do not see how their primary role in developing and adopting sustainable cane farming will be achieved. Overcoming this sense of despondency and powerlessness amongst farming communities will be central to achieving sustainable land use in Australia.
The cane farmers involved in the project were clearly willing to accept responsibility for much of what is required to move towards more sustainable farming systems. They know that nobody else is in as good a position to implement sustainable practices on their farms. However they also made it clear that they wanted support and assistance in this undertaking, but without long term dependence.
Re-empowering cane farming communities depends on the individual psychological make up of farmers and their perspective on the systems they manage. From traditional farming of the early 1900's, growers have increasingly moved away from farming systems developed by themselves in their local community to systems recommended by centralised research and advisory agents and/or imposed by market forces. Farmers have increasingly been presented with a recipe, a kit for "successful farming". This has tended to reduce farmer innovation, reduce their sense of control, and placed responsibility for successful farm management beyond the farm.
25 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Sustainable farming requires more active involvement and individual responsibility than conventional farming. Growers that rely on 'packaged' farming systems may be less able to move toward increased sustainability, which depends on multi-variate adaptations to their particular site, active observation and inquiry, monitoring changes and developing appropriate responses. Progress in achieving sustainability occurs through 'active' farmers responding to changing or specific conditions.
The singular goal of increasing profitability or productivity alone, will not be a sufficient motivation for increasing sustainability.
Institutional Barriers
Objectivity, Reductionism and The 'Them And Us' Syndrome — Researchers and Farmers
Significant barrier to increasing sustainability appears within the research and advisory institutions. These bodies - like most research and scientific organisations - are dominated by a narrow approach to science, predominantly pursuing traditional reductionist science that seeks to identify simple cause-effect relationships.
At the foundation of modern science is the concept of reductionism, the attempt to isolate a minimum set of factors (preferably one) that appears to have a controlling influence on a particular situation or process. The desired outcome is usually the identification of a single, repeatable, measurable factor. Underlying reductionism is the belief that the whole can be understood as the sum of its parts. The weakness of this approach is its inability to deal with the immense complexity of relationships within agroecological systems. Interactions amongst a multiplicity of components, side effects, externalities, and long term consequences are often overlooked.
Modern science also relies heavily on the myth of objectivity and assumes that scientists can be above nature and, being free of nature's constraints, thus gaining a so-called objective viewpoint. Belief in the separateness of human scientists and nature implies that scientists can see nature without self-involvement and without value prejudice because natural/agricultural systems are something other, something outside of self. Objectivity has come to mean trusting only carefully controlled, measurable, quantifiable results and finds no place for qualitative subjective assessments. Furthermore, a preoccupation with objective science in research removes the potential for that science to develop a life nurturing role which admits responsibility, supports ethical values, requires self-involvement, and is therefore inherently subjective. Successful achievement of sustainability will require multi-disciplinary, systems-based approaches in research along with recognition of underlying life supporting values. This will require a major cultural and operational change within research institutions.
Extension organisations consulted in this study seemed to evidence the well known attitude of "us & them" - 'We are the advisers talking to them, the farmers'. This separation has led to a number of poorly orchestrated attempts to introduce potentially sustainable practices (min-till, green cane trash blankets, fertiliser incorporation) that resulted in poor success and loss of grower confidence. Growers are demanding more involvement in research and, particularly, demonstration, which they understand will give more information for adoption of new practices or materials. Clearly for such integration of growers, researchers and demonstration to occur, extension methodologies and
26 Keeping It Sweet - ACF practitioners must operate locally in conjunction with the community and grower participation must dramatically increase.
Recommendation 21
That sugar industry research and extension organisations implement multi-disciplinary systems based approaches to R&D in collaboration with growers. Farmer involvement in research prioritisation, design, trials, and demonstrations is fundamental to the success of the research reorientation, and the success of participatory methods of extension.
Battling Empires
Research for the sugar industry is conducted by a multitude of organisations; BSES, SRI, QDPI, CSIRO, universities and a few commercial companies. Structural diversity of R&D organisations has resulted in a number of constraints to increasing sustainability. Rivalries develop within and between organisations to the detriment of effective research, extension and adoption.
The structural diversity of research organisations represents both problems and potentials. In theory, there is sufficient research expertise available to support a rapid shift to greater sustainability in the industry, however this will require both reorientation and associated further capacity building.
Primary industries research is not only undertaken by a variety of organisation but is also funded from a variety of sources. Some research is publicly (government) funded; some commercially funded, while some is funded from grower research levies.
With this diversity it should be possible to accurately reflect grower's needs, public accountability, and the confidential needs of commercial research. It is however critical that the management of research is transparent to growers and that research objectives are not confused.
Institutional diversity may assist in promoting innovation, however innovation is more likely to be sponsored by the culture of organisations rather than the structures. While there is no suggestion that R&D should be further centralised it is important to note that diversity of views can also confuse growers. Different positions and perspectives of the research and extension organisations generates confusion. For example, it seems QDPI has been strongly supportive of green cane harvesting but BSES far less supportive.
As the major sugar research organisation, BSES often appears to exercises its power over other , organisations. During the course of this study it was seen seeking to discourage QDPI and SRDC in conducting further regional sustainability case studies similar to this. BSES appears to operates under a strongly centralist approach leaving little room for regional offices to pursue interests of local growers.
One result of the multi-organisational battles is a difficulty in presenting fully considered, integrated extension advice. The practical effectiveness and grower confidence has suffered in implementing minimum till, green harvesting, efficient fertiliser placement techniques and other practices because R&D and extension advice was not offered on a systematic basis by collaborating
27 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
organisations. As a result, growers are increasingly cautious in implementing agency advice. Growers stated that they are happy to listen to the 'experts' but only adopt a new practice if they see it working locally, with other farmers. Increasing grower involvement in research, extension and demonstration programs is seen as an essential part of the solution. Grower involvement plus re-orientation, and coordination of research and extension planning is necessary.
In 1991-1992, the Sugar Industry Research Coordinating Committee was established from the Sugar Industry Policy Council, in accordance with the Queensland Sugar Industry Act 1990. This body is perhaps the most hopeful venue for deflating institutional rivalries and ensuring integrated research and extension.
Recommendation 22
That the Queensland Sugar Industry Research Coordinating Committee consider:
• reorganisation of sugar research to more strongly support sustainability,
• implementation of strategies for development of collaborative research and extension among existing organisations
• and establishing a mechanism for regionalisation with increased grower input into the planning and implementation of sugar research and extension.
These tasks can be assisted by SRDC's role in the development of R & D plans for the sugar industry. Other institutions and programs need to be brought into this forum. For example at the time of the study, there was no formal linkage between National Landcare Program funded cane trials and demonstrations and sugar research planning. Therefore wider sections of the industry may not even be aware of relevant trials being conducted by Landcare farmers. Currently in Mackay relevant NLP projects include vertical mulching of sodic subsoils and a pangola grass runner planting machine.
Secrecy and Science For Agribusiness
As a close knit and regulated industry, cane farming has always tended to look after its own interests and keep to itself. While this has resulted in a clear, if somewhat narrow, industry focus, the inward looking approach discourages broader communication.
A sizeable amount of research in the sugar industry is done on a confidential basis, for commercial companies. BSES pursues commercial funding for research in addition to government and growers' levy funding. At present this privately funded research is about 30% of the BSES budget. Privately funded research projects often involve development of commercial products (or procedures) on a confidential basis.
28 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Apart from this 'commercial-in-confidence research' there is a strong 'secrecy ethic' that is expressed in other ways, for example:-
• requests by the consultant for existing statewide BSES R&D plans were not met,
• requests for interviews with staff working on commercial research were denied,
• specific requests for information known to exist on soil organochlorine levels and exchange capacity data were refused.
• the BSES library in Brisbane is not open to the public nor to growers, making it difficult if not impossible for an interested grower or consultants to access information.
• 'Canegrowers' (the organisation) had a consultant review BSES and its effectiveness a few years ago, yet, this is not available for perusal by growers or outside interests, presumably because it was less than favourable,
• a more recent consultant's report (at the time of this study) was also not being released by Canegrowers.
These situations speak of a dissonance between growers and organisations and point to a possible invisible corporate interference, or profound mistrust in external scrutiny. Needless to say, this encourages further inquiry.
Much of R&D planning and collection of information has been funded by public or grower moneys. There is no justification for publicly funded agencies to withhold information collected at the public's expense.
Throughout the industrial world growth in profitability of agribusinesses supplying farm inputs or marketing, processing or manufacturing farm outputs has been far greater than growth in farm income. Generally as little as 10% or less of the final price of food or fibre products returns to the farmers, representing the resources and labour of the farmer. The balance is the cost of inputs that farmers purchase (energy, machinery, fertiliser, chemicals etc) and processing, transporting and marketing of farm products after they leave the farm. (Levins and Lewontin, 1985).
Farm input manufacturers' profits often come at the expense of farmers' profits, or at the expense of farmers options to choose more sustainable farming methods that don't involve purchased inputs. What is good for farm input manufacturers (or the research bodies that work for them) is farmers who continue to use their products. It is 'good business' for pesticides to be addictive, but it is not good farming practice. Likewise it is potentially very profitable for a company to genetically engineer crops that resists herbicides so that sales of its herbicide increase. Clearly, the research interests of farmers, the public and agriculture related businesses do not always coincide.
The justification for the joint public/grower funding of agricultural research is improvement in the performance of the entire agricultural sector. However, a singular or dominant focus on productivity increase is patently no longer sufficient in light of the social and environmental consequences of modern farming.
29 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Clear statements of future directions and research goals are required for accountability purposes. If the goal is simply to increase short term profitability, then this should be explicitly stated, and appropriately funded. If research has broader and long term goals this should be also stated. Clear definition of purpose and proposed outcomes is necessary.
Furthermore, when research organisations conduct private research with private funds, profitable practical results are desired, resulting in a shift from long term strategic research to short term tactical results. Expanding the profits of the agricultural input industries is not an appropriate focus for publicly funded research, or research organisations. What is needed is to move beyond the search for productivity at any cost and begin a serious search for sustainability in a world of diminishing fossil fuels, increasing ecological stress and social collapse.
With an increasing divergence between corporate and public goals it is quite likely that the current public/private funding partnerships will no longer work. It is necessary that research organisation are clear in their relationship to their "client" groups and that these are not confused. Aligning research priorities to corporate interests may not be sufficient if the goal is an environmentally sustainable farming system supporting a healthy rural society. Corporate goals are by their nature narrower than 'public good' goals. For example, growers see a need to move away from dependence on conventional chemical pesticide and fertiliser application practices to more environmentally friendly approaches — greater integrated pest management and biological and mineral fertility management. This direction, if supported, could threaten some companies in the agricultural input supply sector.
Of the numerous possible future strategies for agriculture, some are centralised, expertise intensive, and potentially highly profitable to those who control the techniques (biotechnology, new chemicals, genetic engineering, patented varieties).
When private funds are used for research, it is easy for scientists to come to see private enterprises' goals as their own goals, or as the goals of growers and society at large. It is far too easy for priorities to be distorted due to research funding from profit oriented agribusinesses. Clearer distinctions and greater differentiation of research and development operations are required. Private funding develops a focus on private goals.
The problems of commercialisation of publicly funded research and development organisation extend well beyond the sugar industry. There is an urgent need for the definition of research and development programs and priorities in terms of their balance of public good and private good foci and their balance of long term and short term research.
Recommendation 23
That throughout the sugar and other primary industries R&D sectors there is an urgent need for clear delineation and separation of public benefit and private benefit research and development In order to achieve this, institutions in which confidential, commercial (private) research and public research are conducted should be separated in order to restrict the influence of private commercial priorities within publicly funded agencies. Confidential commercial research should be undertaken within corporate/commercial businesses, not within grower or publicly funded
30 Keeping It Sweet - ACF research and development institutions. So that the private sector can continue to commission research within publicly funded organisations, this commissioned research should be subject to contracts which specify the free flow of information generated
Impediments to researchers moving between commercial and public organisation (such as loss of entitlements -long service leave, seniority etc) should be removed to encourage greater capacity for personnel, skills and knowledge to flow between the private and public sectors. Separation of commercial and public research would not discourage commercial research, but simply restrict its operation and influence within publicly funded agencies. Separating the public and commercially funded research is important in the clarification of roles and purposes of the respective organisations. Public accountability demands that the grower and publicly funded research is genuinely taking the broader view and working for the public good and the growers long term interests. This broader view by necessity must be aligned to the ESD policy principles focusing on social and ecological health, sustainable production and economic viability on the farm.
Effective Research and Extension — Farmers First
Participating growers accepted most of the direct responsibility for implementing sustainability strategies. They understood that this is in their interests and that they are in the best position for daily observation and fine tuning of such strategies. Furthermore they felt that they best understand the economic and social elements of sustainability in their community.
Growers require more direct involvement and greater capacity to direct the research and extension institutions that they support financially via the industry levies. They see a need for significantly more grower participation in research prioritisation, planning, operation and interpretation. They see the need for whole farming system to be studied, on operating farms, with growers themselves included as one of the most important parts of the farming system.
This "farmer-centric" approach would assist integration of local social and economic goals with wider goals. Research done on a whole farm scale is far more likely to be accepted locally than piecemeal research done in labs or experimental plots elsewhere.
When farmers are intimate participants in research they are much more likely to "own" the results and adopt them. Furthermore, they can communicate with conviction and reputability to other farmers for effective extension and adoption.
It is worth considering paying "farmer-extensionists" or "master farmers" in each local area. These farmers would be responsible for conducting research and extension, assisted by and in collaboration with regional scientists. This approach may well be more cost effective in terms of effective extension and rates of adoption.
31 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
Recommendation 24
That farm based research and extension including whole farm system study, farmer to farmer extension, and extensive farmer involvement in research, trials and demonstration be increased by all means possible.
To date sugar research has had a fairly narrow focus on productivity, profit, and economic efficiency. While some environmental concerns are included, little research addresses the social or ecological sustainability of cane farming.
As many of the essential elements of sustainability are social -such as "where are the next generation of farmers going to come from?"- there is a role for significant increase in the application of social sciences to sugar research and extension.
Application of social sciences would require much more than simply looking at the mechanisms of adoption of research. It would require a broadening of the focus of the R&D effort to include many contemporary social and ecological challenges. A multi disciplinary approach is required which broadens the R & D effort from a predominance of agricultural science to the involvement of many disciplines. A broadening of intellectual effort should aim to prepare industry for periods of intense change, support industry through future instability and uncertainty, assist in recognition of threats, options and opportunities, and as such should be seen as a worthwhile investment by growers who are working in rapidly changing industries in a rapidly changing world.
Recommendation 25
That primary industries R&D organisations give priority to social and ecological research related to their industry sector and carefully consider social and ecological impacts of proposed research outcomes. In order to do this there needs to be a significant increase in the application of social and ecological sciences to primary industries research and extension.
How can social factors, including the available expertise on the farms be incorporated into the research and development effort?
The question emerges as to which part of the sugar research and development bureaucracy is most suitable to this broader role. If we are to re-focus on "farmers first", it appears that only regional Cane Protection and Productivity Boards and their local Mill Area Committees are genuinely farmer based, local, and responsible for productivity/sustainability issues. Indeed, during the course of this study, these bodies appeared most interested, most committed, with highest ownership and understanding of the issues, and with the most worthwhile contribution to the project. Recently established and reformed from existing industry bodies by the Sugar Industry Act they are still feeling their way, developing and training staff, and generating strategic plans in the local mill areas.
32 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Recommendation 26
That Cane Protection and Productivity Boards take a dominant and pre-eminent role in developing and implementing sustainability strategies and in directing research and extension organisations' R&D efforts.
Regionalism, Centralism and ESD Strategy Planning
Regionally developed strategies based on, and consistent with national and international ESD principles are necessary to assist in increasing the sustainability of farming. Effective regional strategies will be/are threatened by centralised definitions of the preferred routes to sustainability, especially if these are unacceptable to a local community. It is therefore important that there are common national and international agreements on the principles of ESD while at the same time there are coordinated local, regional and industry interpretations, strategy development and implementation. This approach is more likely to ensure that strategies are relevant and accepted by regional communities, particularly if they are involved in the processes of strategy development and implementation.
However regional boundaries and responsibilities are notoriously poorly defined in Australia. During this project one process appeared to indicate the unclear nature of regional responsibilities and priorities setting within QDPI. Enthused by the project a QDPI regional land service manager supported further sustainability self assessment studies only to have this decision reversed by QDPI head office in Brisbane. It seems that recent moves to decentralise and regionalise decision making within QDPI are incomplete or faltering.
Most efforts to date to regionalise government processes throughout Australia appear to have failed for a variety of reasons. Several commentators have described current attempts to engender regional entities or regional development and advisory processes as "defacto regionalism" as these 'structures' usually suffer from:-
from poor spatial and jurisdictional definition,
ill defined roles in relation to local and central governments,
lack of clear provision for democratic accountability,
amorphous origins and terms of reference,
usually fails to have a clearly specified legislated mandate,
and lack of clear democratic establishment and operating processes.
33 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
In addition to these impediments regional planning and development boards or advisory committees are lumbered with gigantic tasks (which central governments have generally failed to achieve) such as planning and coordinating sustainable resource management or encouraging regional economic growth.
In spite of these obvious handicaps - including usually a minute budget- these committees are sometimes remarkably effective. Their effectiveness is usually testament to the extraordinary capacity of several dedicated individuals who find themselves attracted to furthering the common good through publicly spirited campaigns, like moths are attracted to lights. Their skill at convincing governments (of various scales and political persuasions) is only matched by their legendary and tireless ability to endure meetings. Without the concerned, committed individual thus described, most regional structures/institutions in this country would be a complete flop and an absolute waste of time.
To be effective, regional planning structures need boundaries and processes which are clearly and consistently defined and not based on exclusive industry sectors or departmental interests. The breath of interests represented is important for the capacity of any such committee to be informed and able to respond adequately to the variety of issues which arise within a region. More importantly they must be able to develop integrated solutions to problems, thus requiring the capacity to span the sectorial domains of traditional central government agencies.
While it is recognised that individual industries and agencies need specific advisory and planning forums, it is however also necessary for integrated regional structures to be formed which are able to take an overview role and provide advice to the whole of government about issues of significance to a given region. Furthermore it equally important that the whole of government is capable and enabled to respond or initiate activities with regional institutions. Therefore such structures/institutions should not be the exclusive domain or territory of any given agency nor be captured by any dominant industry or pressure group.
Whilst there are numerous models for such integrated advisory structures, in the Mackay area the Pioneer River ICM is the nearest thing approaching an integrated planning/advisory body.
It is critical that ICM strategy planning is informed and disciplined by existing ecological knowledge and ESD principles. Without such an informed and disciplined approach there is a real danger that we will become strategy rich and knowledge poor. Furthermore, to ensure that regional ICM type strategies are not simply a forum used to further parochial or vested interests, existing agendas or biases or dominant industries or pressure groups it is critical that the central state government engage genuinely independent agencies to evaluate the cost effectiveness, efficiency and technical merits of any proposals/strategies arising from such processes. In addition to independent review, central governments must specify the ESD principles and policies, and state or national strategies which must inform and form the foundations of regional strategies. Without such a statement of principles and commitments to existing strategies the is a danger that regional/catchment strategies are dislocated or inconsistent with state and national strategies/policies.
34 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Recommendation 27
That the Commonwealth Government in conjunction with the Queensland State Government ensure that ICM strategy plans:-
• arise from the regional players on a democratic basis
• are reviewed by an independent agencies to evaluate the cost effectiveness, efficiency and technical merits of any proposals or strategies developed
• are informed and disciplined by existing ecological knowledge and ESD principles.
• are consistent with specified ESD principles and policies in accordance with state or national strategies
• are informed by best available scientific information and community participation principles
• are not dislocated or inconsistent with state and national strategies/policies
Without such review measures, clearly stated government commitments to underlying principles or alignment to existing strategies there is a danger that regional/catchment strategies are dislocated or inconsistent with state and national strategies/policies. Furthermore government must review the participatory processes established to date to ensure that ICM and similar processes are not used as a forum to further parochial or vested interests, existing agendas or biases of dominant industries, pressure groups or government departments.
Landcare, landcare and Sustainable Agriculture
In this study the participants demonstrated that whilst Landcare was regarded a valuable initiative, few felt it was relevant to reform of their mainstream agricultural practices. It was largely regarded as a process for informing or involving school kids or community groups in sustainable land management but nonetheless informing the wider community about farming was seen as valuable.
During the project participants expressed concern at antagonism from the conservation community. They saw the need for improved communication between growers, urban communities, and the 'Greenies'. Growers felt that most urban based conservationists understand little about cane farming and are therefore unlikely to have a useful understanding of sustainable cane farming techniques.
35 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Growers are willing to accept the need for some modification of farming practices in response to external pressure. For example, despite concern for personal safety and the negative impacts of chemical use and trash burning, they see the principle reasons that these practices may not be widely continued as pressure from urban and conservation groups. If acted upon, this recognition of broader responsibility may lead to adequate self regulation within the industry. If there is failure to act there will inevitably be greater application of external regulations.
Growers believed that conservationists were putting too great an emphasis on green cane harvesting, implying that this single practice would make cane farming less environmentally damaging. Instead of focusing on this single technique the total system and the many forces directing the nature of farming systems needs critical review. Such review should include urban communities expectations — demands for cheap food and export income, based on non-renewable resource exploitation.
Growers also believed that conservationists continue to have an important role in assisting progress towards the common goal of sustainable agriculture. However growers felt that they must come to see themselves as allies with family farmers, and become better informed about sustainable primary production and real wealth generation, and attempt to understand, if not internalise, many rural values. They also thought that conservation organisations can use their capacity to lobby to support reforms conducive to sustainable farming eg; tax reforms which support conservation practices and sustainable farming systems research.
Recommendation 28
That urban and green interests support the shift to sustainable cane farming as patient allies, working with the industry as much as performing a 'watchdog'function.
In conclusion, institutional barriers to increasing sustainability are significant but not without solution. The goal will be a permanent improvement in the capacity for implementation of sustainability strategies. Clearly focused and directed adoption of the goal of sustainability by the various institutions will be necessary to support consistent and adaptable progress toward sustainability on the farms. This adoption by institutions of sustainability policies will require a genuine commitment to review and reform their operations rather than simply carry on with business as usual.
36 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
37 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
SECTION 2: Literature Reviews
1 Definitions Of Sustainability For Agriculture: A Brief Review
Introduction A primary function of the following review of sustainability literature was as a resource to participants in the community consultation phase of the project. Participants were encouraged to integrate theoretical and academic definitions with their own ideas and insights in the development of substantial strategies which meshed with their local farming culture. This approach represents one of the first concerted efforts to develop community driven, industry-based, operational definitions of sustainability. ACF believes this approach has merit and recommends that similar processes are used to guide industry policy development and R&D priority setting processes.
The first two chapters of this report comprise brief reviews of literature on sustainability theory and cane production in Queensland. At the completion of Phase 1 of the consultation process in which growers defined the nature of their farming systems these literature reviews were sent to project participants, along with documentation of the results of workshops and surveys. The latter documentation forms the basis of chapters four to nine.
1.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)
Today the concept of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is on the world agenda and many broad strategies are being developed at global and national levels. In Australia there are national strategies for sustainable agriculture, land and water management in place at a policy level. There are also many State and Commonwealth programs aiming to achieve sustainable landuse.
The concept of sustainability, however is often poorly defined and not well understood, especially in terms of its practical implementation on farms, in industry and in the management of specific catchments.
Previous studies have found that when farmers are asked what sustainability means to them, the result is often "motherhood statements" of a very general nature (Woodhill & Lin 1991). Some farmers are cautious or even resentful of the term and find it threatening.
1.2 Historical Evolution of the Concept
Widespread use of the concept of sustainability evolved out of the definition of sustainable development provided in the report of the world commission on environment and development (WCED 1987) entitled "Our Common Future" and known as the Brundtland report. This document was founded on the notion that economic development and environmental well-being are not conflicting but mutually beneficial goals acknowledging a complex relationship between economy, environment, society and human aspirations. Earlier considerations such as the Club of Rome's
38 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
"limits to growth" (Meadows et al 1972) had placed these two social goals in an inherently antagonistic relationship. Sustainable development encompasses the essential inter-dependence of the economy and the environment. It starts from the premise that current patterns of economic development are not environmentally or socially sustainable and that humanity needs qualitative development in order to live within ecological limits. Ecologically sustainable development can provide a conceptual framework where environmental, social issues and economic management are integrated. Sustainability in this document refers to systems which are socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.
In Australia in 1990, the then Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, established nine Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups to report on ways industry could become sustainable, or at least minimise conflicts over resource development and environmental concerns. The industry sectors reviewed included agriculture, fisheries, and forestry.
The general principles of ESD provided by the Commonwealth to the working groups were: (ESD working groups final report, 1991). improvement in material and non-material well-being, inter-generational equity (between generations), intra-generational equity (within generations), maintenance of ecological systems and protection of biodiversity, acknowledgment of global ramifications, dealing cautiously with risk, uncertainty & irreversibility.
The agriculture working group also identified and articulated a set of priority objectives (with accompanying performance indicators) for ESD in agriculture: maintenance of long term productivity, improved and increased efficiency (energetic & economic), equity (within and between generations and participatory), improved human health & safety, institutional arrangements that support ESD.
27 specific recommendations focused on policies that prevented future environmental damage, addressed causes rather than effects, and supported practical and economic strategies. Several are of specific interest to this project: • that governments support ecologically sustainable development in agriculture through responsible land management incorporating economic and environmental principles, the formation of community based self-help groups and integrated farm planning, • that future research and monitoring efforts relating to agricultural chemicals address the long-term effects of using herbicides in minimum tillage systems, improve knowledge about the impacts of chemicals on wildlife and ecosystems and improve data on levels of agricultural chemical residues in the environment, and concentrate on methods for implementing integrated pest management systems and developing approaches for minimising chemical use in agriculture, • that targets be set for reductions in use of specific classes of chemicals as a means of encouraging the development of alternatives, • that resources be devoted to the further development of decision support packages for ecologically sustainable development in agriculture, • that the government, semi-government and statutory organisations with responsibilities in the area of agriculture and land resources management review the objectives of existing programs to ensure
39 Keeping It Sweet - ACF they meet ESD goals and incorporate ESD principles into corporate goals and take them into account in developing strategies. As a result of these processes, sustainable agriculture has received a lot more attention in recent years. The Australian Agricultural Council established its working group on sustainable agriculture in mid-1990. It considered issues, articulated principles, suggested policies supportive of sustainability and made a number of recommendations, including the following: (SCA 1991) • that the R & D corporations and councils (and by inference, all research and development agencies including extension) develop strategies to ensure that their extension activities promote the rapid adoption of new technology which results from their research program • that they specifically identify in their forward planning processes how their objectives assist in promoting more sustainable agriculture.
Other recommendations cover maintaining the resource base of agriculture, pricing mechanisms, property rights, subsidies and taxes or charges, income tax incentives, direct regulation, institutional arrangements, rural adjustment assistance, extension and technology transfer, education and training and information needs for sustainable agriculture.
In Queensland, sustainability was further explored with a scenario generating exercise producing key visions towards sustainable agriculture in the year 2000. (Vance et al, 1992) These included: • well educated farmers, community, scientists, governments, • profit on sustainable agriculture for producers and consumers, • use of land according to land capability assessment, • integrated pest management for all pest/crop systems, • on- and off-site degradation minimised, • create an environment that allows farmers to practice sustainable agriculture: including markets, land tenure, and the legal/social environment, • whole farm planning within integrated catchment management, • safe and healthy food.
1.3 Definitions Of Agricultural Sustainability There are several approaches to agricultural sustainability. Senanayke (1989) describes it as an agricultural system that will continue to be productive into a distant future. Douglass (1985) identifies three major schools of thought: 1. the productivity school, where sustainability is seen as supplying enough food (or export income) to meet everyone's demand - economics becomes the primary factor of concern. 2. the stewardship school, where sustainability is seen as an ecological phenomenon and the environmental capacity and limits become the primary factor of concern. 3. the community school, where sustainability is seen as the conservation of social phenomenon such as social organisation and culture. The quality of rural life becomes the primary factor of concern.
The productivity school is reflected in the national soil conservation strategy (DPIE, 1988) where it defines agricultural sustainability as "the use of the land in such a way that does not reduce its future productive capacity". Cameron (1991) points out that productivity and productive capacity are difficult terms to apply, even conceptually. Productive capacity only has meaning when referred to a particular method of production or state of technology. It could be argued that physical loss of
40 Keeping It Sweet - ACF soil and loss of soil nutrient can be offset by increasing amounts of fertiliser so that the capacity to produce a certain tonnage per hectare is maintained. Productivity alone is insufficient to define sustainability.
Van der Sommen (1989) outlines a similar set of perspectives on sustainability without the worrisome concept of productivity:
1. the economic perspective is concerned with meeting the demand for, and reaping profitable returns from food and fibre production on a reliable and continuing basis. This implies an optimisation between the input of resources and output of product. 2. the ecological perspective is concerned with the maintenance of ecological processes and life support systems within agro-ecosystems. 3. the social perspective is concerned with the maintenance of the current social order and quality of life, much of which is economics based. It also recognises the social responsibility for protecting the environment and preserving it for the future.
Integrating these three perspectives will be necessary to successfully develop sustainable agricultural systems. A system is sustainable only when all its elements are sustainable.
Agriculture is quintessentially an ecological activity and the primary scientific basis for sustainable agriculture is ecology (Van der Sommen, 1989), but the focus on productivity has created an agriculture that more resembles an industrial process than an ecosystem (Soule & Piper 1992).
Ecology and the ecosystem perspective have much to contribute to sustainable agriculture since their objects of study are self-sustaining natural systems. An ecosystem is made up of all the organisms in an area, their biological and physical environment, and all of their interactions.
Altieri (1987) has termed the application of ecology to the study, design, and management of agricultural systems as agroecology. Agroecology regards farm systems as the fundamental unit of study, and in these systems, mineral cycles, energy transformations, biological processes and socioeconomic relationships are investigated and analysed as a whole, the goal is not maximising production of a particular commodity over the short term but optimising the agroecosystem as a whole.
This approach shifts the emphasis in agriculture away from productivity increases at the expense of the environment towards management based on the understanding of complex interactions between economics, people, crops, soil, and livestock (Moxham 1992). Potentially beneficial methods can fail if applied wrongly. The farming system is studied rather than individual practices. The design of the total farming system is important, with individual practices being chosen to fit within this framework, always seeking patterns that work (Berry, 1981).
1.4 Some Principles of Sustainable Agriculture
Maintaining Flexibility
Flexible approaches are vital. As global and local conditions change, needs evolve, technology and knowledge changes, sustainability becomes a 'moving target'. No fixed technique, practice or system is the answer to long-term sustainability.
41 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Efficient Resource Use
Sustainable agriculture systems seek careful, efficient use of natural resources such as soil and water and must avoid contamination or depletion of the environment. Soil and water resources become non-renewable when the conditions for their replenishment are not met. Senanayke (1989) considers that in most regions of Australia natural rates of soil formation are so low that soil can be considered non-renewable within normal human planning horizons. Therefore, in the context of sustainable agriculture, an acceptable rate of soil loss is near zero.
Dependency on non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels is an insecure base for long term sustainable agriculture. Therefore sustainable systems seek to discard increasing dependence by aiming to minimise or avoid using inputs generated from fossil fuels where practical. Successful examples include reducing farm chemical use, biological nitrogen fixation, and low herbicide minimum tillage systems.
In addition to energy efficiency strategies within existing systems new farming systems based on transitions to greater use of perennial plants, increased symbiosis within the system and skilful application of knowledge have been advocated by Mollison and Holmgren as ways of improving the resource use of agricultural systems (Mollison and Holmgren 1978, Mollison 1988 etc).
Thrift And Resourcefulness
A sustainable agricultural system emphasises hands-on management, smart farming, and use of internal resources over external inputs, especially when external inputs are non-renewable, expensive, or not likely to generate additional net profit. Personal resources such as knowledge, labour, experience, craft, and appropriately-scaled technology are substituted for external inputs. For example within a sustainable system, a farmer relies on crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures, nitrogen fixation, and cultivation with green manures to maintain soil productivity. Pest control is accomplished through combinations of cultural, biological, and use of chemical methods only if necessary.
Farmer Involvement
Farmers are in a unique position to carry on a long term dialogue with their land. Farmer's home grown knowledge is central to achieving sustainable agriculture. Such indigenous knowledge should be acknowledged, valued, and actively used, for example in farmer-based research, trials, and extension activities.
Enhancing Biodiversity And Wildlife Habitat
Currently, plant and animal species are decreasing at an alarming rate. Of the 188 mammals endemic to Australia, 10 per cent have become extinct largely due to human, often agricultural, activities (Hare et al 1990). The CSIRO estimates that 50% of the original tall and medium forests and 35% of Australia's woodlands have been cleared or severely modified (Eckersley, 1989) and such clearing continues in most states.
42 Keeping It Sweet - ACF Sedimentation in coastal Queensland rivers is affecting fisheries, wildlife, and recreation. Pesticide residues can affect fish, birds, mammals, and soil health. Society is beginning to demand greater environmental responsibility from agricultural industries, including the preservation of biological diversity, and wildlife habitat. Sustainable agricultural systems must help reverse loss of species and habitat. Through practices such as revegetation, remnant habitat retention, and habitat enhancement through replanting or construction of wetlands there is potential to improve the quality and quantity of habitat on farms, and to reduce the rate of species degradation. Habitat and species complexity is useful in pest control, supporting predators and parasites of crop pests.
Diversification Sustainable agriculture systems focus on long-term profitability rather than on maximising short term profits. A key to long-term profitability is diversity. Well managed, diversified farms, as opposed to monocultures and single product operations, lessen production and financial risks associated with farming. Diversification provides a hedge against such natural disasters such as drought or pest infestation. Diversified farms are better protected from sudden increases in input prices, drops in product price, or of input products required for production becoming unavailable. Diversity in farming operations lead to diversity of farm size and type and contributes to rural vitality. However diversified systems require broader knowledge of cropping options and techniques and increases management complexity. Diverse farming systems are generally more management intensive.
Farms Modelled on Natural Systems Jackson (1988) argues that the more an agricultural system tries to mimic processes in undisturbed natural ecosystems, the more likely it is to approach sustainability. Soil nutrition, therefore, should be based on recycling organic wastes, encouraging soil organisms, and naturally occurring plant growth regulators (bioactivators). Pest control is accomplished using natural predators and parasites, and internal biological controls based on good observation and knowledge of the pests. Sustainable agriculture attempts as much as possible to reproduce the diversity, stability, complexity, and resilience of natural systems, and tries to create as much net energy efficiency as possible (energy value of agricultural product greater than total energy used in production). Weeds and disease are dealt with as nature does, with resistance, fine tuning of crops and crop rotations to suit conditions, and selecting plants or planting layout for ability to compete with weeds. Keeping It Sweet - ACF
2 Cane Farming in Queensland: A Brief Review of the Literature
This chapter provides information sourced from literature on the cane industry and was not generated from the consultation with the growers. Later chapters(4 to 9) document the growers views. The information sourced from the review of the literature was sent to growers at the end of the first stage of the project, thus growers views on their industry's sustainability were sought before they were provided with this externally generated information.
2.1 The Cane Plant: Saccharum Officinarum
Sugar cane, Saccharum officinarum, is a giant perennial grass which originated in New Guinea and has been gathered as food since 8000 BC. New shoots are produced annually from subterranean buds and rapidly develop independent root systems. While cane can send rope roots down as deep as six metres, 85% of its roots are usually found in the top 60 cm of the soil. Cane prefers at least two metres of soil above ground water, however, it may be successfully grown in as little as 30 cm of unsaturated soil. Desirable soil characteristics are pH 4-8.5 (6.5 ideal), bulk density below 1.52 in alluvial soils, 1.05 in latisols, and cation exchange capacity at least 15 mg/lOOg (Blackburn, 1984).
In the Mackay region, cane is planted from April to October and harvested at 12-15 months of age. It is grown on all the region's major soil types including alluvial, granitic, sandy and clay soils. Crop cycles typically comprise one plant and 3-4 ratoon crops (a ratoon crop grows from subsurface buds left after removal of the standing crop). Ratoon cane is harvested from 10-13 months of age. The ratio of ratoon/plant cane has increased from 1.2 to 3.7 over the last 40 years in Queensland (Kingston et al, 1980). 2.2. Environmental Impacts of Cane Farming
This section briefly outlines some of the significant environmental impacts along with opportunities for reducing these as described in the literature.
Cane growing in coastal Queensland has many environmental impacts, both on and off farm:-
clearing of native vegetation, loss of wildlife habitat and the simplification of once complex natural environments, use of pesticides affecting non target species, declining soil quality and loss of soil through erosion directly affects the productivity and sustainability of current and future farms and may restrict future land use options, pollution and sedimentation of local creeks, rivers and ground waters systems, contributions of nutrients to the waters of the Great Barrier Reef, and fertiliser use, oxidisation of soil organic matter and burning of cane trash contributes greenhouses gases to the atmosphere.
2.2.1 Soil Loss
Cyclone Joy in December 1990 demonstrated the severity of periodic storms that occur in the Mackay area. Over 3 weeks, more than 2 metres of rainfall and gale force winds including
44 Keeping It Sweet - ACF tornadoes caused the most extensive erosion damage in 25 years. Soil losses of around 200 t/ha occurred on the most seriously eroded paddocks (Carey, 1991). The most serious erosion occurred in areas under plant cane (recently replanted cane crops as opposed to crops growing from ratoons). Drought conditions prior to the cyclone had reduced surface cover and restricted root and canopy development of plant cane. Contour banks in ratoon cane filled with silt and led to severe gullies forming. This kind of erosion was much reduced under trash blankets. Where contour banks handled the run-off, severe erosion occurred in waterways that were not stabilised by vegetation. On the flood plains, all plant cane showed severe sheet, rill, and gully erosion. Trash floated off some blanketed ratoon crops, watercourses suffered extensive silting and bank erosion.
With erratic heavy rainfalls and periodic cyclonic storms, the Mackay district has always been subject to erosion, especially on certain soils and slopes. According to Mackay DPI, of the 113,000 ha of cane land in the district, 41,000 ha or 36% require soil conservation practices and structures such as contour banks. As of June 1992 approximately 9,000 ha have had soil conservation planning and structural works completed . (Depinto-Smith & Mason, 1992) this is only 22% of that needed.
In 1967, 36.4% of Mackay cane lands were deemed subject to erosion (Amiet & Jones, 1970). Sallaway (1975) concluded that as of 1979, 34,000 hectares of land required soil conservation measures, prescribing a limit of 8-12% slope for cultivation - depending on type of soil, machinery, and land form. Pink (1975) suggests a lower acceptable slope for cane growing of 6% on black cracking clays and 8% on Childers basalt soils.
Rates of soil erosion vary widely according to soil type and slope but mostly according to management, the following table provides some indication:
Table 1 Indicative Rates of Soil Erosion (T/Ha/Yr)
Tropical Australian Allowable Loss 0 Undisturbed Tropical Rain Forest .05-4.8 Zero Till Cane With 100% Trash Blanket 1-5 Zero Till Cane Burnt With Trash Retention 6-25 Selectively Logged Rain Forest, First Year 4.8-13.6 North Temperate Allowable Loss 12.5 Zero Till Cane, All Trash Burnt 15 Cleared Rain Forest, First Year 90 Conventional Ullage Cane 70-500; Average 150 | Mackay, 1976-1977 Conventional Tillage 42-227 Far North Qld 12% Slope, Conventional Tillage 380 (Adapted from Capelin & Prove, 1983; Douglas, 1967; Hardman et al, 1985; Hudson, 1971, Matthews & Makepeace, 1981; Prove, 1991; Prove & Hicks, 1990, Senanayke, 1989; Sallaway, 1979s)
45 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Table 2 Predicted Average Annual Soil Loss for Selected Trash Management Treatments on a Yellow Podzolic Soil
[Practices Slope Land Predicted Soil Loss (Tonnes/ Treatment Length Slope Ha Per Annum)
metres % Conventional Burnt Cane Burnt Cane Green Cane Trash Trash Trash Blanket Incorporate Blanket (Zero Till) (Zero Till) Planted On Contou Without Soil 200 3 26 18 10 2 Conservation | Structures | Planted Contour With Soil 40 3 16 11 6 1 Conservation Structures Planted Contour Without Soil 100 6 63 43 25 4 Conservation Structures Planted On Contou With Soil 30 6 35 24 14 2 Conservation Structures (Adapted from Hartman Et Al, 1985)
Trash blankets function to reduce run-off and increase infiltration rates. In trials at Childers and Maryborough (anon, 1983) comparing green harvested and burnt paddocks, 20 minutes of a 75mm/hr "rain" (using rain simulation equipment) resulted in 21% and 75% runoff under burnt and 1% and 36% under green trash blankets at the respective sites. They also observed lower evaporative losses from green trash blanketed areas.
Of soil eroded from cane paddocks, Prove (1991) estimates that greater than 80% of the material remains in the drainage lines on the farm. However, fine nutrients, riverine silt, and clay travel in river systems to distances many kilometres from the coast. Nutrient rich sediments can move further with subsequent high flow flood events.
Available data suggest that in flood events, N and P are mostly associated with larger particles and dissolved forms often decrease (Hausler, 1990). Mitchell et al (1990) conclude that nutrient loaded river sediments may act as temporary sinks for nutrients until exported to the coastal marine environment by large episodic flood events. Arakel (1990) reports that rates of sedimentation along coastal Queensland are much higher compared with historical trends.
46 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Water quality sampling has shown high nitrate concentrations in some ground water bores at Mackay and concentrations up to lppm in lower creeks feeding the Johnstone River adjacent to sugar cane.
(H. Hunter, QDPI, Brisbane, pers comm). As flow rates decreased, N content increased indicating that ground water is the contributing source.
2.2.2 Declining Soil Quality
Under conventional cane farming, soils in the Herbert Valley suffered decline in pH and nutrients between 1975-1980 (Wood 1983). In addition to the lowering of soil pH, there was a decline in every nutrient apart from aluminium and silicon over the five year period, despite normal fertiliser applications. Total exchange capacity also declined from 9.7 to 7.0. this indicates a reduced ability to hold and make available nutrients. Wood speculates that these changes may, in part, be responsible for the lack of response (in terms of cane yield) to increased rates of fertiliser applications and furthermore that some nitrogen fertilisers may accelerate the leaching of nutrients from the soil.(Ibid)
Thompson (1966) reports on a 23 year trial of burnt vs. green harvest and notes green harvest sites have a 12.8% higher total exchange capacity despite half the plots receiving no fertiliser. A more indicative comparison with normally fertilised blocks showed increases in exchange capacity of 29%, 22%, and 6% over 17, nine and five years respectively. He believes the significant increase in exchange capacity of soils under trash blanket derives from organic colloids associated with the increased organic matter throughput.
In a study comparing 19 paired sites of uncultivated and cultivated soils in the Herbert Valley, Wood (1985) observed that the main differences in physical properties of soil occurred in the top 14cm. Cultivated soils had a significantly higher bulk density and lower porosity, were lower in organic matter, lower cation exchange capacity, lower pH, and lower levels of exchangeable calcium and magnesium, but higher in exchange acidity. Cultivated soils had higher phosphorous as a result of applications of super phosphate in excess of crop requirements. The differences in physical and chemical properties indicate that under intensive sugarcane cultivation soils degrade, becoming compacted and acidic with accompanying decline in soil structure and organic matter content. Wood concludes that many management practices such as cultivation, insufficient fallowing, burning of crop residues, and the application of large amounts of nitrogenous fertiliser are inconsistent with sound, long-term management of soils and are responsible for yield decline.
Fuelling & Ridge (1981) note that compaction can reduce yield through reduced porosity restricting air and water movement, reduced infiltration of rain and irrigation water, water-logging, increased runoff and erosion of soil and nutrients.
They suggest strategies to avoid compaction:
avoid operations in wet soil,
conserve organic matter as much as possible by retaining trash and growing fallow crops,
optimise flotation of tyres & equipment,
47 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
minimise number of passes with equipment,
establish traffic patterns away from cane rows.
Thompson (1966) reported that in 9-24 year comparison trials of green versus burnt harvest indicated that while a trash blanket assisted stability of soil crumb structure and increased surface organic matter, it did little to affect soil bulk density or the porosity aspects of compaction.
King (1934) studied soil organic matter and other factors at Bundaberg, noting the differences between virgin uncultivated red volcanic loam and adjacent Cultivated soil of the same type. Clearly, establishing that even as early as 1934, significant deterioration of cane soils were under way.
Table 3
Total Carbon % Organic Matter % Total Nitrogen % Moisture Holding Soil Capacity % Virgin Red 4.5 7.8 .478 70 Volcanic Cultivated Red 2.1 3.6 .220 54 Volcanic
2.2.3 Herbicides and Insecticides
The sugar industry is major user of pesticides.
Soil and livestock contaminated with chemical residues are a haunting legacy of past use of organochlorine pesticides -aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, BHC, heptachlor, etc. As persistent chemicals, they remain in the soil and continue to volatilise into the atmosphere, travel attached to soil particles, and only slowly break down from a variety of biotic and physical factors. While use has now stop the contamination remains and should act as a constant reminder of the need for caution in the use of biocides.
A related issue is the fact that these chemicals adsorb onto soil particles and are picked up at harvest and go to sugar mills. When these residues are concentrated in mill mud waste and distributed to a smaller area (due to the economics of transport) the end result is increasing organochlorine levels close to sugar mills.
Many of the effects of human exposure to agricultural chemicals are poorly documented, disputed and the subject of continuing vigorous debate between industry and public health advocates. However the lack of certainty on the variety of impacts should not be used as an excuse for not taking great caution in their use. Furthermore many health impacts are only proven after years of use and may involve different product thresholds before which effects are seen. The many complex issues raised on examination of the public, worker and environmental health impacts of pesticide use are beyond the scope of this report. The following paragraphs briefly describe some of the agricultural issues associated with pesticide use: inhibition of soil microbial processes, weed resistance, pollution of ground water etc.
48 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Herbicides
While it is widely believed that herbicides are generally less toxic than many insecticides, some such as paraquat, are highly toxic to humans at application concentrations. Others have sub-lethal effects, for example the exposure to sublethal levels of chemicals can lead to behavioural and physiological disorders in fish (W. Lee Long, QDPL pers comm).
Herbicides can inhibit soil microbes, affecting nitrogen cycles, enzyme activities and total numbers of microbes. Herbicides can effect soil microorganisms, change the balance of populations of beneficial organisms, and affect the prevalence of the soil borne disease organisms. The effect of specific herbicides on microbes ranges from the apparently minimal impacts of glyphosate to quite significant impacts produced by atrazine. (Wardrop, 1986)
Domsch et al (1983) concluded that atrazine has a long term effect on both algal and fungal populations with the persisting depression of their numbers longer than 90 days. Trifluralin and atrazine have been identified as being responsible for an increase in various fungal, viral, and nematode caused diseases of plants. Both herbicides stimulated fusarium and sclerotium fungi and increased the incidence of the disease. Trifluralin inhibits the establishment of host r6ot-nodule symbiosis in nitrogen fixing plants. Trifluralin is one of the less soluble non-ionic herbicides that are relatively immobile in soils and resistant to leaching (Smith, 1982). The insoluble particles will however, move with eroded soil particles.
Persistent herbicides including atrazine may pose the greatest environmental risk to aquatic environments of all pesticides. (Hunter, 1992) Atrazine was the most frequently detected herbicide in U.S. EPA surveys of ground water testing which found 46 agricultural pesticides in 26 states, (National Research Council, US Academy of Science, 1989)
Paraquat depresses the activity of cellulose decomposing bacteria and fungi, and has an inhibiting effect on nitrogen fixing bacteria and algae. Both effects should be a concern to green cane harvesting farmers using this chemical for contact weed control.
Paraquat and the related diquat are both freely soluble in water but are adsorbed tightly and apparently irreversibly to clay minerals (Tucker et al, 1967) rendering them extremely resistant to leaching. Nevertheless, the chemicals will be carried in eroded soil particles and accumulate in silt but dissipate quickly from water or silt within 20 days. Both are highly toxic to aquatic organisms.
Atrazine has a low water solubility and tends to adsorb to soil particles, especially in clay soils. This reduces risk of downward movement through the soil but contamination of ground water has been found (Wehtje, et al, 1984; Hall and Hartwig, 1978) particularly in low clay soils. Atrazine is also transported in solution with run-off waters resulting in some of the highest rates of any herbicide recorded (Wauchope, 1978). Losses of the herbicides are lower in no till systems and higher on farms using conventional tillage, indicating the movement on soil particles. Half life in estuary waters are measured at 3-12 days, in sediment at 15-20 days (Jones et al, 1982). Atrazine and trifluralin can bio-accumulate in aquatic organisms (Wardrop, 1986). Typical levels found in run-off are below lethal LD50 doses. Trifluralin is highly toxic to a range of aquatic species. While run-off concentrations of trifluralin are generally extremely low, the herbicide is persistent, toxic to aquatic organisms, and magnified in aquatic food chains indicating that even low concentrations may pose a significant hazard to aquatic environments.
49 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
The persistence time of herbicide in soil will depend on chemical, soil type, volatility, microbial breakdown, leaching, photochemical degradation and other factors. Herbicide persistence is generally described as Tl/2 values; i.e. the time taken for 50% of herbicide to be removed from the soil.
Paraquat and diquat have long persistence in the soil, with 50% remaining after 60 weeks. Fortunately, both these herbicides are rendered biologically inactive when they adsorb onto clay particles. Other studies indicate they may not break down at all, and while they cease to affect plants, can remain for up to 10 years, losing 10% per year (Wardrop, 1986). Trifluralin generally decomposes to low residual values within a single growing season, although it may persist longer. A 15% carryover from one year to the next is not uncommon. Trifluralin has a T 1/2 value of approx 30 weeks.
Glysphosate is persistent in the short term with 50% remaining after 3-7 weeks (Newton, et al, 1984) with longer persistence in low clay soils. Atrazine degradation is slower in alkaline soils and carryover of 30% from one year to the next is not uncommon (Sheets, 1970). Tl/2 values are around 40 weeks and residues can affect following crops grown in annual cycles.
There is considerable question about the long-term impact of sub-lethal small amounts of herbicides in both soil and aquatic environments and the synergistic effects of combinations of breakdown products.
The development of genetically based resistance to herbicides by target weeds is an issue worthy of farmers concerns. There are several well-documented cases of atrazine resistance in weeds (Marx, 1983). Similarly herbicide resistance has been found in rye grass in Australia, with Diclofop- Methyl and other types of herbicides. If glyphosate resistant cane plants are developed, it should be clear that long term glyphosate use will probably result in acquired resistance by the weeds.
Insecticides
Insecticides almost certainly affect a different range of organisms and have different breakdown pathways to herbicides. However there is little doubt that they also have significant environmental impacts both on and off farm.
In the early 1980's the anticipated development of insecticide resistance by wireworms motivated a shift from Aldrin to Chlorpyrifos. This occurred in addition to the general move to discontinue the use of organochlorines (Anon, 1983). Field observations of wire worms noted BHC pesticide resistance developing toward the end of its use (Sturgess, 1987). BHC also caused problems because it translocated through cane plants and residues have been found in cane juice.
Hitchcock (1953) found that the use of BHC (10% BHC at 1501b/ac or 169kg/ha) depressed soil arthropod populations by 10-20% with recovery by the 3rd year following application.
Most previously used organochlorine pesticides (Dieldrin, Aldrin, BHC, Heptachlor) and currently used organophosphates (Chlorpyrifos) can be considered significantly volatile. They move out of the soil in the vapour state during warm, moist conditions and into the atmosphere. Many have been detected in rainfall, possibly attached to dust particles. Volatilisation downward through moist soil in the gaseous phase or through ground water leaching are significant and also occurs with heptachlor. (Gerritse et al, 1991) Organochlorine pesticides residues have been found in starfish
50 Keeping It Sweet - ACF and in corals, fish and molluscs in the Great Barrier Reef (RCS Hassall, 1992) apparently as a result of significant organochlorine losses which have occurred as surface runoff or have been precipitated from atmospheric discharge.
2.2.4 Water Use
Sugar cane is the largest user of irrigation water in Queensland, accounting for 38% of all crop and pasture irrigation. Thirty-six percent of Queensland sugar cane is irrigated and recent droughts have renewed interest and lobbying for the expansion of irrigation. Irrigation run-off can perform the same role in soil/nutrient/pesticide loss as rainfall in some instances. Most water is used in low cost, low efficiency systems.
According to 1989-1990 ABS figures on Queensland cane irrigation:
50% flood irrigate,
39% spray irrigate,
10.5% use multiple methods,
0.5 % use trickle irrigation.
Drip or trickle irrigation trials on commercial cane farms in the Bundaberg district indicate that despite the $2500-$3000/ha installation cost, underground t-tape irrigation can offer significant advantages. In drought years, dryland cane yielded 39 t/ha while drip irrigated paddocks on the same farm yielded up to 104 t/ha. Drip results in more direct application, less evaporation, and less fertiliser leaching than other irrigation methods. Yield increases of 25% over conventionally irrigated crops have been recorded. Fertiliser can be applied through the irrigation system (fertigation) eliminating losses from volatilisation. This also provides the option of smaller more frequent applications and/or applications to standing cane. Estimates for reduction of fertiliser costs range from 30-40% (Greensill, pers comm). Trials in Hawaii (Shrestha, 1991) comparing flood and drip irrigation found that drip irrigation resulted in yield increases of about 15% and water use reductions of almost 12%. A northern NSW cane farmer has installed an axial flow pump to remove excess ground water that accumulates seasonally and can not be gravity drained. By increasing the effective rooting zone and controlling excess water during early growth and harvest, poor paddocks are now able to produce more cane on a reliable basis (Newsome 17 June, 92).
Groundwater systems are often polluted from agricultural leachates. Unacceptably high levels of nitrates have been found in some Mackay area water bores.
2.3 Nutrient Pollution of the Great Barrier Reef
The impacts of agriculture on the Great Barrier Reef are a major concern.
Elevated levels of phosphorous may impair growth of the coral skeleton. Nitrates may be toxic to prawn larvae, even at low concentrations. Leaching moves nitrates from synthetic fertilisers, decomposed biomass, and organic fertilisers into ground waters. Nitrate also moves in surface run off and from ground water discharges. Phosphate usually adsorbs onto soil particles and can move
51 Keeping It Sweet - ACF with soil erosion in surface waters, as do heavy metals. Hunter and Rayment (1990) conclude that there is anecdotal evidence of nitrogen and phosphate entering coastal waters and affecting marine environments such as the Great Barrier Reef and that these nutrients are sourced via leaching and surface run-off erosion from agricultural areas. (Hunter, 1992)
Moss et al (1992) developed models of water, sediment, nutrient, and chemical contaminant loads for Queensland coastal rivers. The models indicated that the highest per hectare contributions of these pollutants came from the sugar industry. While in terms of total loads,.grazing - or more accurately, clearing and burning for grazing and over-grazing - contributed the largest total amount of sediment and nutrients.
The cane industry is the largest user of fertiliser in coastal Queensland. Kuhn (1990) calculated that sugar cane uses 83% of all nitrogen, 61% of phosphorous and 82% of potassium applied to all crops and pastures in north and central Queensland.
The Mackay area uses 32% of the total fertiliser used in central and north Queensland (at a 1:8 ratio between pasture and cane use) (Pulsford, 1990). Thus almost a third of all nitrogen fertiliser used in Queensland is applied on Mackay area cane. In a comparison of fertiliser use in all cane growing areas over the period 1951-1989, the Mackay area has shown the highest increase in nitrogen fertiliser use, due to increased application rates and industry expansion perhaps to off-set continued degradation. Clearly Mackay cane farmers are an important element in the coastal nitrogen system and might well look at reduced use and alternative practices.
Similarly the sugar industry is a major user of phosphorous fertiliser. Soil phosphate levels have increased in all cane districts since 1975 when the BSES soil monitoring scheme was started (Moody and Chapman, 1990). Previously, data was unavailable on an aggregated basis. In the Burdekin region P supplements have not yet been required, however in many areas soil phosphate levels are known to be in excess of ratoon crop yield response levels. Perhaps reduced phosphorus recommendations are in order, as was recently done with nitrogen application rates by BSES. Recent studies (RCS Hassall, 1992) have shown that fertiliser inputs are significantly higher than crop nutrient removal.
The cane industry is responsible for the application of large volumes of nutrients. Significant quantities of these are transported via leaching, runoff and erosion into groundwater and surface drainage. It seems that riverine and coastal sediment act as a storage of these nutrients and that therefore they may later appear in the reef system.
While the shelf waters of the Great Barrier Reef do not appear eutrophied to any appreciable degree at present (Furnas, 1990) there is considerable concern about the potential long term impacts of elevated nutrients levels in coral systems which are dependent on clear, clean, low nutrient waters. Corals are smothered by algal growth promoted by elevated nutrient levels.
RCS Hassall (1992) conclude in their Report to the QDPI Down-stream Effects of Agricultural Practice Committee (DEAP) that: a) "While there is widespread perception that the Great Barrier Reef (Great Barrier Reef) is under threat from "nutrients" there is virtually no research which can validate the accuracy of this perception.
52 Keeping It Sweet - ACF b) There is ample evidence of erosion from the various farming systems which results in the loss of soil, nutrients and pesticides, however the subsequent movement of sediments and nutrients is not well understood and research to understand the mechanisms has been at best ad hoc. c) "There is a general absence of baseline research conclusions about the reef ecosystem. Research into a broad suite of processes is currently underway, however their time frame is such that conclusions cannot yet be drawn."
Furthermore they noted that in respect to impacts of agriculture, "at a political and bureaucratic level there is too much focus on proving the linkage rather than getting on with the task of improving the sustainability of all farming systems. To this end the consultants fear much of the research targeted at "verifying the relationship" may be never ending and thus of lesser value to that which effects more immediate change. Overall, the consultants believe that, to date, D.E.A.P. has been "coral-centric". Programs initiating real change within the farming systems which are both viable and sustainable must be given appropriate priority." 2.4 Carbon Cycle/Nitrogen Cycle and the Greenhouse Effect
While no current or past work was located giving an overall picture of nutrient flows through the cane growing system, some general observations can be made.
Carbon cycle
Intensive sugar cane production, if done with sustainable practices, can act as a net sink for atmospheric CO , reducing and fixing carbon at a rate of 1.3-2.1 tonnes carbon/ha/yr. (Moreno, 1992) in conjunction with the higher photosynthetic efficiency of this C4 plant, practices such as reduced burning, trash blanket, minimum tillage, good drainage, irrigation practices and the use of residue and organic fertilisers can increase the amount of carbon extracted from the air. The capacity of sugar cane to reduce net CO2 emissions would be in the range of 6 t/ha/yr carbon; comparable to forest areas, if further options like producing energy from bagasse or alcohol motor fuel were implemented. However, these are temporary sinks as the carbon and other nutrients re- released upon conversion.
Burning cane trash contributes to carbon depletion of the soil: soil carbon levels in the Mackay region have dropped one-third of their original soil carbon through cultivation (Holz & Shields, 1985). Therefore in order to protect soil from further degradation cultivation needs to be limited to only being used when absolutely necessary. Carbon released to the atmosphere in trash and mill burning may be seen to return as the next crop grows and assimilates CO2.
Nitrogen cycle
Nitrogen in cane plants comes from two sources in cane farming, the plant/soil system and applied fertilisers. When plant material containing nitrogen is burned as field trash or bagasse in a mill, essentially all the nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere as nitrous oxides. It has been estimated that 21% of global nitrogen oxide greenhouse gas emissions derive from biomass burning, along with 38% of atmospheric ozone creation (Andreae, 1990). Although biomass burning includes firing of tropical savannas, deforestation, and other sources besides cane plants; cane burning clearly contributes to these problems. Under current practices, most plant nitrogen is supplied from applied
53 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
fertilisers, in this case urea manufactured from natural gas. There are clear and acceptable means to reduce nitrogen losses from volatilisation and erosion.
There is approximately lOOkg/ha/yr of nitrogen contained in a green harvest trash blanket. By retaining trash, the total amount of nitrogen cycled to the atmosphere may remain the same, but only half the fossil fuels and grower dollars would be required. Further solutions to retaining cane nitrogen like returning bagasse to the farm, possibly composted with nitrogen amendments, need to be considered. (See section on fertility management for more detail discussion of the fertility issues.)
2.5 Benefits Of Green Harvesting
The benefits of green harvesting have been known for many decades. King (1934) reported that trash incorporation was invaluable in building up soil humus. He found that returning cane leaves and tops amounted to an input of organic matter 10 times the amount per year offered by fallow green manure incorporation and described trash mulching as the best method of conserving moisture for cane lands. He noted that if trash is incorporated careful attention must be paid to the nutrient and moisture demands of the decomposition process and the timing of cropping - a ratoon crop shooting away in spring would compete with decomposition for water and nutrients.
Couchman (1987), as a mill chief cane inspector, noted a number of desirable impacts of green cane harvesting in the Ingham area. He noted that there is strong evidence to suggest that trash retention has resulted in better stooling and provides protection to young ratoon crops during summer heat stress periods. He reported better yields in older ratoon crops and noted that growers appear to be able to sustain an extra ratoon rotation over those practicing burnt harvesting. Continuity of supply to the mill was seen as another substantial advantage. Green harvesting proceeded on wet days, in contrast to burnt blocks where machines were unable to enter paddocks or burning was delayed due to rain. Cane harvested green offered a higher CCS but about 20% more extraneous matter over burnt cane, furthermore burnt cane in the field is subject to degradation if it cannot be harvested due to wet weather.
Burning cane produces a problem of asbestos-like silicate fibres released from cane during burning. These biogenic fibres reach levels of up to 300,000 fibres per cubic meter during harvesting of burnt cane, have been linked to upper digestive and respiratory cancer and typical levels exceed those allowed for asbestos fibres (Boeniger et al, 1988). Throughout this project this potentially severe health risk was scarcely mentioned in either the literature or in person, however there a general, widespread opposition to cane burning from urban and semi-urban residents in cane growing regions. This opposition is increasing with expansion of many coastal towns and cities and awareness of silicate fibres in cane.
Many cane growers who recognise the benefits and are interested in green cane harvesting cannot afford the capital cost of new green-capable harvesters or wish to gain the remaining use from their old harvesters. One possible solution is the modification of existing machines. (See appendix 1 for modification list)
2.5.1 Soil Conservation — Erosion Control The increased organic matter and protection of surface soil through trash retention leads to an increase in water stable aggregates, which reduces erosion (Hardman, et al, 1985; Thompson, 1966;
54 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Tisdall & Oades, 1979). In North Queensland on high slope blocks, trash retention reduced soil loss from 300 to 90 t/ha/yr (Matthews & Makepeace, 1981).
Root systems in areas with trash blankets have been shown to be larger than in bare soil areas. The increase is often in fibrous surface roots which are actively growing (Eavis & Chase, 1973) and can be expected to assist moisture and nutrient uptake. Yield increases of up to 26% have been reported on dry sloping land. Thompson (1966) concludes that green harvest blankets caused significant increases in soil organic matter, total exchange capacity, field capacity, wilting point, and water stability of soil crumbs larger than 0.5 mm. McMahon (1991) reports varieties Q117 and Q96 yields in the Burdekin increased 8% and 13% respectively when green harvested.
Trash layer organic matter is seen as more useful in restricting evaporation from the soil surface and providing the 'glue' of colloids to stabilise soil particles in the surface soils rather than dramatically increasing soil organic matter. King (1954) notes that trash blanket only added organic matter totalling 0. 22% of soil weight (to 300 mm deep) over long term trials at Bundaberg and did not appreciably increase organic matter content of the soils over 20 years. However, trash conservation in this trial consisted of leaf & tops in windrows on alternate inter-rows rather than full trash blanket across the entire area and the soil type was rich, with 3% organic matter and excellent structure. In tropical soils, organic matter throughput is more important than increasing static levels.
As Mackay soils have lost one-third of their original soil carbon through cultivation (Holz & Shields, 1985) any increase in organic matter throughput can only help maintain soil health and productivity.
2.5.2 Moisture Conservation
Green cane harvesting could be beneficial in terms of increasing yields where these are limited by moisture stress. Holz and Shields (1985) estimate that on 65% of Mackay cane lands production is limited by moisture availability in dry years and that these areas would benefit from the increased moisture availability achieved by green harvesting.
Green trash blanketing can replace two irrigations under normal conditions because of the covering mulch assists in increased infiltration, reduced evaporation and reduced surface soil crusting (Hardman et al, 1985). The consequences for conservation of water, energy and money could therefore be significant.
Studies in South Africa illustrate the role of green trash in moisture conservation (Anon, Oct 1991). In an arid area (Umfolozi) green harvest trash blanketing resulted in 47% more cane per hectare, per 100 mm water. Increased moisture use efficiency would be greatest in lighter soils and drought years and will result in higher yields in dryland areas and reduced irrigation costs for irrigated growers.
Ridge et al (1979) compared burnt harvests, trash blankets, and the raking of trash off the row. He found a consistent trend at Tully of better early growth and higher yield from trash blanketing and attributed it primarily to the moisture conservation effect of the trash layer. This work indicated that trash removal from the row would benefit shoot emergence (numbers of shoots), at least with slow ratooning varieties or under cool/wet conditions. He also concluded that there are no
55 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
significant barriers to burning or incorporating trash blankets where this may be necessary and describes the use of cool-burns for reduction in the trash blanket where it is seen as too heavy.
2.5.3 Soil Biology
There are more earthworms and active microbes under green harvest trash. Data compiled by Stewart (1987) and Wood (1990) show nearly twice the microbes in the surface layers and 3-4 times the earthworms at Ingham, NQ.
Table 4
Treatment Worms Microbes #/M2 In Top 4 Inches As Ppm Active Nitrogen sq m Top 4 Inches Rake & Burn 75 11.64 Trash Incorporated 275 18.30 - j Trash Blanket 198 18.69 !
Interestingly, worm populations build up strongest with incorporation where the plant material is easily available and moist. Decreased temperature variations, more stable moisture content and increased organic matter are the likely conditions these beneficial organisms are responding to. The increase in organic matter after 3 ratoons was shown to be 25% higher with trash retention and is encouraging since increasing organic matter in tropical soils is difficult. Exchangeable potassium increased by 50% in the same study, indicating the value of organic matter in offering useful exchange capacity to store nutrients in the short term.
Green harvesting can also increase organic matter through time for microbial life to utilise. Table 5 Average organic matter content in the Top 25mm of the soil
| Experiment Treatment Organic Matter % Over 17 Years Burnt, Top Removed 2.52 Burnt, Tops Left 3.33 Trash Blanket 4.07 1 Over 9 Years No Trash 2.54 7 Tons Trash/Ac 3.40 16 Tons Trash/Ac 4.47 25 Tons Trash/Ac 5.42 (Adapted from Thompson, 1966)
2.5.4 Nitrogen Component Trash blankets may also provide significant recycling of nitrogen, reducing nitrogen fertiliser costs. Chapman, Haysom & Saffigna (1992) found the nitrogen component of a trash layer of 20 tonnes per ha dry matter to be 104 kg/ha. This is equivalent to half the highest present BSES recommendation for annual nitrogen applications to cane. Strangely, BSES recommendations are the same for burnt harvesting, despite the fact that burning causes virtually complete volatilisation of nitrogen in the cane trash. It can therefore be argued that
56 Keeping It Sweet - ACF since green harvesting recycles about half the annual nitrogen requirement, green harvesting growers could reduce their purchases of nitrogen each year by one half, once the biological fertility recycling system is up and running. Assuming these estimates are accurate this strategy should enable reductions in fossil fuel use and pollution, and overall improvements in the efficiency of cane farming. More research into the nutrient recycling effects of trash blankets from green harvesting would be desirable.
2.5.5 Herbicidal Effect
Trash blankets can be highly effective in weed control, apparently largely through physical smothering. Brazilian research, however, indicates that the leaching of phenolic acids from the trash layer could well be a partial cause for the effective weed control under the trash layers (Makepeace, 1988). Most (1965) found phytotoxic growth inhibitors in cane tops but also, gibberellin like growth promotants in cane. More research is required on trash/weed interactions and potential effects on essential microorganisms.
2.5.6 Retention Of CCS
When cane is burnt in the field, several changes in the cane plant can lead to loss of CCS (Foster & Ivin, 1981). Significant loss of cane juice occurs through physical ejection of juice and exudation from the heated stalk. Juice may also flow back into the roots. These immediate losses as a result of hot fire vary from 0.3 to 2.6% of total mass. Cool fires can reduce this considerably. Further deterioration of CCS after burning also occurs. This is due to microbial action (both between burning and cutting and between cutting and crushing) and to water dilution from the roots. This loss can range from 2-3% of CCS in cool conditions up to 7.6% in hot humid conditions (Foster, 1979). Losses are more severe with short or mutilated billets.
2.5.7 Implications for Millcrushing
When microbial colonisation occurs (normally Leuconostoc bacteria) the juice produces undesirable dextran gum at processing. Mill trials indicate little or no dextran production from green harvested cane as this suffers less microbial colonisation. Yeast also invade burnt cane billets, resulting in alcohol metabolic products that end up in mill waste water. Its high biological oxygen demand makes the alcohol a troublesome environmental pollutant if wastes are discharged into rivers. Green harvesting cane results in substantially less alcohol production from yeast fermentation (Blake and McNeil, 1978).
Baird (1987) found that green cane has not been shown to have major processing problems. However Farmer (1987) observed differences in the mill when crushing green cane. Without careful harvesting, leafy billets caused 10% lower bin weights and 10% slower crushing rate at MacNade Mill. Leaf trash also picks up sugar and reduce CCS yield. Trashy cane does not flow along conveyors as well and can create fluctuating loads at the shredder, leading to slower rate, break downs and higher maintenance costs. Farmer concluded that clean green cane is best but very trashy green cane is worse than clean burnt cane, from a mill efficiency standpoint.
57 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
2.6 Fertility Management "Artificials are easy of application, easily purchased in good times, or not bought at all when times are bad; they form a never ending topic of conversation with one's neighbours, a source of argument with the vendors; they are a duty and a sop to one's conscience; whereas humus means more human labour, more attention, transport and trouble. Nevertheless, humus is the basis of permanent agriculture, artificials the policy of here to-day and gone to-morrow." (G.C. Dymond, Chief Chemist, South African Sugar Company, 1938)
2.6.1 Fertiliser Use, Productivity and Minimising Waste Sugar cane growing over the last 80 years has taken the road of much of modern agriculture in relying on synthesised fertilisers to maintain productivity. The most significant fertiliser is nitrogen with cane growing consuming 55,000 tonnes per year in Queensland. Nitrogen use has increased from approximately 70kg/ha in 1962, to 200kg/ha in recent years, while yield increases experienced initially have not continued (Chapman & Greenwood, 1988).
Figure 1 State average sugar yields with average nitrogen usage 1967-1988
State Average Sugar Yields with Average Nitrogen Usage 1967-1988
-Sugar Yield N Kg/Ha
Figure 1 (Source: Chapman & Greenwood, 1988). Srivastaya (1989) found that high nitrogen levels delayed maturity of cane and had an adverse effect on sucrose percentage, particularly due to residual nitrogen late in the crop year, a problem arising from excessive application.
As growers throughout Queensland convert to green trash blankets, the typical fertiliser application and type has been urea broadcast over the trash blanket. Research indicates that even under ideal conditions of rains or irrigation following application, 20% of broadcast urea is lost to volatilisation (primarily) or leaching (Prammanee, 1989). Surface application of urea generally gave poorer Keeping It Sweet - ACF results with up to half the nitrogen being lost. Higher cost (per unit of N). Ammonium sulphate is far less subject to volatilisation with average losses of 10%. When applied underground, both materials were not lost to volatilisation to any significant degree (ibid), however they would still be subject to leaching.
Recent studies at four coastal Queensland sites show losses to volatilisation of up to 66% over the month following application (Freney et al, 1992). The urea moves to a volatile ammonia form with moisture (dew, condensed soil evaporation, rain) and escapes into the atmosphere contributing to greenhouse gases. Thirteen millimetres of rainfall or irrigation appeared sufficient to water in the urea but losses of 20% to volatilisation were still seen. With the addition of other losses such as denitrification, leaching, and run-off, Freney estimates that typically less than 20% of nitrogen applied this way actually gets into the plants. Surface banding urea fertiliser along the trash layered rows instead of broadcasting has been shown to double the early rate of atmospheric loss and result in higher overall losses compared to broadcasting (Freney, 1991).
Volatilisation of urea may be significantly reduced through application immediately prior to rains or spray irrigation, thus ensuring the urea is watered into the soil. Predictive models of rainfall to assist application timing are under development (Anich and Wegener, 1992). Plant establishment appears to be the best application time for growers still broadcasting urea. Later, canopy formation protects gaseous removal of ammonia, reduces dew formation leading to trash surface losses, and reduces surface temperatures.
Chapman (1990) suggests that the minimum 20% loss also occurs with urea buried in the inter-row due to denitrification in moist conditions during the months it takes for cane roots to reach the area. The best available practice seems to be underground side stool application as late as possible. Alternative fertilisers like nitram which are stable and resist volatilisation are a possibility for broadcasting. While more expensive, they have higher marginal returns.
Chapman (1991) argues that when broadcasting fertiliser is the only option, it is economically better to use urea and accept the losses than to use alternative sources of nitrogen. Growers would however also have to accept the nitrogen contributing to atmospheric problems and justify this to the rest of society.
Surface application of urea is not a sustainable practice and should be avoided: it wastes energy, farmers' money, and moreover, contributes nitrogenous greenhouse gases. Improving nitrogen fertiliser regimes will reduce waste, lower fertiliser costs, decrease greenhouse gas emissions from nitrous oxides and reduce nitrogen in runoff (reducing the risk of eutrophication in streams and waterways).
2.6.2 Biological Nitrogen Fixation
Soil and root samples from virgin and cultivated cane lands at Tully, Queensland were examined for bacterial populations (Murphy & Macrae, 1985). Of the 150 strains found, more than half were nitrogen fixing (mostly buterobacteriaceae). Species were similar in soil under cane for over 50 years and in virgin soils. This finding holds promise for salvaging natural biological nitrogen fixation in old cane soils.
Murphy and Macrae (1985) noted different microbes with different cane varieties. They speculate that each cane cultivar may have its own particular mix of adapted N-fixing bacteria and that
59 Keeping It Sweet - ACF certain cultivars may prove to be more suitable hosts. When comparing nitrogen fixing organisms in Queensland with those reported in Brazil, the researchers found that Q90 (a cane variety) grown in Tully, Queensland had more potential nitrogen fixing associates. Further research is suggested to optimise bacteria and cane variety hosts and to increase on-site biological nitrogen fixation.
Nitrogen fixing bacteria associated with sugar cane have been known since the 1960s (Doebereiner, 1961). Biological alternatives to chemical fertilisation may be feasible despite Evans' (1977) view that biological nitrogen fixation is not sufficient to meet the requirements of intensive crops, at current yields.
The following are important indicators of the importance and potential for biological nitrogen fixation
• Sugar cane has been grown in monoculture for over 100 years at Sao Paulo, Brazil without any addition of nitrogen fertiliser. In this situation, only half the fields even responded to nitrogen fertiliser if P and K were also supplied. (Lin, 1986).
• Ruschel (1978) reported that sugarcane took up 25-30% of its total nitrogen through biolog cal nitrogen fixation in addition to that supplied from chemical fertiliser and soil nitrogen.
• In Taiwan, a Beijerinckia-like bacteria was isolated from cane fields and inoculated onto cane in water and sand culture lab experiments (Lin, 1986). The results indicated that this bacteria in association with the cane roots produced sufficient nitrogen from the air to provide about 50% of the dry weight of crops with typical artificial fertilisation.
Furthermore, natural soil systems will have a far more complex soil ecology than the single species isolated in Taiwan, and the combined effects of a number of complimentary species could explain the total biological nitrogen fixation at Sao Paulo. The Beijerinckia bacteria occur mainly in tropical regions but are extremely cold hardy (Becking, 1961).
Chapman et al (1992) identified free living nitrogen fixing microbes associated with sugar cane trash at Mackay. Significant levels of nitrogen fixation can occur within green trash layers as they decompose, especially under moist conditions. The highest levels expected were 36-49 kg/ha/yr of N2. Urea fertiliser added to trash at typical broadcast application rates, restricted this biological nitrogen fixation.
There is both great potential and a pressing need for further investigation of biological nitrogen fixation associated with cane plants. Unfortunately, Chapman reports (pers comra) that several research proposals in this field have not been funded. Current research by BSES looking at total soil sterilisation by fumigants via trickle irrigation may eliminate any chance of help from beneficial soil organisms.
2.6.3 Alternative Fertility Management
Some recent developments in fertilisation should be investigated for their influence on sugar cane growth. These include:
Green manures — many growers use legumes for green manure plantings during replant fallow but some are finding difficulty in wet or acid conditions. Recent work (anon, Oct 1990; July 1992) indicate some promising alternatives to caloona pea or dolichos lab. Dalrymple vigna (vigna
60 Keeping It Sweet - ACF luteola), centra (centrosema pascuvorum) and phasey bean (macropilium phaseolus) were found well suited to late wet conditions. They contributed 40-50 kg n/ha if well grown and produced clear improvements in soil structure, organic matter and weed control compared to bare cultivation. At Tully, vigna, mung and soy bean proved especially useful under wet conditions.
• Biostimulants — biostimulants, non-fertiliser compounds which increase plant growth and vigour, have shown impressive results for some grass species. Preliminary trials using biostimulants have also indicated that the amount of fertiliser can be diminished without affecting biomass growth.
• Rock dusts — the use of basalt dust and reactive phosphate rock have also shown positive results for plant growth.
• Micro nutrients — in Bundaberg cane farmers were told that sugarcane did not need micro nutrient amendments of zinc and boron. Cane farmers who had been adding these materials as part of vegetable small cropping rotating through their farm had seen a clear response in cane following vegetables. They have taken the lead in changing to this practice and are gaining healthy productive increases in yield (Don Hall, Crop Tech Labs, pers comm).
Investigation of these materials and processes should include broad environmental implications as well as cane yield trials.
Recent research (Russo, 1990) into a new approach to fertilisation points to some potentially valuable materials called bio-stimulants. These compounds increase plant growth and vigour through increased efficiency of nutrient and water uptake. They are non-fertiliser products which have a beneficial effect on plant growth and most are naturally sourced. The typical product consists of a mix of humic acids, marine algae extracts, a non-hormonal reductant plant metabolite and vitamins. These bio-stimulants increase root and top growth of plants while decreasing fertiliser requirements up to 50% in a number of species (coffee, grasses, pines, alder, Douglas fir). They also increase the plant's resistance to stress from drought or residual herbicides.
Humic acids comprise 65-70% of the organic matter in soil. Humic acids promote growth by increasing cell membrane permeability, increasing oxygen uptake, respiration, and photosynthesis, increasing phosphorus uptake, increasing root and cell elongation, increasing ion transport and acting as growth hormones. Algae extracts are commonly used organic supplements for increasing plant growth and stress resistance. The active ingredient, cytokinin growth hormones, act to encourage wound healing, delay cell death and chlorosis, increase chloroplast development, promote cell division, organ formation, and stimulation of cell enlargement. Cytokinins have also been shown to increase root elongation and root hair development.
In research at Yale University, greenhouse and field studies on one bio-stimulator produced impressive results. With rye grass, chlorophyll content increased 207% and regrowth after mowing was twice as high compared to the control. Lawn sod treated with the bio-stimulator produced 65% higher root weight and 35% deeper root growth with a similar result for bent grass. Forest nursery trees showed 10-100% increases in root mass. Improved root and shoot growth, better root growth potential, and better stress resistance seem to be the most common result of using this material. Furthermore, bio-stimulants may cut down application of synthetic fertiliser without affecting growth. Russo (unpublished) has done preliminary research showing that in the presence of the bio-
61 Keeping It Sweet - ACF stimulant, coffee seedlings treated with half the amount of fertiliser yielded the same shoot biomass and higher root biomass than those fully fertilised.
Evans (1948) reported a marked increase in root proliferation when basalt dust was added to the leached volcanic soils of Mauritius. Andrew Wood (pers comm) is currently trialing basalt dust on cane in the Ingham area and commercial basaltic and granitic rock dust amendments are now available in S.E. Queensland.
Anon (Aug 1991) reports that reactive phosphate rock (RPR) will finally be generally available in Queensland. As a ground rock containing the equivalent of half a bag of lime per bag of RPR, it differs from super phosphate in having a tendency to moderate rather than increase soil acidity. Per tonne of actual phosphorous, it is 30% cheaper than single super. While most quickly available in soils below pH of 5.5, the RPR acts as a long term source of phosphorous in the soils. Since phosphorous is one of the few nutrients increasing in Queensland cane soils and at more than adequate levels on most farms, the changeover should be easy. The rock is sourced from North Africa and does not have worrisome levels of cadmium contamination like widely used marine island sources of rock phosphate used in superphosphate manufacture.
2.6.4 Trash Incorporation
In North Queensland, trash incorporators are used that mix a 10-15cm thick trash layer to a depth of 20cm in two passes at a rate far faster than rotary hoeing, leaving a surface much less likely to erode. Practicing growers state they have noted a spectacular increase in earthworm count and a marked improvement in soil structure. (Baxter, 1983)
2.6.5 Innovative Equipment for Fertilising Under Trash Blankets An innovative Mulgrave farmer has developed a machine without outside funding which cultivates and fertilises under green trash blankets. Named the Rossi Hurricane, after its designer, Mark Rossi, who built the machine to combat problems associated with fertilising under trash blankets. The Rossi Hurricane can combine the benefits of cultivation and subsurface fertiliser application with the moisture retention, weed control and cost savings of trash blanketing in one operation. The inter-row trash blanket is lifted at the front of the Hurricane where it is mulched, sucked through the machine by an extractor, and discharged back onto the inter -row space after a series of grubber tines thoroughly cultivates the trash free soil and applies fertiliser in a subsurface band beside the cane stool. Finally, a combination of tines and levelling bars reform the inter row space leaving a profile suitable for today's harvesters. Trash cover on the cane stool remains undisturbed through this process. (Chapman, 1992).
2.6.6 Min/Zero Till Planting
While there has been significant progress toward adoption of minimum till ratoon management and green cane trash blanketing, most growers still use largely traditional practices at planting. Planting is a costly exercise, McMahon and Teske (1989) report unpublished data at Proserpine indicating a cost of conventional planting at $536/ha variable costs plus 35 hours labour per hectare. The period immediately following planting has the most severe erosion risk.
Several on-farm trials with minimum tillage planting produced a yield loss equivalent to $325/ha. However these trials were the first year of using this systems on the trial site and therefore one could assume that there was little biological activity to replace tillage for soil structure
62 Keeping It Sweet - ACF maintenance. There are several current research projects looking further at minimum till planting techniques and results.
While minimum tillage does reduce erosion, nutrient losses per unit of soil erosion is higher (Hunter et al, 1988). Greater nutrient losses from crop residues and surface applied fertilisers occur in the absence of tillage or protective trash blankets. Surface applied fertilisers are unavailable to plants in dry times and this can lead to higher losses off-site and higher fertiliser use in minimum tillage systems. 2.7 Pest/Disease Management The cane farming industry relies on a range of chemical pest control agents - pesticides. The simplification of the agro-ecosystem contributes to dependence on chemical controls. As cane farming has expanded in the Mackay area the natural environment has retreated; the native ecosystems which once occupied the area are effectively gone from cane growing lands. Clearing of stream banks has removed the soil stabilising vegetation in many areas. As tree cover is reduced, wind protection and wildlife habitat vanish. The abundant birds that once assisted in pest control require homes and a diversity of food to persist. Most natural pest control systems require complexity and diversity of the habitats. A complex environment provides a variety of host plants for plant eating insects so that no one type of plant is severely affected. Similarly, diversity provides alternate prey for predators and parasites and feed sources like pollen and nectar necessary for reproduction. It will be difficult to implement non-chemical pest control without reconstructing a complex agri- environment, at least in places resembling the natural environment.
2.7.1 Cane Grubs
As a perennial plant grown over 4-5 years, sugarcane is most vulnerable to below-ground root pests and larvae of several species of beetle, commonly called cane grubs.
Historically, loss of sugar cane to cane grubs was as high as 12% of the crop, but reduced to 0.2% by 1989. Cane losses to all pests was 0.74% of the crop in 1989 (200,000 tonnes with a value of approximately $4 million). With ratoon length increasing from 1.8 years in 1955 to 4.3 years in 1986, cane grub control has become more difficult as longer crop cycles increase the potential for cane grub infestation. While control from 1947 to 1987 was easy and cheap, increasing concerns about long lived organochlorines and their detection in foodstuffs caused BHC to be withdrawn from use. Since then organophosphates, often in controlled release formulations (eg. Suscon Blue) have been recommended for grub control (Allsopp & Chandler, 1990). Chlorpyrifos is used at application rates ranging from two to four kgs/ha, one of its few remaining agricultural uses. The knockdown insecticide ethoprophos (Mo-cap) was developed in the late 1970s but its use is limited by short persistence, soil mobility, the need for sufficient soil moisture at the time of use, and is most effective on two year life cycle grub species.
The organophosphate chlorpyrifos is toxic to aquatic species, with anthropoids and fish most severely effected, and great care must be taken that it doesn't pollute aquatic systems. (Barrett et al 1991)
63 Keeping It Sweet - ACF 2.7.2 Controls for Cane Grubs Prior to the advent of chemical pesticide controls for cane grubs, sugar growers and researchers made careful observations of the natural controls and life cycle of these native pests. Illingworth, (1921) observed that direct predators of cane grubs were rodents, small mammals, birds, lizards and other insects. Bandicoots will dig out cane grubs but can damage cane stools in the process. Pouched mice and blue tongue lizards take both grubs and beetles with a significant impact during the flying and feeding stage of the beetles.
Table 6 Species of cane grub beetles in Australia Australian Cane Grubs-Identity, Distribution & Significance | Species Distribution Importance | Antirogus Mussoni Bundaberg-Nsw Major | A Parvulus Bundaberg-Isis Major | Dermolepida Albohirtum Mossman-Mackay Major | Lepidiota Caudata Innisfail-Tully Minor | L Consobrina Mossman-Gordonvale Major [ L Crinita Bundaberg Minor | L Frenchi Mossman-Bundaberg Major L Froggati Mossman-Innisfail Occasional L Grata Cairas-Bundaberg Minor | L Negatoria Bundaberg-Moreton Major L Noxia Bundaberg-Moreton Major L Picticallis Bundaberg-Isis Minor | L Rothei Gordonvale-Ayr Occasional L Sororia Mossman Occasional | L Sqamulata Ingham-Bundaberg Minor | Rhapaea Magnicornis New South Wales Minor | (Allsopp & Chandler, 1990) Birds follow cultivation and pick out the grubs effectively if the timing of the cultivation is matched to the grubs' surface active period. Species found in far north Queensland feeding on cane grubs include Leatherhead (Tropidorrhynchus spp), Yellow Bellied Fig Bird (Sphecotheres spp), Bluejay (Grancamelanops spp) Drongo (Chibia spp), Swamp Pheasant (Centropus spp), Crow, Ibis, Hawks, Starling, Kookaburra (Dacelo spp), Nightjars (Eurostopus spp), Mopoke (Podargus spp), Peewee Lark {Granllina spp), and Indian Myna (Aeridotheres spp). Careful observers will see beetle parts under feeding trees or beetles impaled on barb wire fences for later use. Unfortunately, with loss of habitat, accidental poisoning and the lack of alternative insect food, bird populations in cane lands are much reduced from historical levels.
Other insects also function to control cane grubs in natural systems. Robber Fy (Asilid spp) larvae attack cane grub larvae in the soil, as do the larvae of Giant Elaterid beetles. Pentatomid bugs (Shrew Bugs) will attack and consume cane beetles using a sucking approach. Ants (Pheidole spp), Centipedes, and Thynnidae Wasps will prey on cane grubs. Mites infest cane grubs, living on their legs and debilitating them to some degree. Digger wasps (Thynnidae spp), and Tachinid flies are also cane grub parasites .
64 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
The focus on predator and parasite control of cane grubs largely vanished as low dollar cost chemical control became available. The full range of requirements of these valuable natural pest controllers need to be considered from a systems point of view. They can be encouraged to recolonise cane lands by provision of habitat - breeding and feeding sites, nectar and pollen (an important alternative feed source for predatory insects and many birds), and through the timing of activities such as cultivation. There are many promising avenues for research in biological control of cane grubs. This research should be part of a broader IPM approach, which is clearly deserving of a greater share of financial resources.
Since 1917 BSES has been researching cane grub control using a naturally occurring fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Promising strains of this fungus are fatal to many cane grubs, as well as Soldier Fly larvae. The Hydrophilic fungal spores (conidia) survive up to three years in the soil and are not affected by typical applications of farm chemicals (Holdom, 1991). While initial indications that fungus application at planting could control cane grubs for up to two years, this has been limited by the need to develop effective and economical methods of application and formulation.
The Metarhizium fungus is registered and commercially used in Brazil and South Africa on cane and on Strawberry Weevil in Germany (Anon, Jul 1985). There are some problems with effectiveness including: some fungus strains are effective only with limited grub species, mass production of spores (conidia) may be economically difficult, soil conditions and climate are important determinants for infection, the fungus may be inhibited by other soil microbes.
The research project by BSES and Incitec developing the Metarhizium fungus control of cane grubs was scaled down in November 1992 (Anon, 1992). Although earlier research indicated a three year survival of spores (Conidia) in the soil, apparently it was "unlikely to be technically or commercially feasible" to produce a granule form of the fungus in the medium term that could be effective over the life of a ratoon crop. BSES is currently working with at least four commercial companies to develop alternative knockdown and sustained release chemicals for cane grub control where there is appears to be more commercial gain. Metahrizium research will continue based on exploring yearly application to infested areas.
A new fungus has recently been found (Holdom, 1991) in cane grub larvae {Paraisaria spp) and pheromone based controls for the Antitragus and Rhopaea beetles continue to be evaluated (Allsopp, 1989). It is unknown if this approach will be continued with the more diverse Lepidiota beetles, as their life cycle makes it less likely to be as successful. As communal swarming insects they are less likely to use pheromones to accomplish mating, however this points to other opportunities.
Swarming cane beetles have been trapped with simple homemade light traps constructed of a light vertical surface of slippery material such as painted steel sheets and a funnel collector dropping into a collection container. With the addition of a light, in proximity to feeding trees, large numbers of beetles can be caught. Jarvis (1934) reports catching 10,212 beetles weighing 18.4 kg in a single trap over 1.5 hours. Lawn grubs in California of Japanese beetles have been controlled by Bacillus papillae and Nematodes (Gips, 1987) and this may be useful with cane beetle grubs. Trapped
65 Keeping It Sweet - ACF beetles were dried and sold as high (63%) protein feed for zoo birds and reptiles or fed to chickens. Where the beetles concentrate on specific feed trees, collection may be a reasonable low cost option for keeping the population in check. Further research and trials of light traps as a control mechanism for swarming cane beetles should be investigated. Commercial light traps are already farmer produced in Bundaberg.
2.7.3 Control of Soldier Fly
While Soldier Fly is a minor pest in sugar cane at present, significant damage has occurred in the past and there are no adequate controls for recommendation! Osborn (1974) observed the Diapriid wasps were present in northern NSW as a predator to varying degrees of effectiveness. The green Muscardine fungus (Metarhizium) that affects cane grubs also controls soldier fly larvae and was considered reasonably successful in Queensland. Robertson (Anon, Apr 1984) noted a number of effective controls on soldier fly in southern Queensland including three species of wasps (Nerogalesus militis spp) that parasitise the fly pupae and three families of beetles that prey on them. Comparing cane at Rocky Point and Nambour, he noted differences attributed to management. One area had used BHC and then dieldrin for other pests. The other did not have that history. Robertson concluded that the predators were more susceptible to the organochlorine pesticides than the Soldier Fly and while insecticides are still being used, there is little hope of natural control.
2.7.4 Borers
Foster et al (1977) suggests that the most likely increase in pests under green harvest trash blankets would be the cane weevil borer (Rhabdoscelus obscurus) which was a pest in past years before burning became common. Experience to date in North Queensland has not shown this to occur and there is already a biological control agent - the Tachinid fly. Furthermore the borer is not easily controlled by chemical means nor is likely to breed in dry trash layers (Ridge, et al, 1979). Therefore it does not appear that borers will be the serious problem anticipated by Foster.
A South African study (Atkinson, 1989) showed that sugarcane borer {Eldana accharind) infestation increased with nitrogen content of the cane stalk. The intensively grown stands using high nitrogen inputs had higher infestations than peasant grown sugarcane without nitrogen inputs. The study also suggested that phenolic compounds in young cane tops are responsible for a higher proportional infestation in old versus young cane. These compounds deserve research as a possible biological control material.
2.7.5 Resistance to Insecticides
Insects are developing resistance to the pesticides that once killed them. Resistance to DDT began appearing among crop-eating insects just six years after introduction of this pesticide. Over four hundred species of pests have now developed resistance to the chemicals that once destroyed them. More than a million chemicals have already been screened for their effectiveness as pesticides and yet the progress of resistance may outpace the discovery of effective new materials. It will be increasingly difficult and expensive to design, develop and introduce new pesticides that can stem the rise of resistant pests and meet more stringent environmental and human health requirements (Forgash, 1984). The resistance problem is especially significant in continuous monocultures like
66 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
sugar cane. Therefore the importance of developing integrated pest management strategies which maximise non-insecticide options should not be underestimated.
2.7.6 Soil Pests and Organic Matter The addition of organic matter to the soil contributes in some direct or indirect way to minimising losses caused by soil pests. Teran (1989) compared levels of control of soil pests in Brazil using insecticides and filter cake - a by product or residue from sugar milling. Five t/ha of filter cake produced higher yields and less pest damage than all insecticide only treatments and a 44% increase in yield over no treatment at planting.
2.7.7 Weed Control
Green harvest trash blankets control weeds by smothering seedlings and by inhibiting the exposure of seed. Trash blankets also release herbicidal phenolic acid leachate which inhibit weeds (Chou, 1987). With trash layers as low as 6 t/ha, trash controls from 83-92% of burnt harvest weed populations. Where trash was raked and accumulated onto every fifth row, weed growth was significantly reduced on the fifth row demonstrating this alleochemic effect (Lorenz, et al, 1989). The herbicidal effect of trash layer leachate was further demonstrated by the fact that on sloping land, the down-side cane row was far more affected by the five row accumulation of trash.
Weeds with large and long lived seed such as Convolvus vines (Ipomea, Hederafolia and Triloba), Balloon Vines (Cardiospermum halicacabum) and Cupids Flower {Ipomea quamoclit) are not well controlled by trash blankets and are difficult to control with residual herbicides in trash blanket situations due to a variety of factors (Makepeace & Williams, 1988). Non-residual contact broad leaf herbicides remain effective, but application becomes difficult as cane grows. High clearance contract sprayers could be a possibility. Biological control could be researched. Depletion of the seed bank will eventually control the problem but seed is persistent for at least 10 years.
2.7.8 Rotation in Cane Farming Systems
Rotation of cane areas has clear benefits. Rotation offers many benefits, the most important of which is disease control. Many diseases caused by fungi, bacteria, viruses, and nematodes have been controlled as a result of rotation (Curl, 1963). The basic principle is simple — by changing plants in an area, pathogens are 'starved out' when their preferred host plant is cycled out of the rotation. Grass and pasture fallows are some of the most effective because higher levels of organic matter derived from sod roots will often reduce the severity of fungal diseases. Chinloy and Hogg (1968) found dramatic reversal of yield decline on Jamaican cane farms of up to 50% after 3 years under Pangola Grass(Digitaria decumbens). Overall Nematode populations declined by half, organic matter levels rose slightly, and moderate increases were seen in available potassium and exchangeable calcium. There was a direct correlation between length of fallow and vigour of subsequent cane plant roots.
Pangola grass has shown other interesting influences when used as a rotation crop. Winchester and Hayslip (1988) found that the grass supports root knot Nematodes for a purpose. The young roots stimulate emergence of Nematodes from their eggs only to be killed by a toxin produced from the older roots, yielding control for up to 6 months.As early as 1935, Bell (1935) in experiments to determine the cause of "sick soils" demonstrated how the non-rotation system of cane growing in Queensland created a slow degradation in plant health and rooting ability.
67 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
In a trial in the central district, Bieske (1959) compared production without fertiliser or legumes with production in legume rotation and found almost 100% increase (100.5 t/ha vs 51.7 t/ha). The yield under legume only was higher than a trial using no legumes and 225 kg/ha sulphate of ammonia. Bieske concluded the increased yield was as much due to weed control, organic matter and humus input, as it was to the nitrogen component. The green manure plough down resulted in a seven and twelve fold reduction in nut grass population.
2.7.9 Cover Cropping During Ratoon Growth
Research in vegetable cropping has explored the use of living mulch carpets within commercial crops (Anon, 1981). It involves the growing of regulated grass or legume plants in the inter-row between rows of a cash crop, like corn, small crops, or sugarcane. The cover crop carpet is usually planted after the crop begins strong growth and is managed with mechanical or low rate herbicide treatments to limit competition with the crop. Benefits are decreased erosion losses, increased organic matter and soil structure with yields as good or better than conventional tillage systems. The important point is that this strategy allows growers to keep their soil covered and build up soil structure without taking their land out of production. This could be useful to cane farmers who feel they must continue cultivation for some reason and could be particularly useful in plant cane.
Trials as early as 1941 looked at the potential for growing legumes during ratoon crops (Dickson, 1941). Where cultivation is practised, post harvest cultivation and hilling would be completed, followed by planting poona peas in December (in Babinda). The peas come away first and in a few weeks cover the soil surface reducing soil temperature extremes and erosion risk. While the peas climb the cane stalks to a limited degree, wind and rains restrain them and by 12 weeks the peas die back, leaving a protective dry mulch on the soil. The benefits noted were reduced erosion, prevention of soil surface packing from heavy rains, build up of humus and organic matter, smothering of weed growth and reduced cultivation, longer term cover crops could be possible with sufficient moisture. Different varieties of crops could be used to avoid rat build-up.
2.7.10 Integrated Weed Management Model
In tropical environments, the aim of integrated weed management strategies must be the creation of soil environments that approximate natural fallow, restore organic matter and minimise weed pressure and erosion whilst desirable soil properties are maintained. Maintaining a cover of organic matter (living or dead) as a weed smothering blanket is essential to both arrest soil erosion and control excess weed growth.
A permanent cover of a deep rooted, non-climbing herbaceous perennial legume can be maintained as a permanent living mulch, where moisture is not limiting. Cover crops provide ground cover to discourage weed seedling establishment, competition and mulch to smother weeds, organic matter for the soil, moderation of soil temperature and protection against heavy rain, promotion of soil life and structure, and often, nitrogen fixation. Strips can be tilled or sprayed out for replanting and various management strategies can be employed during the growing season(s) to manage the crop/cover crop competition.
Inter-cropping cane with a summer annual grass or grass/legume mixture that dies back in the dry season is another approach. The dry tops fall to mulch the crop and protect the soil. Problems of timing and replanting in long term ratoon crops makes the approach less valuable for sugarcane, though it would be useful at plant cane establishment where a summer annual is planted at or
68 . Keeping It Sweet - ACF slightly later than the cane and is up and protecting the soil by the time summer rains start. Further research and development on cover cropping and integrated weed management for cane is needed. 2.8 Yield Decline
It is widely thought that yield decline in sugar cane varieties may be due to root pathogens. Mansour & Hamdi (1983) isolated 40 species of fungi in the genera Fusarium, Verticillium, Alternaria, Aspergillus, Pythium andRhizopus from growing cane fields. These fungi were individually tested on sterile soil and cuttings to evaluate their effect on bud germination and root growth. The impact varied between different cane varieties and types of fungi, but generally fungal invasion restricted germination and rooting.
The source of this variation was investigated by looking into the effect of sugar cane juice from the different varieties on fungal invasion. The juice of most varieties was not effective in reducing infection, however several varieties possessed some sort of defensive, fungus inhibiting substance in their juice.
The study also identified 33 isolates of actinomycetes or thread bacteria belonging to the genera Streptomyces, Nocardia and Micromonospora. They found that the actinomycetes in some cases, were antagonistic to certain fungi and partially controlled the loss of germination and rooting caused by the fungi.
Clearly a complex soil ecology with many natural checks and balances occurs at the soil-plant interface. There is scope to look into this arena for naturally based fungus controls in cane. Yang (1972) also found the severity of root rot infection was less where high microbial actinomycetes populations were present. A report on 1989 BSES yield decline research (BSES, 1990) reported that 100 bacterial isolates and 69 fungal isolates obtained from diseased root systems were screened for pathogenicity in glasshouse tests and none significantly restricted growth of sugar cane roots.
There is a need to shift the focus away from specific pathogens and on to soil ecology - plant, host, pathogen and environment relationships. Maintenance of complex soil biology and overall soil health should be considered to arrest yield decline. For example rather than specific pathogens McKenzie found that declining yields of irrigated cotton on clay soils was largely due to degradation of soil structure:- increased subsoil compaction, decreased soil organic matter, greater dispersion of soil aggregates in surface layers, and a decrease in soil life - after 15 years of farming . (McKenzie, 1991)
Decreasing CCS is a factor in yield decline, particularly in northern cane areas. Sturgess (1982) considered that much of the decline in CCS has been the result of changing farm practices. He maintained that although the average seasonal CCS of present varieties is potentially superior to that of the superseded varieties, this potential has not been realised because of changing cultural practices. Bieske (1983) calculated the decline in CCS to range from 0.015 % CCS per year in the South to 0.085 % CCS per year in the North. He considered several causes including rainfall prior to harvest, mean temperature, and a long term trend toward increased fibre in cane harvests. He notes that nitrogen fertiliser use has been increasing (from 1962-1981) at a rate of 6kg N/yr creating a doubling of nitrogen application over that 20 year period. He concludes that the long term trend for purity and brix decreases is likely to be associated with increasing rates of nitrogen fertiliser usage. Therefore higher yields based on increased fertiliser use are achieved at the cost of CCS content.
69 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Cane develops a symbiotic relationship with beneficial soil fungi. Cane roots provide carbon (sugar) - an energy source to the fungus - and the fungus assists in dissolving and making available mineral nutrients. In a number of studies in South Africa (Dymond, 1994; Howard, 1943) it was shown that under fertile humus rich conditions sugar cane was not infected, or recovered from infection from a streak virus, due to the presence of the mycorrhizal partnership described above. Dymond also observed that where artificial fertilisers were used, the mycorrhizal partnership was abandoned and the cane plants were once again subject to the disease. Howard (1943) also noted that the conversion from animal and compost based fertilisers to artificial chemical fertilisers produced a clear reaction by sugar cane crops in India: insect and fungus diseases increased and cane varieties showed a marked tendency to run out. Howard states the absence of humus fertilisers led to incipient malnutrition in the plant and that each ratoon suffered from an increasingly imperfect carbohydrate and protein synthesis, leading to yield decline from susceptibility to pathogens.
Current research supported by SRDC on yield decline will be looking at this approach. Dr. Ted Henzell, SRDC Chairman considers poor root growth is an important part of the yield decline problem and that there is a real chance to identify some of the beneficial organisms as well as those that might cause the problem (Anon, Aug 1992).
2.9 Economics of Cane Farming Systems
Cane farming operates in a unique economic environment. Cane farmers sell to one buyer, have no control over price and cannot ascertain a price during harvest. The product is not saleable as cane, but is milled prior to sale. Furthermore, cane farming areas are almost entirely monocultures producing only cane.
Whilst there are few options within growers control of changing returns, cane farmers have alternatives for reducing costs or designing growing systems to optimise net income. Of particular interest are the economic advantages offered by green harvesting since this practice appears to contribute to both economic and environmental sustainability.
There are only a few documented studies of the economics of green cane harvesting. Smith et al (1984) looked simply at the difference derived from the reduced cultivation practice (see table 7 below) and assumes fertiliser broadcasting and no ridge reforming required.
Table 7 Variable Costs of Green Harvest
Ratoon Cultivation Costs Per Hectare Green Cane Expense Normal Cultivation 10 Passes Trash Blanketing 1 Pass (Fert) Broadcast Fuel And Oil 48.30 2.90 Repairs & Maintenance 40.10 3.90 Labor 48.50 4.70 Total 136.90 11.50
Variable Cost- Difference $ 125.40/Ha/Yr | (From Smith et al, 1984) Keeping It Sweet - ACF
In addition to the variable cost difference above, savings on fixed costs become available in the longer term as the reduction in both size and number of tractors and implements used on farms practicing trash blanketing and were estimated at $46.60/ha/yr. Looking at the harvest operation and considering 5 year averages for yield, percentage higher CCS with green harvesting, extraneous matter, 10% higher urea application, higher harvester cost & losses, less burning costs, and including the above reduced cultivation costs; the possible savings for green harvest were $34.74/ha/year plus fixed cost savings of $46.60 or $81.34/ha/year.
Ridge (1984) costed green cane harvesting in south Queensland and concluded that possible savings of $60/ha may result. When his estimate of fixed equipment cost savings of $38/ha were added the yearly benefit of green cane harvesting comes to $98/ha, or quite close to Smith's estimate of $81.34/ha. These practical costings are useful, but do not include a number of documented and likely benefits. They also do not include the intangible benefits that are difficult to quantify or consider in traditional economic models. If we include a number of other studies and some reasonable estimates for other benefits, a different picture emerges, as a 'best case' example. The figures in Table 8 roughly document economic advantage of a green cane trash blanket system. Under intermediary minimum or zero tillage systems, there is considerably less spent on tillage with increased expenses on herbicides. Such systems are less costly than conventional culture.
The most difficult problem in establishing economic benefits of implementing sustainable practices is the inadequacy of the tools available for analysis. Growers interviewed clearly saw the soil conservation and improvement benefits achieved by green cane trash harvesting. However these benefits are generally treated as intangibles or externalities by most current cost-benefit economic models. They are difficult or impossible to include in such models regardless of their obvious importance. As a result, traditional economic analysis of the benefits of implementing sustainable practices are at best weak, and at worst, misleading.
71 Keeping It Sweet • ACF
Table 8 Economic Advantages of Green Cane Trash Blanket Farming Compared With Conventional Cultivation
Savings/Ha/Yr Ave Variable Costs of Ratoon Cultivation and Fertilisation of 22.16 (1), 37.70 (2), 60.00 (6) 61.30 and 125.40 (5) Ave Fixed Costs of Ratoon Cultivation of 32.00 (2), 34.74(3), 38.00(6) 34.91 Labor Cost of Conventional Tillage (1) @7.4 Hr-$12/Hr 89.28 Savings on Two Irrigations (1) ** Applies To Irrigated Farms Only 54.00 Higher CCS .3 Units @$230/T Price 56.00 No Payment of Burnt Cane Penalty . 10/T, 80t/Ha 8.00 10% Yield Increase 8t @$28/T (5) 224.00 Savings on lOOkg/Ha Nitrogen Now Present in Trash @$.86/Kg As Urea @$400/T 86.00 Total 613.49 Less: Higher Green Harvest Costs @$80t/Ha, $1.00/T (4) (80.00) 1 Assumes Losses=Burnt Total Advantage Per Ha Ratoons If Dryland $533.49 1 -If Irrigated** $479.49 J
(l)HardmanEtAl, 1985 (2) Teske & Gibbons, 1991 (3) Smith Et Al, 1984 (4) Saved burning costs assumed off-set by fire prevention & management (5) Based on yield increases of Thompson (1965) 9.6 T/Ha, Teske (1991) 7.1 T/Ha applies if unirrigated dry sites (65% of Mackay district) (6) Ridge, 1984
At the time of the growers consultation, economic conditions in the sugar industry were not good. Farm debt has increased while commodity price and tariff protection have declined. Adverse climatic conditions in the late eighties and early 90's has made the situation worse.
Due to high debt load and marginal economics of cane farming, farms are often being sold to larger, successful growers or private milling companies for operation as share farms. The result can be a deterioration in standard of farming, level of knowledge and care, and conservation activities (Joe Farley, ACFA pers comm). Anecdotal evidence from Bundaberg is clear following such farm sales to corporate mills.
72 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Figure 2
Average Gross Indebtedness Cueensland Sugar Cane Farm
1988/ 89 1989/ 90 1990/ 91
From Canegrowers- Mackay District Newsletter, July 1992
Figure 3
Mackay District, Revenue Lost Due to Climatic Conditions
2.9.1 Trade Due to increasing USA quota restrictions on Australian sugar, since 1990-1991 Australian sugar sales to the US have been cut 42% (anon, Sept 1992). With the new North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. may replace Australian sugar with supplies from Mexico in the long term. Australia can now supply the U.S. with 8.3% of its imported sugar or 96,786 tonnes.
73 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
2.9.2 Sugar Replacements
A new class of sugar mimics have been found by the Nutra Sweet Company in the US. Unlike familiar artificial sweeteners, these non-toxic polyhydroxylic compounds behave like sugars in cooking and baking (Bradley, 1992). For the first time, sugar can be replaced in cakes, biscuits, frozen desserts and confectionery to produce diet foods. Expected to be on the market within five years, this could have a substantial impact on the demand for sugar.
2.9.3 Diversification and Value Adding - Mushrooms and Pigs
Bagasse is currently mostly used for fuel in mills, however it can be used for higher uses than simply fuel. While bagasse has low nutritive value for animal feed it can be used for growing mushrooms. Certain edible fungi delignify bagasse and improve its nutritive value as animal feed in addition to providing high quality gourmet mushrooms (Azim, et al, 1987). After growing mushrooms on bagasse, the protein content doubled to ~7% and crude fibre decreased 30%. Enzyme soluble organic matter almost doubled and up to 36% of the biomass (dry matter basis) was converted to high value oyster mushrooms. This is value adding!
Recent feeding trials with pigs at Gatton College have shown remarkable results from Sucrafeed, a granulated fraction made from the sugar rich soft tissue cells of cane containing natural sugars and cell wall material. After nine weeks on a ration of up to 50% Sucrafeed, fat levels were reduced by 40% and eye muscle increased 30% with slightly higher overall gains compared to those on a straight grain diet. With many markets demanding leaner meat and low fat pork attracting a 50% price premium in Japan, perhaps some cane farmers can consider this alternative use of their cane crops, (anon, 3 Dec 1992)
2.10 Other Sustainable Practices
A variety of other more sustainable farming practices for cane growing that are being used but are not elaborated on in this report include:
use of artificial wetlands to filter nutrients, pesticides and sediments. irrigation runoff control (surge timing, trickle). sediment runoff control using grazed buffer strips. synchronisation of fertiliser application with crop demand. use of slow release fertilisers. fallow management using herbicides to spray out green manure crops.
74 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
3 Mackay Sugar Cane Farming Systems
3.1 The Study Area
Situated on the Queensland central coast, the Mackay region has a moist subtropical climate and highly varied topography:- coastal plains, coastal mountains, alluvial plains, and riverine environments. Twenty different geological formations give rise to 54 different soil types of high diversity.
Typically, summers are warm and humid and winters mild and dry with some frosts. Rainfall varies from 1281mm/yr at Eton, 1596mm/yr at Sarina to 1639mm/yr at Te Kowai (50% median, 5 times in 10 years; Bureau of Meteorology, 1965). Seventy per cent of the median annual rainfall occurs from December to March with minimums occurring July to September. Rainfall extremes occur and are substantial. Annual rainfalls of 3000mm are likely once in ten years. Twenty-four hour totals of 878mm have been recorded at Finch Hatton. Falls of 63mm in a half hour period and 150mm in a six hour period have been estimated to occur every 10 years. Cyclones periodically sweep the area, the most recent being Cyclone Joy in 1990.
Average maximum daily temperatures are 30 degrees C in summer and 23 degrees C in winter with average minimums of 21 degrees C in summer and 10 degrees C in winter. Temperature extremes of <5 degrees C occur an average of 7 days a year and >35 degrees C for 3 days per year.
3.2 Mackay Region Cane Farming
Cane has been grown in the Mackay region since the late 1800's. The study area included the Mackay and Sarina cane-growing districts including Farleigh, Racecourse, Marian, Pleystowe, and Plane Creek mill areas. Cane is produced on specific farms under an industry assignment system. Some 1340 cane farmers operate on about 102,000 hectares (ha) of assigned cane land (an average of 76 ha cane assignment per farm). Yields of 73.8 tonnes per hectare, (t)/ha of cane are typical. This cane has an average commercial cane sugar (CCS) content of 14.5%, yielding 10.7 t/ha of 74 net titre raw sugar (average 1973-1982).
Sugar is a significant export industry. The Mackay district, including Proserpine produces 20% of Australian sugar exports (15% of world traded sugar). The long term average price for export is 8 cents USD per pound.
Raw sugar exports are handled by a Mackay based bulk terminal through the Queensland Sugar Corporation (QSC). Recent negotiations have initiated a refinery to produce refined sugar under a joint venture between Mackay Sugar Cooperative Association and the U.K. based company ED and F Man. The refinery is to be sited at Mackay.
75 Keeping, It Sweet - ACF
3.3 Land for Cane Farming
Much land in the Mackay district has substantial limitations for cane farming due to shallow heavy soils, often with erosive slope or texture conditions (Table 8a). Only 44% of existing Mackay cane assignment and 40% of Plane Creek can be said to have good soil for cane farming (Class 1 & 2). Of lands potentially suitable for cane, only 29% of Mackay lands and 18% of Plane Creek lands would be Class 1 or 2. Major limitations are, in descending order of land area they affect: moisture availability, wetness, erosion risk, or stoniness. 2,050 hectares (15%) of existing current cane assignment is on marginal or unsuitable land (Class 4 or 5) though much of this may not currently be in cultivation.
Of the Mackay area assigned lands, 14,450 hectares are suffering little erosion, 12,230 hectares are suffering observable erosion, and 2230 hectares are suffering severe erosion, 46% are limited by sodic subsoils, offering an alkaline and restrictive environment for root development. Small areas of saline or sodic surface conditions exist and are growing (Holz & Shields, 1985; Wills & Baker, 1988).
Changing landuse is also reducing availability of land for cane farming. Loss to urban expansion is small but significant as these lands are often prime class 1 or 2 lands. It is estimated that in the Mackay region, 390 to 1000 hectares of good cane land will be urbanised by the year 2000 (Ullman & Nolan, 1978).
76 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
TABLE 8a
LAND SUITABLE FOR SUGAR CANE WITfflN THE STUDY AREA
Mackay Plane Creek
Soil Class Assn. ha. %of Unassn. ha. Assn. ha. % of Unassn. ha. Assn. Assn. land
lands
Class 1 4220 4% 430 40 .3% 10
No Limitations
Class 2 43,330 12,010 6380 40% 8440
Some limitations 40%
Class 3 56,020 27,130 8460 52.7% 26,500
Significant limitation 52%
Class 4 4470 2880 1100 7% 12,190
marginal 4%
Total 108,040
86,576 100% 42,450 15,980 100% 47,140 presently cultivated Assn. - Assignment, Unassn. - Land without assignment
77 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Geological Origin of Soils 6 Mackay Mill Areas (ha)
Quaternary alluvium Duplex soils 24,091 Uniform clays 10,596 Terraces, flood plains and levees 6,120 Upland Soils (40%) Basic-intermediate volcanics Sedentary 6,938 Alluvial-colluvial 2,173 Acid-intermediate volcanics 5,489 Acid-intermediate dikes and intrusives Sedentary 6,538 Alluvial-colluvial 3,598 Sedentary rocks 5,356 Alluvial-colluvial plains derived from sedimentary 3,883 rocks and acid to intermediate volcanics (4%) Beach ridges 518 j (per Kingston et al, 1990) 3.4 Water and Irrigation
Water resources for irrigation are limited in the southern and northern area with greater availability along the Pioneer River. Only 44 farmers irrigate in the Plane Creek mill area. In the Mackay area, 60% of farmers have irrigation and are able to irrigate 51% of their assigned area. Ground water recharge is primarily from deep percolation of rainwater rather than from creeks and rivers. Ground water recharge has decreased due to irrigation pumping, increased water runoff from cane lands due to compaction, stream channelisation, drainage works, and recent droughts. Salt water intrusion into bores on the coastal plain south of Mackay has recently increased. There are several storage weirs & dams in the district, the Eton Irrigation Scheme, and interest in the construction of additional large dams.
78 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
3.5 Harvesting equipment
Only 30% of Mackay cane farmers own their own harvester, 16% participate in local grower cooperative ownership, 24% own and contract out, and the remainder use outside commercial harvesting contractors.
90% of harvesters used in Mackay in 1991, were produced before 1985 and the number of harvesters in commission has essentially been stable since 1986. Of the 382 harvesters available, 30% are old Mizzi types not suited to green harvesting. Some 38% are pre-1984 Toft models with little green harvest capability. The remainder are older Massey Ferguson and Austoft models, some renovated to enable green harvesting. According to the Queensland Mechanical Cane Harvesters Association (QMCHA), only 8% of available harvesters in Mackay are newer Toft 6000/7000, machines practically and economically capable of green harvesting. Thus with only about 10% of available harvesters suited to green harvest practices, the potential to expand green harvesting is closely linked to the ability of the Mackay industry to capitalise new equipment. As 80% of the QMCHA is composed of grower-contractors (20% as contractor only), the ability to acquire new equipment is linked to farm profitability as well as harvesting business profitability. 3.6 QDPI Survey on Adoption of Sustainable Practices
QDPI conducted a mail survey in mid 1992 in an attempt to assess the current level of adoption of sustainable management on cane farms in the Mackay region. The questionnaire had 5 key objectives: 1. to establish the level of adoption of conservation practices 2. to identify barriers to adoption of conservation practices 3. to identify advantages of adopting conservation practices 4. to review the quality and level of service provided 5. to assess general attitudes toward conservation by district farmers
The principal findings of the survey were higher than expected adoption levels of conservation practices, but the area protected is still far short of that which is required. Only 25% of the area requiring contour banks is implemented and only 10% of land requiring strategic row direction is protected. The survey showed that 31% of the total cane areas have some form of soil conservation structure in place.
Other findings included: 70% of respondents are using min till in ratoon cane on 53% of the district area 53% of growers practice some green harvesting but only on 17% of the area 84% of growers still practice conventional tillage during fallow/replant 52% use green manure crops at fallow/replant nearly nil practice of minimum till plant cane
79 CHARACTERISTIC MACKAY SUGARCANE FARMING SYSTEMS 1992
Practice Conventional High Culture Min/No Till Composite-Proto Sustainable Paddock layout Up & down rows, no Variable size, contoured as Modern layout, contoured as DPI farm plan used, contoured as contours needed needed needed HarvestManaqement Burnt Burnt or qreen Burnt or qreen Green whenever possible Trash Management Tops burnt or incorporated Trash fully incorporated Trash left on surface Tops or blanket trash retention; surface or liqht incorporation Ratoon Cultivation Multiple tyne/disc Deep and full cultivation Limited to fertiliser placement Limited to fertiliser placement; or minor reforminq of hills Fertilsing inputs Chemical fertilisers Chemical fertilisers, Green Chemical fertilisers, surface or Minimum or biological Rock manure subsurface minerals, green manure/ash; chemicol N Fertili'sation technique Drop behind tyne Drop or broadcast with full Tyne and/or coulter in inter- Drop behind coulter/ tyne or incorporation row, stool side, or in row broadcast/drop ond water into soil; Weed control Frequent cultivation Cultivation and herbicide Herbicide, often residual Trash, herbicides, and seed depletion
Pest Control Chemical Chemical Chemicol Cultural & chemical' when needed Fallow management Tilled bare Plow out & replant or green Unfilled Trash incorporated, green manure, manure or spray out/ graze incorporated Fallow cultivation multiple then deep incorporation Spray, graze, or slosh to or dependinq on qreen or burnt manage trash retoined until plonting with harvest spray/ graze or slash Planting technique Rip, plow, disc, plont on Deep plow, disc, rip, hoe Min till plonting; spray, rip, Rip & till rows, plant in higher hills moist subsoil plant; often conventional plantinq Advantages -least expertise required -full root zone cultivation, -low soil erosion risk except -high biological activity -low cost/older equip. encourages prompt & full rooting inter-row fertilisation/plant -high organic matter throughput suitable -best profile soil drainage cane -conserves moisture best -minimol herbicide use -con maintain soil structure -least labor time -minimises erosion -better moisture retention -least herbicide use than conventional 1 Disadvantages -expensive in labor & -very expensive in labor and -can lead to compaction & -fertiliser placement can be difficult machine time machine time poor water penetration -surface applied fertilisers subject -very high erosion risk -fine surface tilth can go to contributing to erosion run off to loss unless incorporated -high machine maintenance 'cement' restricting water -ground dries out more -unable to use residual herbicides -organic matter/ soil penetration rapidly, especially clay soils except in plant cane structure declines -high erosion risk on slopes -herbicide use increases -new equipment needed or -maximum outside fertility -higher runoff can contribute modifications inputs to lower ground water recharge -awkward harvesting and saltwater intrusion on coastal plain -new equipment needed
Optional Proclices as needed or if available— all systems -spot spray weeds — irrigate -roll after cultivation -"cut away", fill and hill plant rows - addition of filler press, Biodunder, mill ash -catch and diversion drainage systems Keeping It Sweet - ACF
SECTION 3: Material derived from consultation with growers in the Mackay Region
4 Agroecology Associates' Grower Consultation 4.1 Methodology
The participatory consultation methodology adopted included elements of Facilitative Extension and a modification of Rapid Rural Appraisal. The consultation included direct observation on farms but also relied heavily on participants being involved in semi-structured interviews and focus group meetings. It is considered to be a rapid, cost effective technique for gaining a working understanding of a situation and is increasingly used by rural research and extension specialists, particularly in Third World work.
The approach was adopted because it. accommodates subjective as well as objective evidence, encourages a multi-disciplinary and whole systems understanding and focuses on economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainability. Moreover, by actively involving industry players in the information gathering process, it may also yield educational and developmental benefits.
The hybrid methodology used in this project appears to be a useful approach to community and industry planning for sustainability and might usefully be extended to other areas of cane farming and to other primary industries.
The consultation process involved three phases. During each phase, information generated was cycled back to participants in an interactive learning and refining process.
Phase I — Grower survey "Where Are We Now?"
This aimed to establish the current situation — the present 'state of play'. Over the period September to November 1992, growers and other significant players were consulted by questionnaire, interview and farm inspection on the nature of the industry and their views on sustainable and unsustainable practices were sought. The material developed in this phase is presented here in Chapters 3-9. This line of inquiry was supplemented by the review of scientific studies and existing local research material (see chapters 1 to 3). The documentation of both the growers' views and the scientific literature were circulated to all participants to develop understanding, consensus, and to overcome any potential researcher bias by posting 87 p9 document to each participant.
82 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Phase II — Developing objectives "Where Do We Want To Be?"
This was conducted in February 1993 and involved focus group of growers addressing aspects of the question "what will a sustainable sugarcane farming system in Mackay look like in 50 years?" The basic aim was to identity objectives, determine attitudes, assess long term goals and involve growers and other key players in developing a shared vision of a sustainable sugarcane growing system.
Phase III — Action plans "How Do We Get There From Here?"
This was conducted in mid-1993 with the same focus groups and considered how to put a sustainability plan into action. Its aims were to: • identify strategies to support the shift to sustainable production systems, • identify limiting factors to achieving increased sustainability, • determine how the elements of the Mackay district may best work together to achieve long term sustainability, • suggest structural and functional changes in social, institutional, economic, and technical elements to achieve adoption of sustainable practices.
The second and third phase were conducted as focus groups involving both farmers and key players in the Mackay district such as research & advisory organisations, Landcare groups, Cane Protection & Productivity Boards, local mill productivity committees, conservation groups, and the Mackay Canegrowers Association. As part of Phase 2, scenarios developed by each focus group were circulated among all groups to enable comparison and most importantly to develop consensus and to help prepare for Phase 3.
The majority of the 45 participants in the consultation stage were cane growers with the remainder actively involved in the industry. All demonstrated substantial commitment to the process, giving up a great deal of their time to attend meetings and review documents throughout the year.
4.2 Farmer Sample
For the purpose of this study a small sample of growers was worked with intensively. During October 1992, 35 farmers were interviewed during on farm inspections by Larry Geno. Farmers were asked some 70 questions regarding their cane farming. The aim of the survey was to gain insight into the impediments and potential of sustainable farming by gathering information directly from farming practitioners. Their views were sought on the following: the current farming system employed in the Mackay District, the historical and current impacts of these practices, on and off farms, their perception on which practices are sustainable and which are unsustainable, economic, social and institutional issues of concern , including the current impact of these issues on farming and their anticipated impacts on sustainability of cane production.
83 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
In regard to definitions, at the time of survey the consultant only provided a definition that sustainability meant they or their families would be still farming in the Mackay area in 50 years.
A common approach in participatory research is to assume best farmer = best information. The sample was chosen from farmers who were active and considered progressive, or who claimed to be implementing practices which increased sustainability. Also sought were those who had tried alternative practices like minimum tillage or green harvesting and had stopped using them. Many farmers who became involved in the project were also active in Mill Productivity Committees or Boards, Mill Supply Committees, Landcare committees, the Canegrowers Association, and other local institutions. In general, the sample can be considered to represent the leading edge of innovation in the Mackay region or those farmers with a thoughtful, informed and experience-based understanding of farming systems.
4.3 Survey Farm Characteristics
The surveyed farms averaged 120 hectares of cane assignment giving a total area of 4219 hectares (ha). Cane yields ranged from 60-112 tonnes(t)/ha; averaging 81 t/ha (median value 80T/ha). This compares to district average farm assignment of 76 Ha and 74t/ha yields.
A wide variety of farm types were represented in the study. The farms occupied most soil types, all 5 mill areas of the Mackay and Sarina districts and a geographic area from Seaforth on the coast to Finch Hatton on the west from Illbilbie in the south to Calen in the north. All representative land forms used for cane farming in the district were included: deep alluvial central valley sites; coastal plain; interior dry, undulating to steep, and flood irrigated flats. Irrigation was used, in part or full, on about half the farms.
All farms were family owned, with seven farms having some minor loans outstanding and three farms carrying major debt loads. The farmers were full time and commercial with only eight having some minor outside income, usually equipment contracting, and two with substantial outside income. The farmers involved therefore were substantial, commercial, generally in full ownership of the properties, and devoting their time primarily to farming cane. While a few properties also produced cattle, few alternate crops were grown, and little other land was owned. 4.4 Mackay Farming Systems
Through examining farming practice and sequences, equipment, fertility, water, pest & disease management it became clear that a capable farming culture is present in the Mackay district. In the study area no two farms were the same, the farming system employed on each property appearing finely tuned to local conditions. A wide diversity of soil types, variable land forms, different economic capacity and need, dictates a highly farm-and-farmer-specific growing system.
Despite this individual variation, however, it is possible for the purposes of comparison to characterise four general kinds of farming systems currently in use (See Table 9).
84 Keeping It Sweet - ACF 4.5 Harvesting and Trash Management.
Farms appeared well stocked with a wide range of equipment but much of it old. No tractor seen was under 10 years of age. Equipment limitations were seen in harvesting, and in techniques for incorporating crop residue (trash) back into the soil. Of the growers surveyed, 19 harvested burnt cane, 7 harvested green, and 9, both burnt and green. Much of the equipment in use is ill-suited to green harvesting. A number of growers, however, had modified their harvesters to attempt green harvesting, (see appendix for details on equipment modifications).
Heavy trash layers pose a considerable physical challenge to incorporation. Incorporation of crop residues is required where young cane shoots (ratoons) are at risk from water logging. Loss from water logging is most likely after early season harvests, on sites with poor drainage or heavy soils. Some innovative farmers were trying the old spin weeders or rotary slashers to move trash off the row to increase evaporation and soil heat to encourage shooting.
Other growers who are flood irrigating are experimenting with rolling after incorporation of trash layers, either tops only or full green trash. Only the heavier pull-type rolling coulter fertiliser placement equipment appeared useful for heavy trash blanket penetration. These are limited by steep slopes tilled on contour, or by stony ground.
Outside of trash management/fertiliser incorporation and harvester availability for green harvesting, and assuming some changes in equipment, ownership patterns and economic viability, there appear to be few long term equipment constraints to using green harvesting techniques to maintain productivity and increase sustainability of cane farming. In the short term, however, lack of suitable machinery seems likely to remain a significant impediment. 4.6 Fertility Management
All the growers surveyed used synthetic fertilisers including urea, ammonium sulphate, super phosphate, one-shot fertiliser mixes, ammonium nitrate, and in one case, aqua ammonia. Rates reported were close to regional BSES recommendations (see Table 10). Many growers utilised cane waste materials such as filter press and boiler ash. The CSR distillery at Sarina makes available a spent molasses waste called Biodunder and this is commonly used as a potassium source where transport is economical. Only a few growers were experimenting with alternative fertilisers like bioactivators, animal manures, or rock minerals with no clear conclusions to date.
Fertiliser placement was generally underground either after harvest (during ratoon shooting phases) or during planting and initial cultivation in the plant cane establishment phase. Practices recommended in the past, such as inter-row ripper tyne fertiliser placement in minimum-till ratoons and broadcasting of urea over full trash blankets still occur despite potential losses to runoff, volatilisation, or denitrification.
While Holz & Shields, (1985) report that fallow areas have decreased from 25% of cane lands in 1966 to 8 per cent in 1981, approximately half the surveyed farms used legumes as a green manure crop during pre-plant fallow. Despite this practice there appeared to be little attention paid to biological nitrogen fixation from the soil-life system. Soil tests would be routinely done every 4-6 years at replanting. Additional soil testing seemed irregular and no grower was aware of fertility constraints due to micro nutrients.
85 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Fertiliser purchase was seen as a 'good investment' and few growers had reduced rates of application as a result of recent poor financial returns. This is surprising given that a typical cane farm might spend $40,000 per year on fertilisers.
TABLE 10 Mackay Region BSES Fertiliser Recommendations
If sugar price is better Nitrogen Phosphorous* Potassium** Sulfur*** than $300 per tonne Fallow plant 150 20-25 80 15-25 Ploughout-replant 200 20-25 100 15-25 Ratoons 200 15-25 100 15-25
If sugar price is less Nitrogen Phosphorous* Potassium** Sulfur*** than $300 per tonne Fallow plant 120 20-25 80 15-25 Plough-out-replant ' 160 20-25 100 15-25 Ratoons 160 15-25 100 15-25 *For soil tests with values less than lOmg/kg P, use 40 P/ha in plants and ratoons *For soil tests with values greater than 40mg/kg P, fertiliser containing P is not required for ratoons **On soils with low potassium reserves, rates of J00kg K/ha for plant and 120kg K/ha for ratoons are recommended ***For soil tests with less than 4mg S/kg, apply 25kg S/ha annually; for soil tests with 4 to 7 mg S/kg, apply 15kg S/ha in plant and ratoon crops. Soil analysis is recommended between crop cycles to monitor soil fertility.
While many growers understood that nitrogen fertilisers are produced from non-renewable fossil fuels, few felt that their availability would be a constraint on sustaining their operation in the near future. None seem to have considered the ability of farmers to compete economically for scarce and valued fossil fuels in the future.
Growers with a history of trash retention reported clear benefits in soil structure and workability. They also recognised the fertility value of the organic matter and fixed nitrogen in the trash but seldom altered their application rates of synthetic nitrogen accordingly.
Currently, BSES fertiliser recommendations are the same for all growers, regardless of soil type or whether they harvest green or burnt cane - it is intended that growers make adjustments to the standard recommendations based on their soil test results.
Growers managing under the 'high culture' system could be seen to be increasing the effective fertility of their soils through deep and thorough tillage and the subsequent fast growth and increased root biomass. This intensive approach seemed to encourage early ratoon rooting, plant cane establishment, and plough out and replant success, but was most successful on low erosion- risk sites.
86 Keeping It Sweet -ACF 4.7 Water Management
On dryland farms priority is typically given to draining away excess water rather than to storage and conservation of rainfall. Without appropriate drainage systems, erosion is a significant risk in the erratic and often heavy rains of the Mackay district.
Fifteen of the surveyed farms used contour tillage for water/erosion control and another ten were relatively flat and did not require this.
Recent droughts have hastened searches for irrigation water on a number of dryland cane farms with variable success. Half the farms had full or partial irrigation. Irrigated farms used a mix of spray line, travelling irrigator and flood irrigation, sometimes all on the one farm. No growers interviewed used trickle irrigation. On-farm water storage facilities were rarely seen.
The recent droughts have also limited rain-fed aquifer replenishment and with stream bank channelisation, much rain water runs off rather than being absorbed by the regional ground water system. One recent impact of this is salt water intrusions into aquifers along the coastal plain south of Mackay. This intrusion of salt water is accelerated by drought-induced increases in acquifer extractions for irrigation.
Ongoing drought may have influenced perceptions about the value of irrigation in maintaining productivity, but irrigation farmers stated that irrigation would be useful even in 'normal' years.
Growers practicing green harvesting reported desirable moisture conservation impacts of trash blankets. During wet harvest this may pose a problem but for the remainder of the irrigation season, green harvesting farmers reported spending only half as much on irrigation (normally $3000/40 ha in electricity per season) and considerably less on labour.
4.8 Pest/Disease Control
Disease problems were not a general occurrence on the sample farms. Attention to disease resistance cane varieties, clean seed programs and field sanitation appears reasonably successful in controlling disease. Ratoon stunting disease (RSD) is a problem in the area but is being controlled. Fungicides (Shirtan, Canesett, Canestrike, Sportak) are universally used on planting material to protect the billets from soil-borne fungus attack until shooting/rooting takes place.
Cane grubs, and wireworms are the main insect pests. Most growers use the organophosphate chlorpyrifos (trade names Lorsban and Suscon Blue) at planting, or ethoprophos (Mo-cap) after planting. Growers were keenly aware of the particular areas of their farm where it is needed. Grubs proliferate in lighter soils, wireworm in heavy or wet conditions. Suscon Blue, a sustained release formulation, cost $240/ha and growers are careful to use it only where necessary. Lorsban spray on the sett (short piece of cane which is used to plant new crop) is often done as insurance and it was unclear whether effective control was due to Lorsban or to the absence of the pest, as many growers commented that they use it when they don't have visible or economic wireworm damage. They did state that they do it in case it becomes wet after planting and wireworm damage increases.
Green harvesting growers commented that increased losses to army worm occur very early in the season when ratoon shoots are small. In later generations the cane can withstand damage to a greater degree and because a species of parasitic wasp and a fungus disease attack the worm,
87 Keeping It Sweet - ACF providing a degree of natural control. The BSES recommends Lorsban if natural wasp predators and fungal controls prove insufficient.
4.9 Green/Burnt Harvest Practices
Mackay growers harvested green cane on 17% of their crop (by area) in 1992. This is in contrast to other cane farming areas further north where adoption of green cane harvesting is reaching close to 100%.
Growers harvested an average of 4.3 ratoons per cropping cycle before replanting. With time, plant breeding and growing conditions have reduced the length of ratoon cycle, according to some growers. The following table lists observations made by farmers with experience in trialing the method.
88 GREEN CANE HARVESTING Benefits Disadvantages Possible sustoinable solutions to consider Harvest Operation -higher flexibility for -trash layer impedes shooting of ratoons -cut low vigor varieties later harvesting wet sites from early harvests; may cause stool losses -select vigorous varieties -less dirt in cane to mill/ from rotting -sweep/ slash rows to remove trash higher CCS sugar -select cold tolerant varieties -higher dextran extraction at -increase soil permeability mill -less dust/ash, less machine -less water runoff from early season harvest -burn for early cuts on heavy soil maintenance leads to increased eguip. bogging -move to different site/time -less wear on base cutters (some said 1/2) -early morning harvest contain high dew -schedule green cutting to start later in -can make some marginal moisture morning lands acceptable if green -unsuited to heavy lodged crops harvested -slow burn lodged crops cents/ tonne less mill charge -difficult to mix green and burnt crops in -no risk or labour cost in later harvest -better harvest planning field burns, inc -high fire risk to ratoons in trash -increased fire fighting capability & risk -variable cane loss from extractor minimisation -swinging knives smash cane -vary extractor/ ground speed -pinch knives waste 2% of cane -change variety of cane -sometimes difficult to make bin weight -improve harvesters; train operators -poor harvest operator visibility -mills to accept leafy cane bins until CCS drops
-high capital cost of new machines -cooperative ownership & increased security for -varieties with floc more a problem if cut contractors green -change varieties
-green machines dangerous on contoured -design smaller green machine hillsides -use outrigger wheels Fertility, woter -substantially less erosion & -trosh can block long contour rows in heavy -redesign paddock layout & Pest Management less stress worrying about rains erosion -trash can block flood irrigation on flats -lightly incorporate trash and roll flat -soil structure improves/ -can be difficult to apply fertiliser below -redesign implement; clear stony ground for adds organic matter ground coulters -protects soil organic matter from sun/ heat -broadcast fertilisers subject to runoff loss & -water in or incorporate fertiliser -higher moisture retention volatilization loss to atmosphere (use nonvolatile forms of N) -less irrigation required -irrigate in if available -less fertiliser lost in eroded soil -less water penetration in iight rains -offset by increased moisture retention -trash blanket has beneficial nitrogen component; -unable to use residual herbicides -employ high clearance tractors to use encourages soil life/ more knockdowns eorthworms -deplete seed bonk at replant -up to 50% less weed -spin weed rows problems=less work, fewer -army worms increase (some soid less of a sprays, fewer rats problem) -irrigate if available to encourage natural fungal -for less work in ratoon control cultivation -increase observation of paddocks -better water penetration in -incorporate trosh or clear trosh from rows heavy rains -plant higher in hill -avoid high water table areas
Processing -none or less dexltran High leaf trash levels a problem -higher CCS -Reduced Risk of field/ transport deterioation -reduced water pollution -less dirt top mill -more material available for by products Keeping It Sweet - ACF
4.10 Technical Feasibility
There appear to be only minor technical impediments to increasing use of green harvesting. There are, however, significant economic constraints to changing over the harvester fleet.
As described above, green-harvesting growers are using modified older equipment (such as Toft 4000 and Massey 305 harvester), or the newer Australian Toft harvesters (6000/7000 series). Some also have modified their machines to suit the green cane. Large extractor fans with capacity to vary fan speed seem to reduce the problem of good cane billets being thrown back on the paddock.
The swing knife design of older harvesters can splinter 'soft' cane and therefore knives need to be kept sharp; but with less dirt and ash, knife maintenance is similar or less than when harvesting burnt cane. Cane loss during green harvesting is due to a number of factors, all of which can be controlled. The most important are cane variety, base cutter adjustment, field preparation, harvester type, harvester ground speed, and operator care.
Variety characteristics reported by growers as desirable for green harvesting include: increased vigour and more reliable ratooning; resistance to disturbance and improved rooting to resist stool splitting or tipping; long, thick cane stems; non-brittle cane surface to resist splitting from knives; and free to moderately free trash adherence, (see Appendix) 4.11 Soil and Moisture Conservation Benefits
The major benefits noted by growers using green harvesting are erosion control and moisture conservation, both of which may result in improved productivity and sustainability.
Green trash provides an insulation layer of mulch, reducing surface evaporation. Several growers estimated that they only had to irrigate half as much for cane under a trash blanket, reporting that a trash blanket was equivalent to 20mm of irrigation water. This confirms what McMahon (1991) demonstrated, that ratoon crop following green cut cane in the Burdekin used two megalitres/ha less water than burnt cane. Given costs of irrigation of about $70 per ha, per season for electric shallow pumping, this is a useful saving.
Median rainfall in the Mackay district is exceeded by mean pan evaporation (and more so as a plant evapo-transpiration) in all months except January to March. Moisture conservation directly relates to increasing productivity and economic sustainability. Holz & Shields (1985) estimated that 65% of Mackay cane lands are limited by seasonal moisture availability. Moisture retention also assists early rooting, fertiliser uptake, trash decomposition, and maintenance and enhancement of soil biological activity. The moisture-conserving properties of green trash, its organic matter and nitrogen contributions are all beneficial to soil structure. Dryland growers without trash blankets had difficulty noting what they missed.
91 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Many green harvesting growers reported soil improvement, making statements such as: "the soil holds together now" "the soil is more friable" "planting soil bed preparation is easier and quicker"
The sedimentary soils of the Mackay region are relatively shallow and often duplex. 45% have sodic subsoils inhospitable to root growth. The soil improving benefits of green cane harvesting are clearly valuable even if they are difficult to quantify in economic terms.
With erratic heavy rainfalls and periodic cyclonic storms, the Mackay district has always been subject to erosion, especially on certain soils and slopes. Many growers are still spending substantial amounts of money to prevent or restore erosion. Several growers routinely spend $5,000-10,000 per year and some reported spending up to $150,000 to restore major damage. This is spent on reforming paddock surfaces, filling gullies, restoring stream banks, restoring conservation structures, or improving conditions where damage occurred. Most farmers appear very conscious of erosion risks and do as much prevention and restoration work as their time or budgets allow.
Of the growers sampled, ten had participated in the QDPI soil conservation farm plan, implementing suggested practices of contouring, catch, diversion and headland drains, and appropriate row positioning and slope.
Erosion is also expensive in terms of lost nutrients and fertiliser. Soil eroded from paddocks is often the smallest surface particles with high nutrient content. Runoff also carries dissolved soluble fertilisers. Apart from the cost, erosion also has a psychological impact on growers. Several growers mentioned their feelings of relief and security when heavy rain hit their blanketed paddocks of cane. Growers practicing burning on light soil and sloping fields live in fear of the next storm. 4.12 Limits to Green Cane Harvesting
Subjective conclusions echoed by a number of contacts in Mackay indicated that green harvesting could quickly expand to 50-60% of the area if suitable harvesters become available. However there are a number constraints imposed by soils, slopes and suitable machinery for fertiliser placement.
Green cane harvesting is most favoured on lighter, well drained soils and least favoured on level, heavy, poorly drained sites due to the problems of early harvested ratoons lacking sufficient heat to germinate, or being drowned out from rising water tables or heavy rains. Heavy clay soil with limited drainage through the soil profile and off the soil surface appear to be the most serious limitation to green harvesting. When early harvest areas receive substantial rains, the combination of low temperatures, wet soil and wet compacted trash layers creates anaerobic conditions ideal for various rots to set in. This delays shoot emergence and leads to stool loss as well. Similar poor results occur in lighter soils on alluvial flats when a rising water table comes up into the stool rows. However in response to these problems the potential to improve drainage was rarely mentioned. Many growers reported slower shoot emergence from trash blanketed paddocks but generally see them catch up and, in light soils, overtake burnt paddocks of the same variety.
92 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Possible solutions to such limiting conditions are listed in Table 11. Trash blanket incorporation offers some possibilities to restore evaporation and soil oxygen, contributing organic matter, encouraging early growth and can be managed for flood irrigation by rolling. The problem sites are usually low-erosion risk situations and in any event, incorporation enhances water penetration. Shredding machines designed for trash help incorporation by decreasing trash particle size. Cool burning may also be used to manage trash quantity left on the surface.
Steeper slopes also limit top-heavy green harvest machines. Besides the risk of overturning, damage to contours and compaction can result from use of the heavier machines.
Heavier trash layers in green cane areas present a minor technical problem in fertiliser placement. Direct placement depends on the grower having access to coulter equipment of sufficient mass and design to cut through the trash layer and deposit fertiliser with a following tyne dropper tube. Stony soil makes this difficult, but as farmers have always removed stones from paddocks they can no doubt continue.
Previous recommendations to broadcast urea are being abandoned due to losses up to 66% in volatilisation of nitrogen into the atmosphere. A small minority of growers who have the capacity to fully sprinkler irrigate can use irrigation to water in the urea to the correct depth with less volitilisation loss. Broadcasting of more stable nitrogen forms like ammonium nitrate is possible but penetration is variable and the risk of run-off due to unpredictable rain storms is high. 4.13 Disadvantages, Real and Perceived
It appears that green harvesting was promoted in the Mackay region without adequate attention to the importance of cane variety, soil type and drainage conditions. As discussed above, cane varieties with the right vigour, cold tolerance and ratooning ability must be used. Equally, soil drainage and structure must be taken into account if green harvesting is to succeed. Early failures in green harvesting and trash blanketing may have given the technique a bad name.
There is a perception amongst some growers that green harvesting is slower and more expensive, but this seems questionable as other growers have proven to themselves that with appropriate cane varieties normal harvest speed can be maintained at equal fuel cost and labour time.
Green harvesting is thought less useful for very large crops due to poor visibility and slower rate of cut, though some growers have proven it possible to harvest green cane with cutting rates equal to burnt cane, except in lodged crops.
The Mechanical Harvesters Association claims that a 50,000 tonnes/yr is required to finance a typical $500,000 green harvesting plant. However, some grower contractors groups contacted say they are doing fine with 25,000 tonnes/yr with new machines bought under finance contracts. The economics of contract green harvesting should become clearer as the technique is more widely employed.
Similarly, reports about the relative severity of army worm infestation were found to be inconclusive. Some growers reported greater worm problems, some less. A similar mix of conflicting reports was heard about levels of rat infestations. These questions need further clarification.
93 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
5 Environmental Impact Survey Growers were asked a series of questions to assess their knowledge and attitude towards: the environmental impact of their farming practices, • the Landcare movement, the historical state of their farm and subsequent changes, and establishing economic costs of environmental degradation or the prevention of damage. 5.1 Important Local Environmental Issues
Roughly half the farmers thought their farm was in good condition when they started farming. Nine felt there had been some erosion damage historically and three stated their property was badly degraded when they took over. Seventy percent of growers thought they had improved the productive capacity and long term health of the farm from its historical condition. Many spoke of improved erosion control and better management but recognised the role of increased inputs and improved varieties in maintaining productivity.
The most important local environmental issues mentioned by growers were quite diverse, but several were repeated. They are listed in order of frequency of recognition:
TABLE 12
ISSUE # Reporting | Controlling erosion 22 Stream bank management 10 Soil degradation 8 Chemical use & runoff 7 Communication between city & country people 7 Rural residential/impact of subdivision 7 Other environmental issues mentioned less frequently were need for reforestation, nutrient losses, water supply and drainage and, occasional concerns about weeds, dust and saltwater intrusion.
Growers were most aware of environmental issues emerging out of their farming activity on the farm but also recognise the existence of environmental impacts over which they have little control or information (subdivision, urban and tourism impacts).
94 Keeping It Sweet - ACF 5.2 Off/On-farm Environmental Impacts All farmers surveyed acknowledged the impact of their practices on the local environment. The on- farm concerns most frequently expressed were erosion, chemical use, and loss of soil health (structure and biological life). The chief off-site concerns reported were water pollution and wind erosion of soil, fertilisers, and chemicals (23 growers each), and smoke from burning fires (9 growers). Only two growers thought they had no off-site impact from their farming operation.
Farmers aware of on-site impacts saw the connection between these and off-farm impacts. Altogether they demonstrated a keen awareness of the importance of retaining and improving farm soils and avoiding their loss or degradation. There was, however, little understanding or acknowledgment among surveyed growers of the off-site economic costs of farm degradation or management practices. This attitude was reflected in financial management practices with few growers tracking expenditure on environmental control. Many growers reported routinely establishing erosion control structures as part of everyday farming but mostly did not keep separate figures for costs. 5.3 The Landcare Movement While 70 per cent of farmers surveyed believed Landcare is a good idea only one third were members of one of the three local Landcare groups.
The growers surveyed viewed the primary role of Landcare groups as education of farmers, children and urban people about environmental management. A few growers thought that Landcare groups should work on the broad environment, helping to protect stream banks, and with reforestation.
There was considerable questioning of the Landcare movement with comments like:
"looks like a public relations exercise" "they are not important yet" "they need to cover a smaller area" "need to show the economic advantages of Landcare" Farmers frequently commented that Landcare depends on the financial viability of farmers. While Landcare groups in the area are working on a number of projects both educational and technical, few of the growers surveyed were aware of specific projects.
6 Sustainable Practices
Growers were questioned closely about their beliefs about the sustainability of their cane farming system.
No specific definition of sustainability or assumptions about which practices where sustainable was presented to the farmers. The only clear principles outlined to growers at the time of survey was that environmental, social, and economic factors should each be considered of equal importance
95 Keeping It Sweet - ACF and that Mackay sugar cane farming would be present in 50 years. Using these as reference points, growers were encouraged to make their own assessment of how sustainable their practices were. 6.1 Unsustainable Practices
Growers were asked "what practices or materials currently used might not be sustainable in the long term, either due to outside concerns or on-farm decisions?"
By far the largest single response concerned chemical use. Eighteen growers thought continued use of present pesticides and herbicides was not sustainable. Eight thought that continued reliance on synthetic fertilisers was not sustainable. Specific concerns included chemical runoff, safety, and impact on the plant/soil system. Most growers said they would use safer, more environmentally appropriate materials if these were available, saying that "chemicals are a worry" and that they would like to see further development of IPM or biological pest control.
There was considerable concern about residual herbicides, including concerns about the impact on soils and plant roots, especially at replanting when surface-applied residual herbicide residues are incorporated throughout the rooting zone. These concerns about chemical and fertiliser use were expressed despite the fact that growers generally felt they were safety conscious and followed extension and label instructions regarding materials, rates, and application.
The next most frequent practice deemed unsustainable by growers was burning of cane before harvest; uniformly they said this is due to outside, generally urban, pressure to reduce burning.
No growers mentioned the problems of asbestos-like silicate fibres released from cane burning. These biogenic fibres reach levels of up to 300,000 fibres per cubic meter during harvesting of burnt cane, have been linked to upper digestive and respiratory cancer and typical levels exceed those allowed for asbestos fibres (Boeniger et al, 1988). While growers saw burning as a useful management tool, understanding that they are sacrificing nitrogen and organic matter, few growers realised that typically one quarter of paddock nitrogen (equal to half their recommended annual application rate) goes up in smoke if trash is burnt.
Other unsustainable practices noted by growers included: the cultivation of marginal lands, the economic viability of small (40ha) farms, the vulnerability of continuous-culture of cane and its inability to break pest/disease cycles, physical cultivation practices on some sites. Production problems for which growers believed there were no sustainable long-term solutions included issues such as: certain weeds-giant sensitive plant (Mimosa invisa) and insects — soldier fly control, retaining and managing high slope paddocks, the economics issues such as world sugar prices, water availability.
96 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
6.2 Sustainable Practices Put Forward By Growers
Growers considered a number of practices to contribute towards sustainability. The chief of these was green harvesting which has been discussed above. Others included contouring, irrigation, green manuring and deep tillage.
6.2.1 Contouring
Water runoff, chemical and fertiliser runoff, and soil loss can be minimised by conducting tillage and aligning rows on or close to the contour on sloping cane fields.
As each site is slightly different, attention must be given to row length, slope, diversion and catch banks, drains and off-site drainage. Where necessary, growers divert surface water coming from above the paddock, with diversion drains.
Some growers thought that long rows contribute to erosion, as more water builds up. Some green- harvesting farmers reported that trash build-up blocked contours in heavy rains, causing overflow and erosion. Dryland growers reported that contouring helps delay runoff and increases water absorption.
Where farmers have irrigation, they are able to establish and maintain grass covers in their drains and this is especially useful in newly planted areas with high erosion risk. One Landcare group is developing a mechanised pangola grass runner planting implement to facilitate this task.
6.2.2 Water Management
Irrigation is viewed as a substantial aid to improved farm, land and business management. Irrigation farmers state that even in "normal" years, irrigation assists management of soil and crop.
Green-harvest growers use irrigation to deposit broadcast fertilisers into the soil profile and to encourage naturally occurring fungal control for army worm. They also use irrigation to encourage shooting of ratoons through the trash layer, at least when temperatures climb in mid-to-late spring. Irrigation is useful in stabilising soil against erosion by encouraging early and full root growth in both plant cane and ratoons prior to the wet season and in establishing green manure crops in fallows. Many growers use irrigation to manage soil texture, either prior to cultivation to control particle size and thus avoid excessive tillage, or to pack surface soil after cultivation against erosion.
Several growers mentioned that spray lines with their smaller droplet size are kinder to soil structure than flood saturation or 'big drop' travelling water-winch irrigators. Growers also use irrigation to flush out salty or sodic soils and stop the upward capillary movement of soil salts due to evaporation. Irrigation is seen as an important tactic to support vertical expansion - increasing production from existing cane lands.
Recent dry years have increased awareness of the role of water retention in the soil. Cultivation farmers speak of light, shallow cultivations to create a dust mulch for moisture conservation. Most growers also appreciate the moisture-holding capacity of deeply tilled soils and the contribution of incorporated organic matter. In heavy gluepot cracking clays, high natural moisture retention is clearly understood and these difficult soils are managed by minimal cultivations, rolling closed any open rip furrows, and careful attention to timing and moisture content when cultivating.
97 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Some growers have found higher row ridges useful in controlling flood irrigation, allowing better drainage, reducing water logging and reducing erosion on contoured slopes during high rainfall. Flat-land irrigation farmers find laser levelling decreases subsequent irrigation costs and improves control of water application and drainage, but the initial expense is high. Managing inter-row areas in flood irrigation with a broad, flat surface was said to be a superior strategy that increases infiltration and reduces gullying between rows.
6.2.3 Miscellaneous Practices
Other practices considered sustainable by growers included: planting slopes early, to allow root development before the wet season to reduce erosion risk, increasing fallow periods to break pest & disease cycles, rotating cane areas with alternative and green manure crops, using high-clearance tractors for late weed control in trash blankets where residual herbicides can't be used, increasing frequency of soil test monitoring, increasing the ratooning cycle from the present 3-5 ratoons to the historical rate of 8-14 in some varieties, on flats with heavy soil under green harvest, incorporating the trash and roll to improve evaporation and absorption of light rainfalls, and to encourage early root development (this is especially valuable at plough out and replant), applying dunder and urea together, saving a pass of machinery, burning only where green harvest harvesting is not possible.
6.3 Historical Practices of Value
Many surveyed growers, particularly the older ones, felt several historical practices dating from the post-tractor, pre-chemical era contributed to sustainability. The traditional conventional tillage sequence in planting cane is continued by most growers with only a few trialing min-till planting. Green manure during fallow is the most popular historical practice and appears to be expanding. The old ratoon disk or 4 X 4 is in demand as a tool for incorporation of light trash. Hand chipping of escape weeds in ratoons is thought a useful practice, but rarely considered practical due to labour costs. Several growers stated that deep ploughing during plant establishment assisted root zone development, increasing topsoil depth over time, or "sweetening" the soil. 6.4 Adoption Of Sustainable Practices Growers were asked to what extent other cane farmers in their area were adopting sustainable practices and what is needed for adoption to increase. Half answered that few were trying any of the preferred practices but ten per cent said that about half of their neighbours were adopting these practices. In general, growers believed that there was only partial adoption of sustainable practices, by less than half the region's growers. Survey responses suggested a number of constraints which would need to be removed before this situation could change (see Table 13 - on following page).
98 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
TABLE 13 Survey Response Table
Attitudinal "Younger people are open to change more than older generation" "Many want to" "Many have not given new sustainable practices a fair go" "An attitude change is needed to a whole systems view" Incentive " Proof of advantages is needed for change" "They need to have environmental and economic incentive (to change)" "Pressure comes from neighbours talking, only rarely from individual incentive" Technical "Many are locked with cooperative harvester ownership or operation with old harvesters (not suited to green harvest)" "More education needed (about sustainable practices)" "Further harvester development is needed" "Some farmers have been burnt by implementing practices later changed (min-till, inter-row or broadcast urea placement)"
In general, growers surveyed thought the shift to more sustainable cane farming is occurring but slowly and only with some of the farming community. Further points will be discussed later in a section on how farmers learn and where they get new information.
Clearly, better understanding of what factors motivate changes based on the commitment to sustainability is required. Furthermore, the clarification of the benefits both economic and environmental would be useful.
7 Social Issues
Sustainability of agriculture depends on the persistence of viable communities in addition to environmental and economic sustainability. In order for cane farming to continue, farmers must feel they are part of a viable local communities and have social opportunities equal to other Australians. The social sustainability of farming also depends on the capacity and mechanisms to facilitate the education of new farmers and pass on the art and culture of farming to each new generation. Lifestyle is as important to cane farmers as anyone and if farming does not offer meaningful work, inviting places to live and a rewarding lifestyle; either farmers will cease farming or a selection process will occur bringing in different sorts of people who will farm in those conditions.
There are a great variety of social issues which are relevant to sustainability but most go well beyond the scope and capacity of this project. Some key social issues are described briefly below.
7.1 Family Farming in Communities
All the surveyed farms were family owned and operated, often as extended family enterprises. While senior male farm managers were usually presented to complete the interview, it was clear that all the family was involved in running the farm, especially during busy times. Eighty five percent of the growers responded that they felt a part of their local community (not Mackay) and did not feel isolated on their farms, at present.
99 Keeping It Sweet - ACF 7.1.1 Ethnic Elements Within the regional community of predominantly white Anglo-Saxon national origin there is a significant element of immigrant Italian and Maltese cane farmers. Growers were asked if the ethnic or cultural backgrounds of farmers affected the way farming is practiced. One third of the growers believed there was essentially no difference while another third commented that ethnic cane farmers often worked harder and more as families or within their ethnic group . In general ethnic cane farmers are seen as making a solid contribution to the area and the industry.
7.1.2 Population Growth
Only half of the growers surveyed believed an increase in the regional population would be socially beneficial and these expressed reservations such as:
"Only if they are willing to work", "As long as they don't take up prime farm land", "As long as they accept cane farming practices (such as burning)", "Only if they look after their blocks (weeds, pests, fires)"
There was, however, general acknowledgment that higher cultural diversity might be good and that seasonal workers are hard to find locally. A frequently expressed concern was that an increase in small land holders may create conflict over water resources or bushfire control. The overall view about increased population seemed to be cautious interest. More people are welcome if they fit in, help, and don't obstruct the primary land use of cane farming.
7.1.3 Tourism
Growers were asked if tourism affected the way they farmed. Almost universally, the answer was no. Mackay growers did not see the larger environment of rivers, ocean, and reef and a growing tourist industry as relevant to their farming practices.
7.1.4 Social Change Over Time
To attempt to gain some historical perspective on changes in the rural communities, farmers were asked, "what changes had occurred in their local community since they were there?" The most common response (from half the growers) was that they had seen a transition from strong ties of interdependence and good communication to a social environment of less farmers, more city people, centralisation of services in Mackay, and far less trust, cooperation, and communication among the rural population.
Several growers reported that they generally saw other farmers in harder times, with less leisure, and more stress. With the advent of continuous crushing at Mackay Co-op Mills, both mill staff and farmers were forced to adopt all sorts of working hours. This resulted in serious disruption of
100 Keeping It Sweet - ACF sporting, recreational, religious and school activities during harvest season . Some growers questioned whether more efficient utilisation of infrastructure is worth the social cost.
Other changes noted include more concern about security and theft, general improvement of roads, more wives working off farm, and a different sort of labour available as part-time farm workers. Growers seem to accept the inevitability of these social changes over time, but generally see the trends as one of degradation in the values they hold as socially desirable.
7.2 Agricultural Education
Farms do not exist without farmers. In order to guarantee the sustainability of agriculture there must be a mechanism for transferring the skills, knowledge, and culture of farming and an inter- generational confidence of continuity on the farm.
The art of farming needs to be more fully appreciated. As each farm system was explained it became clear that Mackay cane farmers hold a wealth of observational skills, intuitive abilities, seat of the pants management strategies, and a good practical understanding of what they are doing.
When asked where they learned the majority of their farming skills and knowledge the predominant response was that they were self taught, having learnt by practice either alone or with parents and neighbours, through personal observation, trial and error, and trying what they saw elsewhere. Only two farmers within the survey group had university or tertiary technical degrees. Only fifteen percent said that they learned farming skills from tours, seminars or shed meetings and none said they learned how to farm from research or extension staff.
These farmers have largely learned to farm through their families and communities - on the farm and at the local pub or sports ground. Clearly the skill of cane farming in Mackay has largely arisen from the local environment, an ongoing evolution in response to local conditions and under the exclusive care of the farming community..
7.3 Farmer Confidence in the Future
To appreciate if this knowledge might be transferred to the next generation, a rather open ended question was asked: "What lifestyle and work do you see for your children when they are your age?"
Disturbingly, only 20% saw their children farming. The majority or respondents thought that:-
their children would not be farming,
might farm if conditions improved,
hoped their children would be farming but doubted it,
or felt they might farm but better get another trade or outside skill first.
Farming cane was no longer seen as sufficiently socially rewarding, no longer yielding sufficient economic return to investment and labour. Farm children experience lower status compared to highly paid friends in town or at the mines, and can feel socially inferior.
101 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
There is little confidence that the future farmers of Mackay would be the current farm youth. Only two farmers stated with confidence that their children would be farming.
If this represents a general trend then there is clearly a problem - the skills and experience held by Mackay cane growing families may not be effectively transferred and therefore may be lost. 8 Economic Issues Numerous economic issues are of concern to Mackay cane farmers. A comprehensive account of the impact of markets, regulatory arrangements and production issues was beyond the scope of this project. However, it is clear that fluctuating prices and questionable economic viability of cane farmers is one of the primary barriers to long term confidence and investment in sustainable production practices such as green cane harvesting. This lack of confidence is exacerbated by severe droughts and cyclones, unstable world prices and tariff reduction. At the time of the consultative phase of this project, financial returns from cane farming were very marginal, possibly negative.
8.1 Reduced Income
Growers were asked how they responded to the economic constraints.
Cutting back on new capital expenditures and equipment purchases was by far the most common response (60% of growers). Growers repair rather than replace equipment and minimise these repairs to those which are absolutely necessary. Growers felt that they were presently unable to consider new equipment like trash incorporators, trash blanket fertiliser placement implements, or green capable harvesters because of economic constraints.
About one-third of the growers surveyed stated that their response to reduced income was either to employ less outside labour (33%), reduce personal expenses (28%), or reduce fertiliser and other inputs (28%). Many said that there was no room left for economising on the farm operation without affecting performance or yield, making statements like "we're trimmed to the quick already" or "when you've cut to the bone, how can you cut the bone?" Some had gone to non-production strategies to maintain economic viability, like trying to subdivide parts of the farm. "They say you can't subdivide prime agricultural land but if you can't make a living from the land it's not prime agricultural land!" Most, however, are riding out the storm and are not yet willing to accept more radical solutions like alternative crops or a job in town. 8.2 Privatisation
Historically, Mackay sugar mills have been owned both by grower-cooperatives and by private corporations. In some cases, private mills have become cooperative owned. Recently, individual cooperative mills have joined forming the Mackay Sugar Cooperative Association.
At the time of the study there were a variety of proposals under consideration. Growers were asked "what would be the effects of further privatisation?" and "are Mackay region growers better off or worse off as a supplier to a coop or a private mill?"
Sixty two percent felt growers have better economic returns with a grower cooperative owned mill. Only three farmers thought private mills offer better economic returns. Co-ops are seen as more stable, more sensitive to grower inputs into management and decision making, and more flexible.
102 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
However, growers also commented that co-op boards often have a lower level of business expertise compared to corporate mills and that growers are mysteriously transformed when they become directors of co-op mills and make decisions more in support of the mill needs than the growers needs.
Many made the point that since private mills need to make and distribute a profit, often outside the area, there is no way they could offer as much economic return to the growers. Some see a value in co-op mills from the 'farmer owned' sense of control but acknowledge that co-op directors often allocate bonuses to growers in preference to needed infrastructure improvements, especially cane transport systems. Seven growers thought there is essentially no difference between their economic returns with private or co-op mills and that a "well run operation" can be achieved under either ownership.
8.3 Assignment/Peak Deregulation
A complex system regulating the sugar industry in Mackay has evolved. This evolution is based on several factors peculiar to cane farming: 1. The grower can effectively only sell cane to a cane mill, and one within an distance economic for transport. 2. Growers desire fair and equitable treatment within a mill area between themselves. 3. Growers need security of sale for their investment in farming. 4. The perennial nature of the crop, over four + years per planting cycle. 5. The expensive & massive transport and processing facilities needed to complement the farming operations. 6. Control of production levels can, to some degree, influence market price and grower returns.
With regard to assignment, growers see this regulated "right to grow cane" as very useful. Half the growers said it increases the stability and security of cane sales and income for them. Another one third of growers see assignment as an equity issue because the cane assignment represents added value to their farm, enhances their ability to borrow funds from lending institutions, and recognises the long term nature of cane farming, transport, and processing infrastructure investment. Assignment permits production, transport and milling scheduling to be effectively planned. Infrastructure repair and expansion are based on reliable estimates of production from known areas. Assignment contributes substantially to orderly and efficient crushing at the mills.
A few growers thought that the assignment system might be a minor constraint on increasing sustainability by keeping marginal lands in production (those with assignments) or restricting larger farmers from rotating cane growing through their property, though this is no longer a legal constraint.
The pooling system under total single desk acquisition allows a sharing of revenues and costs across the whole industry. Without pooling, costs and benefits would lie where they fall, increasing variability of returns. Since 1990, a differential of 12% in price paid per tonne of sugar between No. 1 Pool and No. 2 Pool was established, locked in place by the Sugar Industry Act until 1996. Proceeds from the sale of all Queensland raw sugar are now allocated into two pools: No. 1 Pool
103 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
comprises the tonnage of sugar produced within mill peaks (the production quotas allocated to mills) and No. 2 Pool comprises all sugar produced from sugar cane grown on assigned land in excess of mill peaks. Thus peak has a clear economic value to growers with assignment and peak- 12% higher returns for that production.
With regard to peak/pool arrangements, recent deregulation of peak, including the ability to exchange peak outside mill areas has brought confusion to growers. While some no longer see assignment and peak as an equity issue on the farm, others see the deregulation of peak as "equity being stolen from growers at a value of about $500/ha". The Cane Growers Association (Australian Canegrower, 2 Nov. 1992) estimates value of peak in Mackay at $70/tonne of sugar, or $700/ha at l0t/ha based on a 1992 survey of peak sales transactions and note this would be low due to market conditions. Since "anyone can get assignment now without cost" the importance of the assignment system in regulating supply is in question. The ready availability of assignment, plus the mandatory exponential expansion of at least 2.5% per year dictated in the Sugar Industry Act has set the value of assignment essentially at zero. At the time of the survey, approximately 50,000 ha of available assignment (new and existing ) had not been taken up by growers. With this in mind growers saw the usefulness of further deregulation of assignment or promotion of expansion as doubtful.
Growers were asked what impact deregulation would have on their economic returns and what deregulation meant to them. The general response was one of confusion, repulsion, and visions of instability. Fears expressed included, "deregulation ignores the reality of effective infrastructure" already in place and its long thoughtful evolution, "growers will be at the mercy of the mills" if assignment is deregulated, an open market will lead to less returns for growers. The growers do not see further deregulation as favouring their future economic sustainability and feel that the long evolved regulatory mechanisms in place at farm and mill area levels is essential to their continued survival.
On the other hand, Mackay Sugar has recently aired a proposal for 'partial' acquisition to allow them to refine in Mackay without having to buy their raw sugar back from the Queensland Sugar Corporation. 8.4 Industry Expansion
Government and industry marketers have regularly put forward proposals for major expansion of the sugar industry within existing mill areas and into new areas like the Burdekin, (the Sugar Industry Package is a classic example).
Surveyed growers were asked "how they thought sugar industry expansion will affect the economic sustainability of cane farming?"
The response was uniformly negative. Ten growers saw expansion leading to increased production and lower prices, resulting in lower grower income, at least from domestic sugar sales. They also thought expansion might disadvantage existing growers, force more cane farming on to marginal lands, and be limited by mill capacity within mill areas. Several thought it might work "if they could sell the extra sugar", "only if carefully done", or "only if done on high quality irrigated lands".
Five growers saw no impact from industry expansion while seven growers (20%) responded to the question with "it simply won't happen" because of poor price, current economic stress, poor net
104 Keeping It Sweet - ACF returns, and environmental limitations for expansion within existing areas. Many cane farmers interviewed simply conclude that there is no longer sufficient economic incentive to continue farming cane, much less develop new farms This was illuminated by the following comments:
"1000 tonne crops used to support 6 families, now 6000 tonne barely supports one family";
"New cane farmers can pay off a new farm from production only if the have three-quarters of the farm cost up front in cash";
In contrast to the lack of support for expansion into new lands (horizontal expansion), growers were highly supportive of vertical expansion:- producing more tonnage from existing areas or increasing returns from each tonne of sugar through value adding.
Certainly, few of the farmers interviewed are expanding into more cane farming and the large area of available assignment that is not being taken up by existing or new farmers questions further expansion at this time. Surprisingly, no farmers questioned the mandatory minimum exponential expansion dictated by the current Sugar Industry Act.
Industry expansion does not seem to represent a major opportunity for increasing sustainability. Other strategies, such as reducing input intensity and costs deserve further investigation 8.5 Alternate Crops
Growers were asked if they thought increasing diversity of crops would increase economic viability and stability or if they saw an opportunity for alternative crops on the farm.
Other cane growing areas like Bundaberg and Bowen have significant horticultural crops grown in conjunction with cane and Mackay was historically important in supplying tropical fruits and vegetables. Very few growers surveyed had any significant non-cane crop income but some had tried alternate crops on a small area or on fallow ground. One grower grew 1 hectare of sweet corn worth an estimated $6000 gross less costs, another tried small blocks of pineapples and grossed $12,000 per hectare per year. There have been past successful trials of soybean (yielding up to 5 tonnes/ha), maize (dry and forage/silage), pumpkins and other small crops, sorghum, mung beans, and pangola hay.
Surveyed growers were mostly negative on alternate crops, seeing barriers rather than potentials. "Irrigation is needed - natural rainfall is too erratic": "We have both tropical and temperate pests"; "Typical land area available on farms limits alternate crops"; "No expertise to draw from"; "New equipment needed"; "Must be sufficient in volume (to develop market & infrastructure)".
While some growers are concerned about their vulnerability and dependence on continuous monoculture cane, they still find cane farming generating the highest gross margins of the many alternatives in.'normal' years. Other obstacles include distance from markets, generally poor soils, highly variable returns, difficulty in finding labour, or limited return.
105 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Growers responses confirmed an earlier study (Barnewall et al, 1988) that found lack of marketing infrastructure, lack of reliable irrigation water and absence of grower interest in horticulture to be constraints in Mackay.
A number of farmers expressed some interest (10 "would look at") in alternate crops, but due to their present economic conditions had neither the time or money to experiment. Clearly, alternative crops will need further development and technical/marketing support if they are to become an economic option for Mackay cane farmers.
Interestingly, a related question to growers: "would you be willing to produce less cane with a sustainable farming system if your income levels improved through higher prices, different crops, or new opportunities for value added technology?" got almost 100% yes answers. This would indicate that any economical enterprise that is suited and profitable might be considered and indicates that cane farmers want to be firstly, economically sustainable and secondly, growers of cane. Current research/extension services devote little attention to alternate crops, rotations, or agroforestry approaches. 8.6 Yield Decline
In recent years improved management and new variety introductions have not resulted in expected increases in cane yield, a phenomena called yield decline or yield plateau in some institutions.
Major research programs (over $5 million) are in place with a multi-discipline approach to look at the problem. Growers were asked if they saw yield decline on their farms as an economic impact. Surprisingly, sixteen growers (45%) said they had not seen what has been described as yield decline and eight saw it as due simply to climatic variation and continuous culture for 100 years. As practical farmers they could certainly see the impact of their own practices, drought, flood, and the continuous culture of cane on long term cane yields and thought most changes in yield from year to year were caused by these factors.
Of the nine growers that said yield decline was of economic importance to them, their responses pointed to perhaps a different problem: "I'm seeing less from the same yield"; "(cane) plants don't grow as tall" "New land produces more cane (with the same practices)" "New varieties not yielding" "I don't know if new varieties are improved" "The idea of yield decline is based on production from prime BSES research lands"
For the man on the ground with an average of 33 years experience growing sugar cane, it seems more like the whole system is running down rather than a single causative disease or pest causing the problem. There can be no doubt that declining yields increases economic instability and does not contribute to sustainability.
106 Keeping It Sweet - ACF 9 Institutional Issues Cane farming operates within an unique, highly institutionalised and regulated environment, more so than any other broad acre crop in Australia. By looking at the interaction between farmers and institutions, we can attempt to understand the key relationships such as information and technology transfer mechanisms. By assessing farmers' perception of institutional information sources we can learn where farmers gain outside help in managing their farm and how these sources of help interact with each other, and how this supports adoption of sustainable practices. 9.1 Research/Advisory Services
Mackay sugarcane farmers are served by a multitude of service organisations, largely funded from industry levy, research grants and state government. QDPI serves soil conservation and farm planning needs, BSES serves breeding, agronomy, research and most extension needs, Cane Protection and Productivity Boards offer clean seed programs, assistance in pest disease monitoring and control, extension advice, and communication forums of productivity committees in each mill area.
Some overlap and rivalries between the organisations was observed, but generally they have sorted out the work to avoid duplication albeit dominated by BSES. The regional staff appear to communicate well, however the separation of responsibilities may constrain a systems approach to both research and extension. 9.2 Sources of Information on Farming Techniques
Growers were asked : "who are your main sources of information about new techniques of farming" and the above organisations were most commonly listed, (see Figure 3) Other minor sources were: all advisers, fertiliser companies, seminars, and publications. Although BSES is the most likely source of information on new techniques, a few growers expressed distrust and disappointment over breeding research priorities, past recommendations on fertiliser placement, min-till, or green harvest practices that didn't work out and a perception that BSES was reactive rather than proactive, conservative, and not innovative. Nonetheless, BSES is clearly respected and listened to by the Mackay growers interviewed. In a separate question, BSES clearly led as the 'most useful' source of information and assistance. QDPI might show a higher profile if its activities for cane farmers were not limited to erosion control and 'contouring' responsibilities. They are the heartiest supporters of green cane trash blankets and offer valued expertise on this subject according to growers.
107 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
FIGURE 5
Main Sources of Information
& Cmttes
Understandably, growers seek out other growers for new information largely because of their practical experience. While local research & advisory services are seen as understanding cane growing, farmers feel they don't understand it as well as the farmers do. They are also keenly aware that bureaucrats keep getting paid regardless of how well their advice works (at least in the short run), whereas farmers suffer in the back pocket if the wrong practice or material is used. Therefore, their operational strategy is to listen to advice, but see it working at the neighbours before they take it on fully.
Many growers expressed a sense of concern and caution over institutional cooperation. This caution seems well advised. Recent examples of suggested sustainable practices and level of adoption show the inadequacy of current extension. When Cyclone Joy created enormous erosion loss, the crisis management reaction was a massive push for minimum till ratoon management. In many lowland, heavy soil situations tillage functioned to distribute fertiliser and maintain soil structure for water management and root growth. Without an alternative 'biological tillage' from increased soil life and organic matter throughput, the radical shift to min-till produced problems and reduced yield for growers. Some growers went back to tillage and will be much more shy about trying this practice again. If proper alternatives to tillage had been evaluated and a phased systems approach taken the rate of adoption would likely have been higher.
108 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
When it became evident that broadcasting urea resulted in massive atmospheric losses, recommendations were made to move to inter-row placement of fertiliser, (behind a ripper tyne in the middle of the space between cane rows). Apparently, this recommendation was made on the basis of field observations only and not as a result of any experimental evidence. The practice resulted in a number of problems: in heavy rain periods, rips earned water and removed fertilisers, the moist inter-row created conditions for denitrification losses, it took a long time for new ratoon roots to reach the inter-row fertiliser band, and growers had to buy expensive new equipment to perform this recommendation. When this practice was deemed unsatisfactory, the primary victims were the growers.
When green cane harvesting was promoted, there was little attention to the suitability of existing varieties in terms of their ability to be trashed and harvested without unacceptable loss. Nor was there much work on the ability of current varieties to emerge from thick trash blankets, especially in early cool conditions and moist heavy soil sites. Therefore a number of growers tried this partial solution, went backward in yield or field efficiency and went back to burning.
One might argue that for sure and acceptable adoption, farms are the best place for extension and demonstration to take place. Farm based extension could still assume guidance from scientific research principles and experimental design procedures along with interpretation from research scientists and extension personnel. 9.3 Institutional Interaction
To determine their perception of the degree of cooperation among the organisations growers were asked which of the research/advisory groups work most closely together (see Figure 6).
Representative groups like the Canegrowers Association and the Australian Cane Farmers Association, marketing bodies, and research funding organisations were not considered local research & advisory bodies by surveyed growers. Clearly BSES is at the centre of things according to growers and is seen as working together substantially with other relevant bodies. Landcare emerges as a marginal advisory body; this is consistent with its newly evolving role.
9.4 Adoption
While BSES and other organisations are stated to be the main sources of information about new farming techniques, another questions was asked: "Who do other growers listen to most closely when considering the adoption of farming practices." Seventy-one percent said not the research and advisory bodies but other farmers! and 20% said BSES with miscellaneous sources making up the remaining 9%. While it seems growers look for information from the research and advisory bodies, they believe actual adoption of new sustainable practices takes place primarily as a result of farmer to farmer communication, demonstration, and trial.
109 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
FIGURE 6 CONCEPTUAL MAP OF INSTITUTIONAL INTERACTION
Mackay Research & Advisory Organisations
"Which Groups Work Together"
circle size=relative importance in group interactions overiap=degree of interation
110 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
111 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
SECTION 4: Report on Phase I and III: The Future and How We Get There.
10 Scenarios Of Sustainable Cane Farming
This chapter comprises phase II of the project.
A scenario of an ideal sustainable cane farming system in 50 years was developed using a focus group process so that a clear picture of the preferred future is created, as one important step towards "designing the future".
10.1 Project Process Review
In early January 1993, participating growers, research and extension workers, and industry members received an 86 page report documenting the first phase of the project. This comprised of the reviews of scientific literature relevant to cane farming in Mackay (the basis of chapters 1,2 and 3) and a summary of the results of the growers survey and interviews (the basis for chapters 4 -9).
The report was sent out to maximise participatory consultation, using information feedback to help in developing consensus. Participants were able to review the document for 4-6 weeks prior to the February Phase II meetings that followed, (see appendix 2 for comments on the Phase 1 Report)
10.2 Focus Groups
In late January participants were invited to focus groups developing scenarios of sustainable cane farming. This letter, summarised below, outlined the purpose of these follow up meeting as:
Defining - developing scenarios of sustainable cane farming systems, operating in 50 years time, and suggesting what is required for a successful collaborative effort to create optimal progress toward sustainable cane farming.
Problem solving - the scenarios will attempt to address the presently known problems identified in Phase I and to anticipate potentials and barriers to achieving increased economic, social, and environmental sustainability. By having a clear vision of where you want to be in 50 years, focused, proactive problem solving can begin.
Participative and interactive- the scenario will arise from people with a intimate knowledge of the conditions within the industry.
Long range planning- the scenario approach allows a conscious designing of the future and is a useful tool for long term planning, much like the role of a whole farm and property management planning for individual farms.
Exploring alternatives- scenarios are open to consideration of useful but under-utilised materials, practices, or system dynamics. Some of the literature presents what might seem like wild and
112 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
impossible ideas, but cane farming 50 years ago was quite different and we need to be open to all potentially useful approaches and principles in exploring the future.
The following rationale for the validity of the scenario generating activity was also presented:-
"There are two ways to approach the future. The first is to study the past, analyse current trends, and project those trends to the years ahead. This approach has been used to forecast world population, energy use, disappearance of the rain forest, value of real estate, and cost of a college education. From these projections have come the doomsday resignation in those who accept the inevitability of these predictions, an assumption that the future is beyond our control and that we have no capacity to understand the warning signs and adapt our behaviour and our long term goals.
A positive alternative is designing the future. As we develop a vision of how we would like our farm, our community, or our country to appear in 20 years or 50 years, it is possible to start making decisions today to cause that future to happen. There are many economically viable and environmental sound options in the use of agricultural management and technology. Among these innovations are alternative methods of land preparation, crop diversity, and species rotation, choice of crops and varieties and alternative approaches to management of fertility and crop pests. The glue that holds these practices and management decisions together is the integrated production system. Computer aided decision support systems and the information revolution are moving rapidly into agriculture. We need to help farmers with a process that can lead to choice of practices that will fulfil their future vision of the farm and community, both economically and environmentally." (Bushell, et al, 1991)
In mid-February, nine groups of 8-20 members each, met with the consultants: all four Mill Area Cane Protection and Productivity Board Committees, the two Cane Protection and Productivity Boards, a combined group of research and field extension personnel from BSES, QDPI, and Productivity Boards, Canegrowers Executive and Environmental Action Committee, and a combined group of Landcare members, urban interests, and local conservation groups. Debbie Atkins, QDPI Landcare facilitator based at Ayr assisted in all focus groups meetings, typically lasting 4-5 hours. Approximately 80% of focus group participants were cane farmers who had participated in the initial grower survey assisting continuity and all had benefit of the Phase I report.
During each focus group meeting, the consultants presented a brief introduction to set the scene. Participants were reminded that they were leading the Australian sugar industry in attempting to define long term sustainability. They were also reminded that the Commonwealth State Sugar Industry Package had specified "All production expansion must be consistent with sustainable and best land management practices."
10.3 Focus Group Method
The Mission Statement
In an effort to develop cohesion and common mission, each group was asked to establish personal and property goals and values by answering the open ended question: "My ideal future situation for cane growing in the Mackay district is..." first to themselves and then as a group consensus view written up before them. They were asked to consider economic, social, and environmental
113 Keeping It Sweet - ACF criteria in a brief two to three sentence statement and to concentrate on the production aspects of sugar cane growing on the farm in a regional community.
The scenarios With the agreed mission statement visible, participants were asked to consider the ten topics listed below. They were also asked to use the information contained in the phase 1 report (survey results, the academic definitions of sustainability, and the literature on sugar - now forming chapters 1 - 9 of this report) to assist in developing sustainable solutions.
TOPICS Farmland resource Environmental impacts, on-site Farming operations Environmental impacts, off-site Fertility management Economic issues Water management Social environment Pest & disease management Institutional environment
The aim was to generate scenarios of a hypothetical, perfectly sustainable cane farm in 50 years. Small discussion groups of two to four individuals were created to address two to four topics from the list above. Each topic had eight to 12 issues listed that had emerged from Phase I to guide discussion and prompt future solutions to present concerns. For example:
Environmental impacts, on-site Soil retention Wildlife/aesthetics Decline in soil exchange capacity Compaction Benefits of soil life Erosion losses average 4 T soil Biogenic silicate fibres per T sugar produced Chemical use (safety & residual) Nutrient losses High nitrate in water bores Wind protection Salt water intrusion into irrigation Volatility of organochlorines bores and organophosphate chemicals In working on the scenario topics, participants were asked to focus on overriding and general principles that they would apply on the farm of the future, to establish desirable outcomes for particular issues/problems, and to create potential long term solutions. When discussion groups encountered conflict they were asked to focus on areas of agreement. The task was to create practical strategies, and practices on the farm that solved present problems.
Scenario generated from each focus group was cycled back to all group members so that they could compare the scenario of their group with that of the other groups in order to assure peer accountability and develop a common vision. They were presented without identifying source group because of the goal of unbiased consensus. The individual group mission statements are as follows.
114 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
10.4 Focus Group Mission Statements, Roughly sorted into paragraphs corresponding to social, economic and ecological sustainability.
GROUP ONE Mission Statement - Profitable industry returning at least 8-10% return on capital, using economies of scale (larger farms) and downstream processing with a guaranteed floor price for sugar through underwriting tied to input costs, and investment allowance & tax incentives to encourage production based investment. -Social improvement through maximum 50- hour week, working reasonable hours, using stable improved income to decrease unemployment and increase permanent skilled and motivated employees with adequate wages, increased quality of family life including adequate community wealth, employment opportunities for youth, availability of services equal to urban dwellers, in a society where people still have freedom of choice, balance between economic needs and environmental constraints, by retaining soils, decreasing pollution and chemical inputs, with contour farming and trash retention where possible. -R&D efforts to decrease input costs, especially in alternatives to pest control and fertilisation. R & D to move to on-farm, realistic scale experiment & demonstration instead of lab & experiment station plot; R & D to yield correct information. Better communication with wider society.
GROUP TWO Mission Statement -A cane farming economy with adequate income and return on capital comparable to other countries, with government policy and financial support recognising sugar's contribution to the national economy. Increased production from less land. -A well informed, interdependent, rural and urban society, farming in small communities, with more time for social life, using more comfortable and efficient equipment, less stress. -Living in harmony with environment and wider community using less inputs and improved biological pest control and fertilisation. -Self protecting and fertilising cane plants that grow widely, without fertiliser losses and natural deterrence of pest and weeds.
115 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
GROUP THREE
Mission Statement -To be economically viable and stable in cash flow, return on capital, including financial stability sufficient to manage farms using good practices, a demand for the product at a fair price, maintenance of productivity sufficient for incentives to grow; -To be environmentally sound with knowledge and action to be non-polluting, energy efficient, relying on renewable resources, with knowledge of environmental issues, making minimum environmental impact; -To live a socially responsible and rewarding lifestyle, based on family farms, possibly of smaller size, with higher farmer education on larger farms, living in a richer physical environment, cooperating with urban neighbours, in a social state similar to those in other industries.
GROUP FOUR Mission Statement -Economic success through value adding, vertical expansion, and government support in a corrupt market, providing a stable and realistic sugar price and resolving some social concerns; -Improved rural/urban communication, buffers for urban areas, cane lands retained for farming; -Working community typical workloads within local health/safety standards with specific and explicit training for new cane farmers; -Assured irrigation used to enhance environmental & economic goals; -Farm size determined by sufficient income to meet costs; -Major advances in cane breeding.
GROUP FIVE Mission Statement -Larger farms providing a good living for families, allowing investment & adoption of new practices with reasonable returns stimulating the regional economy, based on stable sugar price; -Environmentally sustainable, using equipment with less environmental impact, and intensification of production from 'best lands', retaining topsoil, and using alternative, economic fertilisers and chemicals and automatic irrigation; -Reasonable working hours, cooperative sharing of equipment, more communication between rural & urban populations, possible cooperative management of large holdings while retaining family farms, more efficient harvesting, possibly in-field crushing.
116 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
GROUP SIX Mission Statement -Financially able to farm sustainably, with government support, a profitable business with secure viability, sufficient income, and a guaranteed sugar cane price, reduced input costs and vertical expansion; -An environmentally friendly farm, maintaining or improving productivity, soils and the environment, restoring existing environmental degradation and reducing fertiliser use by replacement with biological systems. Adequate water storage, controlled pests & diseases; -A secure viable participation in the economy leading to good family life, adequate employment and good information availability in a friendly society.
GROUP SEVEN Mission Statement -Maximum secure, stable, profitable more integrated cooperative production across a diverse industry from minimum area, through vertical expansion increasing employment and enhancing the local community and viable family farms of all sizes; price indexed to CPI; -Using sustainable practices on all agricultural lands, eliminating unsafe chemical use, and developing alternatives, focusing on improvement at the farm level, with least environmental and urban impact; -Erosion reduced or solved, soil structure improved, less stress and more free time with community well being and secure lifestyles.
GROUP EIGHT Mission Statement -Economically viable farms in income and return on investment optimising economic benefits and success without changing the environment; -An environmentally friendly society of educated small farmers cooperatively purchasing equipment and conducting on-farm research leading to a sustainable agriculture; -A viable community with improved quality of life and free time living in harmony with local and wider communities according to community acceptable environmental & social standards.
117 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
GROUP NINE Mission Statement -Economic viability sufficient from a 5 day work week to retain farmlands as farms, employ in the local community, gain a comparable return on investment, increasing production from existing lands, reducing input costs, and with commitment to investment to allow efficient and environmentally supportive practices; -An enjoyable family life with satisfaction, pride, and reward from work, using a variety of flexible practices, industries and crops, recognising community interdependence in education and planning, with higher self reliance and security with less outside pressure, integrating rural & urban interests in value-adding activities and local economic exchange, possible cashless; -No continuous crushing; -Fitting in to the natural ecosystem with adequate social right and responsibility to manage the total environment as a safe & healthy workplace, using environmentally friendly chemicals, greater Landcare activities, reduced off-farm negative impacts and an increased use of biological solutions. Waste areas developed as wildlife habitat, degraded areas restored, nil or minimum erosion, increased irrigation availability with some government assistance.
11 Getting On With The Task-How Do We Get There From Here? Phase III This chapter documents the results of focus groups who were invited to consider how they might move from the present situation toward their sustainable future - the future they created a clear vision of through the scenarios they generated a few months previously. They were asked to identify • responsibility for change - who would need to do what, and • how could improved performance be monitored, or in other words, what indicators are needed to measure progress in moving towards sustain ability. Project Review Following Phase I and II, focus groups in Mackay met with the consultant in late May-early June 1993 to continue addressing sustainability in sugar cane farming. With the survey and literature search and a series of future scenarios articulating the ideal future of cane farming ("Where do we want to be in 50 years") in the view of the Mackay cane farming community, the focus groups were asked to consider how they might "get on with the task" of moving from the present situation toward their sustainable future. Knowing that sustainability is a moving target and ill-suited to strict or enduring definition, this phase attempted to elicit information from the groups on means to take on, direct, and monitor efforts toward increasing sustainability.
Phase III Process The participants were thanked for their ongoing involvement and commitment in generating the first community based operational definitions of sustainability in the cane industry. The scenarios were, on reflection, very similar between the separate focus groups; indicating a hopeful uniformity among the diverse interest groups in Mackay. Within each group scenario there was a surprising lack of internal inconsistencies, such as wanting to recycle bagasse back to farms but also wanting to manufacture value added paper products. This internal consistency seems to demonstrate that participants had put considerable thought into integrating known information into the scenarios. This speaks well of the interest, commitment and concern by participants. The scenarios also show
118 Keeping It Sweet - ACF a significant congruence with the long term vision of government ESD initiatives and the conservation community, indicating that while previously seeing themselves in opposition, growers and 'Greenies' increasingly see the same goals, at least in the long term. Focus groups were asked to consider the need for implementation, clear and persistent action, and the essential follow up necessary to build on previous work, to demonstrate commitment, and get on with the task. Several assumptions were presented for the purposes of the two exercises to follow: 1. We will be growing cane sustainably; 2. Technical barriers will be overcome; and 3. All segments of the industry and society will cooperate to achieve increased sustainability.
The first reflects the growers view of limited hopes for diversity on the ground with alternate crops and the understanding that cane fanning might not survive at all without conscious re-direction. Perhaps being present in 50 years still growing cane will be the only long term evidence of moving toward sustainability. The second assumption implies that it is not the technical problems that will represent the short and mid-term constraints to increasing sustainability. As excellent innovators and cooperators over time, both farmers and research/extension elements have shown considerable ability to solve problems in the technical area. While technical solutions (cane loss monitors, implementation of IPM, etc) will certainly require funding, research and deployment; this second assumption also considers that significant support or constraints may be in the larger areanas of institutions, political forces, industry regulatory structure, research/extension performance, and the economic environment. The third assumption implies a cooperative approach quite different to the present "us and them" dichotomy of farmers/Greenies, farmers/extension, local/federal, etc. It assumes mutual support for and from cane farmers in their progress toward sustainability. It also implies that everyone will be working on getting their own house in order and past tendencies to displace responsibility ("cane farmers aren't polluting the reef, urban sewage plants are to blame") are no longer useful. Cane growers must and will find cooperation in their moves toward more sustainable cane farming. It also implies that sustainability embraces a total social system approach that sees single industry efforts as fruitless unless other segments of society also direct themselves to such efforts. It will be fruitless to have a sustainable agriculture serving unsustainable urban consumptive lifestyle, for example.
Sustainability Indicators
How do we know if we are becoming more sustainable? There is increased interest in sustainability indicators in Australia (Hamblin, 1992) Over the coming decades, as growers and supporters seek sustainability, the immediate need is a means to monitor progress and obtain clear feedback to see if changes in practices or materials used on the farm are contributing to increasing economic, social and environmental sustainability. Sustainability indicators or performance standards were presented as useful tools. Indicators are firstly "quantifiable" observations or measurements to monitor change. They are most useful when they are simple, easily seen, and "farmer-friendly" so that anyone can monitor on their own farm. They cane be used to improve the producers' capacity to self-monitor management practices and have on-farm early warning systems for detection of environmental deterioration, productivity loss, and progress toward increasing sustainability. In addition to the feedback/control function, indicators can also be useful to predict critical thresholds, particularly where irreversible degradation may occur. These sorts of'leading'
119 Keeping It Sweet - ACF indicators are most useful to assist prediction. Indicators reflect the natural resource base, our domesticated plants and animals and our human management of both, but can rarely accurately reflect past degradation. They are also useful as aggregated statistics to evaluate performance in a region or industry and point out areas of achievement and areas where increased attention is needed. Indicators can also be constructed to allow for ranking within industries or regions to establish key indicators. These are the most useful, preemptory, or widely representative indicators that can be used to compare progress between industries, in say, erosion control. The use of such an iterative feedback mechanism allows tracking of moving targets like sustainability. allows different conditions to be accommodated, and re empowers local communities through their involvement. This involvement is essential for newly developing tools like sustainability indicators, in a sense, this is new science and is only slowly being developed. The role of practical agriculturalists will remain important as these tools are developed and applied.
Focus groups were asked to consider a number of strong themes emerging from the scenarios, generally following the previous topic format of farmland, fertility management, etc. For each topic, they were asked what measurement, observations, trends, or changes would .be useful to monitor the achievement of the scenario objectives in that topic starting from the current situation as described in Phase I. They were also advised that while current types of sustainability indicators are more often environmental (monitoring the environmental impact of farm practices) there is further potential for developing and using social, psychological, and economic indicators, although often decreasing ability to quantify. In all cases, indicators were sought that were accessible and as topic/practice specific as possible so that clear linkage would be established between action and indicator. Indicators are listed in order of frequency mentioned across the groups.
120 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
ACTION SUSTAINABILITY GOAL INDICATOR Farmland Environmental Economic Social Erosion -Amount silt deposited -Area surveyed for conservation controlled -Runoff water colour structures -Amount visible row -Amount positive community rills/gullies feedback -Extent of streambank erosion -Depth of topsoil Vertical -Tonnes sugar/ha -Net$ -Diversity of products from expansion - # irrigated ha income/tonne sugar -Taxable -Employment level in region income/tonne -Lifestyle quality -Harvesting cost/ha -Net $ income/ha Socially -Amount wildlife habitat -Lack of negative media Responsible criticism Resource -Level of Landcare involvement Management -Attitude of growers -Amount of government intervention Farming Operations Increased soil -Soil texture/friability -Amount of input -Amount of soil testing and health -Microbial population levels replacement interpretation -Weight of root/plant -Net return at the -Rate of growth/uniformity same yield -% area as fallow -ratoon life span -Type of fallow (green manure vs. bare) -Moisture holding capacity -Soil depth
Decreased -Water infiltration rate -Reduced tillage -Amount of wet weather compaction -Ease of working or less HP cost harvesting ordered by mills required -Amount of runoff per amount of water -Porosity or bulk density -Extent/depth of roots -Equipment tyre pressure needed Suitable -# green capable harvesters -Sales of suitable -Labor time needed per ha or equipment -Equipment meets equipment tonne environmental needs and -Cost efficiency -Meets the needs constraints -Energy efficiency
121 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Fertility Environmental Economic Social Management Transition -Level of soil life -Amount synthetics from synthetic -Ratio of syn/bio-min purchased per unit output to biological types used -Yield maintained at less and mineral' -Amount of off-site cost approaches impacts -Synthetics cost -% area in bare fallow -Yield, nutritional content of plants
Improved Water Management Efficient -Amount irrigation -Tonnes/megaliter applied -Irrigation frequency Irrigation tailwater recovered -Net $/megaliter applied -Uniformity of income -Degree of water -Amount applied per gross over time penetration dollar -Growth of soda -Labor cost patches -Crop variability over time Increased -Area irrigated -Tonnes/ha -Stability of water water supply -Amount water stored- availability available Improved -Amount of paddock -Sales of gum boots -# drainage schemes in drainage ponding place -Amount of equipment - # farm plans in place bogging -Area leveled for field -Time to return to drainage paddock after wet -Long term consistency in -Amount of yield & growth waterlogging stress- cane health -Amount of N lost (denitrifi cation) -Amount of erosion -Amount of water recovery (on farm dams)
122 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Increased -Evidence of ground -Amount of water storage water water recharge (bore in area retention levels over pumping -Amount area contoured time) -Amount area with -Interval between reduced row slopes irrigations (vs. evapo- transpiration) -Ability to maintain stream flows-wildlife -Soil condition (at tillage) -Amount drought die- off of ratoons
Improved Environmental Economic Social Water Management Reduced -Lab testing of on-farm -Increased return from -Amount of negative water samples fertiliser used media coverage contamination -Evidence of nutrient loss (algae in dams, drain grasses) -Presence of wildlife, including in farm dams -Amount stream bank erosion -Salt indicator plants/bore tests -Amount of stream bank revegetation -Stream-dams clear of silt Pest-Disease Management Implementati -Yield success -Amount of chemical -Amount of pest on of IPM controls used per unit monitoring production -Number of alternative -Amount of pest-disease controls available loss -Positive community -$ and work needed for support economic control Breeding for -Varieties available to -$ amount and work needed -# varieties available pest/disease prevent loss for economic control (resistant, green capable) control -Amount of chemical -Degree of loss -Breeding criteria controls used according to growers -Length of ratoons needs Economic Success
123 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
-A stable, -Degree of -Farm value, total district -# Family farms-young viable income implementation of wealth farmers sustainable practices -Value of farm serviceable -Confidence of -Improved equipment loans community (employment, available -Consistent, stable, average growth, % flow on, level net income over time stability) -Level of marginal rate of -# of services available return (town) -Lower break-even point to -# options for profit margin diversification -# different products from sugar cane -Amount of financial advice used -# small communities -Improvement in equipment -Stable lifestyle maintained
Economic Environmental Economic Social Success Psychological -Level of Adoption of -Amount of personal -Amount of leisure- Health sustainable practices drawings-net profit family time -Community prosperity -Farm price -Amount of positive community feedback -Amount of young people employed in area -Level of stress induced illness, job satisfaction, confidence and self esteem -Occurrence of suicide- depression and family break-up -Level of outside cooperation -Stability of farm size mix -Willingness to cooperate
124 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Transfer the - # Farm plans done -Farm efficiency - # Training schemes skills of cane -Level of innovation -Farm production offered farming and adoption of maintained -Farmers' average age sustainable practices - # Farm youth staying in farming -Level of farmer skill -# Pest control applicator licenses -Extent of recognition of farmer skill Institutional | Environment Increased -Cost effectiveness of -Level of confidence in representation results information-decisions to and -Correct, consistent accountability policies from government from -# of growers involved in institutions representation -# advisory information reports available to growers -Level of communication -Amount of intervention by institutions -Amount of grower control (prompt, local decision making) Effective -Least cost effectiveness of - # on-farm trials research and results -Level of R & D adoption extension -# staff jobs retained in - # new farmers involved community -Level of farmer interest -Degree levy income is in research and based in grower income demonstration -Amount of information based on local conditions -Accessibility of information (versus secret data) -Extent of communication among growers -Level of farmer satisfaction with service
125 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Discussion
Farmland In managing the farmland base for cane growing in Mackay, the scenarios pointed out three major areas for activity in increasing sustainability. controlling erosion, vertical expansion and acceptance of a wider social responsibility in the husbandry of the coastal plain. For erosion control, a number of easily observed indicators emerged, including some that would detect low erosion losses that might not be directly visible in the paddock such as off-site silt deposits and run off water colour, Top soil depth would be a useful indicator only in a single variable, controlled condition situation. The two social indicators would be useful, although the second is difficult to quantify or collect.
Vertical expansion is seen as the primary route to improving income in an area of marginal horizontal expansion potential. The results are skewed to the extent that participants were existing growers with, generally, no opportunity to occupy new lands economically. Two strategies are included, producing more cane from the same area and generating more dollars from the same amount of raw sugar. Participants were keenly aware that it is the net result that is important and that larger crops or income must include consideration of additional costs in inputs or operations. All are clearly measurable except lifestyle quality and some will need controlled trials to eliminate other variables. Horizontal expansion is easily monitored by number of hectares in production or amount of land clearing for cane but this was seen as a minor element in managing farmland for increased economic sustainability.
To monitor increased social responsibility in managing their resources, participants saw the primary indicator being the lack of negative criticism in the media. Given the nature of people, they saw little hope for positive feedback but would welcome both as an indication of achievement in this arena. All appear reasonably measurable, except perhaps grower attitude, which might be reflected in feedback. If Mackay cane farming is socially responsible there should be less need for outside intervention like banning trash burning or regulating inputs.
Farming Operations In the actual operations on the farms, participants addressed two major themes emerging from the scenarios: increased attention to soil health and decreasing compaction to solve a number of problems and increase sustainability. A minor point was the suitability of equipment. Increased soil health has a number of fairly clear and farmer-friendly indicators to use. Soil testing and microbial monitoring may require laboratory assistance but most farmers know when the soil "smells right" even if they can't articulate this into a measurable indicator. The economic indicators imply that when soil life systems are up and running, increased soil health should reduce the need for inputs, especially fertilisers.
While compaction was previously not thought to be a major constraint in the district, once participants comprehended the system and the impact of compaction on nutrient conservation, soil life, erosion, water retention, and ratoon growth; it emerged as a central issue in the shift toward more sustainable farming operations. They also clearly recognised the role of other segments of the industry such as mills. All indicators appear measurable on the farm, with a bit of help. Having suitable equipment is evidence of having both the economic sustainability to purchase and the ability to utilise the equipment in practices that contribute to sustainability, such as fertiliser application equipment suited to below ground placement in heavy trash blankets.
Fertility Management In the scenarios, participants generally recognised the limitations of continued reliance on synthetic and fossil fuel manufactured fertilisers for a number of reasons and
126 Keeping It Sweet - ACF suggested a substantial shift in fertility management. They recognised that the transition to alternative biological and mineral strategies needed to be carefully phased in with minimum disturbance to yield and economic sustainability and that some new approaches would need a lot of research and development over the coming decades. The assumption inherent in the economic indicators is that the new approach will be more cost effective, ardifferent attribute to predict. An interesting position was that as growers move away from synthetic fertilisers, less demand and competition may actually reduce their costs, all else being equal.
Improved Water Management. In managing water, several important themes emerged from the scenarios. Increasing total supply of irrigation water was seen as assisting both economic and environmental sustainability. By increasing drainage to cope with wet times participants recognised the need to link drainage with irrigation development to allow maintenance of soil and plant health. Conversely, water retention in dry times to resist drought and increase irrigation efficiency emerged as a more useful approach than first seen in the survey.
Increased water availability is easily measured but yield indicators will need to exclude other variables. Interestingly, the psycho-social security aspect of water availability appeared important, though admittedly difficult to quantify. Net economic gain per unit of irrigation water, taking into account costs, might also be useful as an economic indicator.
Increased drainage should be easily visible on the farm. Cane health was articulated as monitored by colour, vigor, uniformity and variability over the years. Most of the indicators for progress in achieving increased drainage are easily measured. "Sales of gum boots" is perhaps not to be seriously considered. Again, the element of predictability in performance emerges as an important psychological indicator, allowing planned development, infra-structure investment and peace of mind as consistent production is realised from improved drainage and other changes. Achieving water retention would include the use of some indicator above: amount of erosion, water recovery, yield stability, and number of farm plans are linked to keeping water where it falls. All appear fairly specific, though obviously linked to compaction, and quantifiable, except perhaps soil condition.
Reduced water contamination mainly addresses some off-site concerns and a number of measurable indicators that will assist monitoring of progress in solving known and potential environmental impacts. Unfortunately, few participants saw the economic value to them or economic indicators of successful water quality maintenance beyond retained nutrients. This may be the fault of economic models that cannot discriminate or include water quality in a dollar sense. Certainly coastal irrigators now pumping sea water know the costs of poor water quality, as do fishermen and the town of Mackay. Irrigation efficiency appears best monitored from an economic perspective but includes some environmental indicators. Some earlier indicators more useful in high rainfall periods (under improved drainage) may apply here as well.
Pest-Disease Management The scenarios suggested a number of sustainable practices, summarised as a transition to IPM (Integrated Pest Management), using cultural, biological, mechanical, system redesign, chemical, and breeding approaches. Indicators pertain to cost and time to contain damage below economic thresholds. The most measurable indicators will be the relative use of the approaches above. Yield success is hardly specific top pest-disease management alone, Positive support will be hard to measure. There was an underlying feeling that IPM will be cheaper than chemical controls- a difficult prediction to make, especially as the community sees
127 Keeping It Sweet - ACF cane farming continuing as a monoculture. The importance of choices to the grower is clear and is linked to accountability of research and extension organisations.
Economic Success In achieving economic success in sustainable cane farming, participants saw no need to be greedy, just to have a fair return on investment and labor coming in on a stable and predictable basis. The scenarios suggest a number of approaches to be used that reduce costs, increase returns, or both. The indicators listed are obviously, primarily economic but include a significant set of social indicators of economic success; most being measurable within the community. Clearly, economic success requires sustainable practices on the ground by a confident community of knowledgeable farmers with the essential tools at hand.
Social Sustainability In achieving social sustainability, a number of concerns evident from the survey and scenarios were addressed. The largely social indicators become increasingly difficult to measure compared to clearer environmental and economic indicators since psychological health is primarily perceived from within the individual. For effectively transferring the great skills of farming cane, the "culture of agriculture", we have a few more quantifiable and goal specific indicators. These apply both to exchange between existing farmers and the training of new farmers and as indicated in the scenario are largely farm based. Note how the implementation and adoption of sustainable practices is linked to achieving psychological health and continuing a competent community of farmers in the community.
Institutional Environment Clearly; the service, costs, effectiveness and amount of intervention of the institutions surrounding cane farmers will affect their progress towards sustainability. One argument can be made that until the institutions around cane growing embrace sustainability as a guiding principle it will be difficult for the community and growers to do so. Some institutions are grower based, some government, some distant in accessibility and response. Growers want more communication both ways and service they can trust. In keeping with their view that most environmental concerns are best left to their on-site implementation, institutions remain advisory or facilitative. Indicators of progress are difficult to quantify for representation and accountability but clearer for monitoring effectiveness of research and extension for achieving increased sustainability. Growers especially see the need to watch carefully to ensure research and demonstration activities become much closer to their farm and needs. 11.1 Cooperating to grow cane sustainably After receiving and reviewing the mission statements, focus group scenarios and composite scenarios to develop consensus, in late May to early June 1993 the focus groups met again with the consultant for the final phase of the project. On the basis of the work of the previous phases, the groups were asked to consider what was needed to be done, by whom, to create a sustainable future cane industry. They were also asked to consider what measurement, observations, trends, or changes would be useful to monitor progress toward the achievement of the scenario objectives.
Several assumptions based on the work to date, were presented for the purposes of the final focus group exercises:
1. We will be growing cane sustainably; 2. Technical barriers will be overcome; and 3. All segments of the industry and society will cooperate to achieve increased sustainability.
128 Keeping It Sweet -ACF
The first assumption reflects the growers' views of limited scope for diversity through alternate crops, but also supports the position that cane farming might not survive at all without conscious re-direction, suggesting that simply still growing cane in 50 years will be long term evidence of movement toward sustainability.
The second assumption implies that it is not the technical problems that will constrain increasing sustainability in the short and mid-term. History demonstrates that farmers, researchers and extension agents are excellent innovators possessing considerable ability to collectively solve technical problems. While clearly technical solutions, such as integrated pest management require resourcing, this second assumption provided scope to consider whether significant support or constraints to sustainability occurs within non-technical arenas such as, industry planning and regulatory structures, research, extension and education institutions, and the arenas of political and economic management.
The third assumption implies a cooperative approach quite different to the present "us and them" dichotomy of farmers/greenies, farmers/extension, local/federal, etc. It assumes mutual support for farmers in progressing toward sustainability, implying that everyone will be working on getting their own house in order, in contrast to past tendencies to hand pass responsibility eg. "cane farmers aren't polluting the reef, urban sewage plants are to blame". As ESD embraces a total and broad agenda all segments of society need to direct their efforts to such goals. Therefore, it would be fruitless to have a sustainable agriculture serving unsustainable urban consumptive lifestyles.
11.2 Sustainability Indicators - a discussion
How do we know if we are becoming more sustainable? There is increased interest in sustainability indicators in Australia (Hamblin, 1992). Over the coming decades, as primary industries pursue sustainability goals, means of monitoring progress and obtaining feedback are necessary. Monitoring is necessary to see if changes in practices or materials used on farms are advancing or retarding progress toward sustainability.
Sustainability indicators or performance standards were defined to focus group participants as "useful tools". Indicators are firstly "quantifiable" observations or measurements to monitor change. They are most useful when they are simple, easily seen, and "farmer-friendly" so that anyone can monitor on their own farm. They can be used to improve the producers' capacity to self- monitor management practices and have on-farm early warning systems for detection of environmental deterioration, productivity loss, and progress toward increasing sustainability. In addition to the feedback/control function, indicators can also be useful to predict critical thresholds, particularly where irreversible degradation may occur. These sorts of 'leading' indicators are most useful to assist prediction. Indicators reflect the natural resource base, our domesticated plants and animals and our human management of both, but can rarely accurately reflect past degradation. They are also useful as aggregated statistics to evaluate performance in a region or industry and point out areas of achievement and areas where increased attention is needed.
State of the environment reporting using indicator systems can also be adopted to allow for ranking within industries or regions to establish key relevant indicators. These are the most useful, pre- emptory, or widely representative indicators that can be used to compare progress between industries, in say, erosion control. The use of such an iterative feedback mechanism allows tracking of moving targets like sustainability, allows different conditions to be accommodated, and re
129 Keeping It Sweet - ACF empowers local communities through their involvement in intensive observation and recording of local environmental conditions.
Sustainability indicators systems are newly developing tools and in a sense, this is new science and is only slowly being developed. The role and involvement of practical agriculturalists will remain important in developing, applying and refining these tools.
11.3. Sustainability Indicators for the Sugar Industry
Participants were advised that while current types of sustainability indicators are more often environmental, there is further potential for developing and using social, psychological, and economic indicators, although often these have a reduced capacity for objective quantification.
In all cases, indicators were sought that were accessible and as topic/practice specific as possible so that clear linkage would be established between action and indicator. Indicators are listed in order of frequency mentioned across the groups. Action goals are the same categories used in Phase II scenario creation. Synthesis Scenario- Common Visions From Mackay
The following represents a synthesis of the scenarios for sustainable cane farming developed by focus groups. It is a composite view of the most desirable sustainable cane farming system for the Mackay region that the participants could envisage in 1993. (Note while each group generated a separate scenario there was a great deal of common view on the themes.)
Farmland: While soil erosion remains a persistent threat, the land resource is managed for soil conservation, soil improvement and vertical expansion. Strategies for minimising erosion include local regulatory control and minimum tillage approaches. Practices that are especially useful are strategic row direction, revegetation, less intensive farming on marginal or sloping lands within a framework of whole farm planning. Soil erosion control relies both on physical conservation structures and attention to soil improvement. By using rotations, green manure crops, trash blankets and alternative fertility management there is significantly less erosive runoff from soil more capable of absorbing rain or irrigation water; Physical erosion control structures such as contouring, optimising row length and slope, improved drainage and improved farm planning further decrease erosion. With increased irrigation use, growers are able to stabilise tilled soil against erosion, ensure early establishment of cane roots and cover crops. A proportion of increased income resulting from improved land management is reinvested in further soil conservation work.
Vertical expansion increases farm income with planning based on the actual capacity of land resources. Practices used to facilitate vertical expansion include irrigation, green trash blankets in moisture deficit areas, new varieties of cane and the retention of best cane lands for farming.
Wider social responsibility is recognised by farm managers through increased revegetation and creation of wildlife habitat. Farmers, however, retain the right to control pest wildlife where their impact is economically significant. Urban/rural communication has improved and there is better understanding of the necessary compromises and achievements. One result is an increased sense of land stewardship in both rural and urban populations.
130 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Farming Operations : In the actual techniques and approaches on the farm, sustainable cane farming focuses on managing organic matter through-put and erosion control for soil health maintenance. To maintain soil structure and long term fertility, fertiliser and organic matter materials are recycled within the farming region both on-farm and with mill wastes. While burning of trash is much reduced, it is retained as a useful management tool for some situations. In minimum till areas, more finely chopped trash is incorporated to advantage with lighter tillage equipment and minimum erosion risk. Wherever possible, green harvesting and trash blankets are used. Fallow periods are managed to increase organic matter through-put by eliminating bare fallows, increasing the percentage of cane lands in fallow and running longer fallows for multiple green manure or alternate crop cycles.
Erosion control is seen as a priority with the primary strategy being minimum and zero tillage techniques with and without trash blankets. Increased organic matter through-put, drainage, reduced compaction, and irrigation availability have resulted in improved soil structure and less erosion. Correct farm layout including optimum row length, contour tillage, and drainage works result in greatly reduced erosion. Compaction has been reduced through use of high flotation equipment, minimising ground contact and wet weather harvesting.
Machinery is now designed and engineered specifically for cane. High flotation equipment is a priority. The higher cost of green capable harvesters is accommodated by cooperative or contractor ownership. Increased rates of harvest from automatically controlled base cutter height and reduced green cane losses make green harvesting more economical with efficient operators.
Irrigation efficiency improvements have reduced labour and pumping costs. Compaction or water logging stress is also reduced. Improved safety and application of farm chemicals lead to fewer environmental impacts; alternate crop development is limited unless it fits into existing fallow periods or utilises mill infrastructure.
Fertility Management: There has been a gradual transition from synthetic to biological and mineral fertility management. The focus is now on building biological systems based on organic matter, legumes, and minerals instead of massive single inputs of volatile chemical fertilisers.
Most synthetic, non-renewable fertilisers have already been phased out. For those still is use, the principle of 'use only where applied' is the rule, accomplished by utilising non-mobile and non volatile forms, more careful application, concentrated forms for ease of transport and by spreading out fertiliser applications to match plant needs through foliar or slow release materials. Biological and mineral fertility management becomes the primary strategy, based on a total system approach that endeavours to improve or maintain soil fertility and structure. Urban, mill and farm wastes are recycled, possibly after composting on-site or processed at the mills/treatment plants. Green trash blankets, adapted legumes, green manure plough downs, ground covers and continuous cover crops contribute nutrients and organic matter to maintain soil self fertilisation through microbial activity. Biological nitrogen fixation is developed in the cane plant and/or in the rich rhizosphere life zone around the plant's roots using beneficial bacteria, fungi, algae, and mycorrhizal symbionts. Naturally occurring growth promotants are used to regulate and encourage growth when needed.
Water Management: Total water use for irrigation increases in sustainable cane farming but recognises the need for greater control, increased efficiency, and the essential interdependence of irrigation and drainage. Irrigation and drainage schemes are done on a district wide basis
131 Keeping It Sweet - ACF coordinated with urban water supply systems. While there are some larger dams, where possible increases in water storage and supply are local and on-farm.
On-farm, improved drainage in wet times is accomplished by levelling, whole farm planning, underground and surface drainage, and improved soil structure. This water is stored until needed in on-farm dams for recycling of both irrigation tail water and excess rainfall.
Moisture retention in dry times from improvement in soil structure and moisture holding capacity results from active soil life, organic matter through-put, contour tillage, and trash utilisation (both incorporated and trash blanket). Ground water recharge increases from soil moisture retention, water storage, and revegetation of stream banks.
Water pollution off the farm is avoided by full application of the principle of "keep the soil and nutrients on the farm,". Erosion and run-off contamination are managed on-farm so they don't cause problems off-farm. Automatic irrigation based on automatic monitoring reduces irrigation water waste while conscious scheduling of irrigation ensures the correct amount of water is absorbed by the soil. Increased irrigation availability allows quick ratoon regrowth and rotation crop establishment, reducing erosion/run-off risks. Longer fallows to increase fertility and structure tend to reduce total water use. Preference for non-mobile fertilisers and non-residual chemicals becomes clear as farmers realise that what they apply, they keep on the farm and concentrate in the farm dam. Buffer strips along streams and ground covers help slow the movement of water and contaminants, keeping them on the farm. Biological fertilisation and pest control strategies reduce the problem of contamination by chemical agents.
The technology of water use changes with increased monitoring of water need and quality, low pressure booms, trickle techniques and irrigation scheduling. Improved soil moisture retention lead to increases in irrigation efficiency. Stream flows are maintained for aquatic life and dams are possibly used for aquaculture or wildlife/ tourism ventures.
Pest And Disease Management: Chemical use in general is much reduced. Residual chemicals are no longer used or are greatly reduced with higher safety to humans and the environment. Chemicals used are more selective herbicides and target specific pesticides rather than broad spectrum types. Biodegradable forms of chemical pesticides are preferred.
Alternative strategies for pest control use naturally occurring chemicals such as allopathic compounds in cane that discourage weeds, plant responses to pests that attract predators, biological controls, predators, parasites and beneficial microorganisms.
Breeding for disease resistance continues, possibly using genetic engineering techniques and the present disease control quarantine system continues. Plants are bred for pest and disease resistance and possible resistance to specific herbicides. Research and extension is focused on-farm for practical, commercial scale results. Communication between rural & urban communities on pest control material use increases and growers are fully educated on IPM strategy, safety of materials and application, and monitoring of economic damage thresholds, according to local conditions.
132 Keeping It Sweet - ACF Environmental Impacts
On-Site
Sustainable solutions to on-farm environmental impact concerns focus on preventing erosion of soil and materials contained in the soil and improved low impact pest control and fertilisation practices.
Soil retention is seen as a priority and all potential techniques are applied to stopping erosion: cover crops, min/zero till, rotations, contouring, reduced burning, increase green cane trash blankets, whole farm plans and improved weather forecasting. Since erosion occurs most severely where the soil profile is unable to absorb water, attention is directed toward preventing compaction by increased use of high flotation equipment and no wet weather harvesting. In dry times increased irrigation allows quick establishment of cover/green manure crops and ratoon rooting to hold the soil.
Water quality improves through decreased use of residual and soluble chemicals, filtering buffer strips, and on-farm water retention. Where soil/water is subject to salting, the sites'are identified and water table lowering through revegetation is practiced. Increased ground water recharge and monitoring of bore pumps leads to less risk of salt water intrusion into irrigation bores.
Stream banks, waste areas, and wildlife corridors are revegetated to reduce local environmental impacts of farming, increase wildlife, and provide an improved aesthetic environment. Pesticides that can affect wildlife are eliminated.
Chemicals still in use are largely non-residual, minimally used, non-volatile or slow release with minimal losses to run-off or leaching. Growers are better trained in chemical use. Alternative approaches provide safe, low cost, low impact solutions.
Off-Site
With many solutions already deployed on-farm, off-site environmental impacts become much less of a concern in sustainable cane farming. Erosion control under the principle of controlling water management over soil and using a myriad of techniques lead to very little erosion. Physical recovery of these small amounts of eroded soil is possible. Increased flood mitigation structures not only reduce flood erosion but provide irrigation and potential for irrigation water recycling. Some water storage and stream bank revegetation activities operate under government incentives or assistance, recognising the benefits to the wider society as well as to the local community. With more environmentally friendly chemicals being used and non-chemical approaches to weed and pest control in place, the principle of retaining such materials on the farm eliminates off-site impacts. Fertiliser run-off, leaching, and atmospheric losses are controlled with improved placement, different forms, improved irrigation practices, reduced burning and utilisation of mill waste.
Off-site impacts are much better monitored and understood by growers and the public is well informed of progress. The sustainable cane farm has few negative off-site impacts.
133 Keeping It Sweet - ACF Economic Issues
Sustainable cane farming achieves a viable and stable income for growers and mills and is generally locally developed. While sugar price and returns continue to fluctuate due to uncontrollable world markets and seasonal variability; income averaging through self-planned income equalisation deposits dampens variation in income.
With a stable industry able to invest and repay loans, farm debt can be serviced and many loans are created within the local urban/rural community. Economic stability is enhanced with the retention of locally controlled peak and assignment, self regulation on-farm and a flexible orderly industry regulation.
Economic viability and stability are created by both increasing returns and reducing input costs. The primary increase in income comes from local and regional value adding and alternate products from raw sugar. Alternate products are seen as the major vehicle for vertical expansion to create higher value from existing production without unacceptable environmental impact. Outside jobs and alternate crops take a minor role. Total input costs drop dramatically despite some new additional tasks through different fertility and pest management approaches, increased fuel efficiency, shared employees, and increased efficiency of human and physical resource use. Healthy soil and plants now handle problems that farmers had spent money to treat. Further research assists these goals by development of new varieties, some genetic engineering, improved practices and materials, and improved extension on-farm for prompt adoption. Substantial non-farm employment opportunities and paid farmer research and demonstration avoid a declining human resource base for farming cane.
Social Environment
Sustainable cane farming creates and exists within a rewarding local and global lifestyle and ensures that the skill and culture of farming persists. It also promotes improved personal/psychological health for community members.
With a mix of small family farms, cooperative family farming of larger holdings, and some larger farms; there is a structural diversity that offers choice. While farm population probably remains static, off-farm employment increases through value adding/alternate product industries, shared farm employees, reforestation/Landcare jobs, and non-farm jobs that assist farmers (ie. farm tourism, EPM scouts, etc). Women take a larger role that is clearly recognised, often in financial planning. Farmers find increasing satisfaction in their role as a result of involvement in and income from on-farm research and demonstration. As a result of stable, viable income and increased social responsibility, farmers see themselves with pride and with a secure status in the community. The joy of farming returns as a result of economic viability, less toxic chemicals, cooperation with environmental needs, and the increased visual aesthetics of the region. Farmers have less stress and more leisure time. Where continuous crushing is retained, off hour services, better scheduling, or other solutions ease the disruption to family life.
The skills of cane farming are securely passed on to new farmers, now quite interested due to the clear incentives of income, lifestyle, and security. Transfer of skills is largely local: farm and family based apprenticeships and farmer to farmer learning in cell groups, partially subsidised,
134 Keeping It Sweet - ACF recognise that the best learning is from those with experience. Some farmer-teachers generate additional income by teaching at regional TAFE/schools and computer aids assist new farmers.
Adoption of preferred or new practices is enhanced by industry coordinated on-farm research and demonstration and enjoys legislative, tax, and/or other incentives.
The urban communities in the region are increasingly aware of the needs of cane farming and strictly limit development of prime cane lands, favouring higher density redevelopment in existing towns. Urban and rural people cooperate in making community based loans, keeping more resources in the local community. Health and safety awareness is increased through effective communication. The recognition of wide social benefit from" a major export industry allows external funding of large capital structures like irrigation/drainage systems and tax allowances for sustainability structures and practices.
Institutional Environment
In sustainable cane farming, government, industry, statutory organisations and other institutions become much more accountable to and led by the local farming community, using a democratised ICM as the essential framework. There is increased representation and lobbying to all levels of government to enhance communication and increase grower participation in decision making. Government support for ICM and sustainable practices is in place, but not as direct financial aid. Government is encouraged to respond by eliminating sugar imports, increasing effectiveness of anti-dumping legislation, providing investment allowances and tax incentives while interfering with growers as little as possible. Taxes generated in the region are used in the region.
Regulation becomes much more local, with Mackay sugar crop supporting various propositions that are not as useful to other regions, such as partial acquisition that allows value adding or alternate products to be marketed directly. Some regulations remain useful for orderly production and processing. Growers and millers reach agreement locally.
Research, development, and extension for sustainable cane farming differs substantially from present practices. While centralised coordination and research continues for laboratory, confidential commercial, or high technology work, the majority of industry research and extension occurs on real farms. With increased R & E funding both from within the prosperous local industry and from wider social support, "user pays" often turns into "user paid" when farmers are modestly remunerated for on-farm R & E work. Growers are fully involved in research prioritisation and extension planning work, using commercial whole farm systems as the focus and sites. Growers self help groups at mill area and cell group levels create very cost efficient extension that is quickly taken up by their neighbours.
Statutory service agencies show increased accountability to their grower/supporters, possibly moving to voluntary funding. Extension to explain research results and further development of computer aids become priorities.
135 COLLABORATION MAP TO SUSTAINABILITY
SUSTAINABLE CANE FARMING IN MACKAY
"Who Does What in the Coming Decades?"
Darker shading and higher number in square indicates increased number of responses (from nine groups)
Industry Organistions, QLD Sugar Corp. C Growers Canegrowers Association ACFA Australian Cane Farmers Association ASMC Australian Sugar Milling Council Sugar Research Institute Mackay Area Corporate 4 Co-operative Cane Mills BSES Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations QDPI QLD Department of Primary Industries Prod Bds Regional Cane Protection and Productivity Boards and their Mill Artea Committees Com/lnd Agribiz Commercial and Industry Business Interests (Fertiliser, equipment etc) Harvest Contrs Commercial Cane Harvester Owner/Contractors L Community Local Communities and Mackay City Keeping It Sweet -ACF
11.4 Collaboration Map To Sustainability Cane Farming In Mackay
With an extensive selection of sustainability indicators to monitor progress, the next objective was to attempt to define the nature of a successful cooperative effort in Mackay to increase sustainability. A collaboration map was constructed by each focus group by cross referencing major action goals from the indicator work with all potential agents responsible for implementation. The purpose was to examine "who will do what?" to avoid duplication of effort, to ensure full coverage of needed work, and to observe where resources will need to be dedicated to achieve success. For each action/outcome, participants were asked to assign primary and secondary responsibility on the basis of "who can best address the solution, observe the indicators, and implement the desired outcome." Two-three agents were identified for each goal. Beyond these first responsibilities it was assumed all other segments would cooperate and support those with primary and secondary responsibility. A minor interest in trying to plot responsibility over a number of time frames (immediately, year 2000, 20 year future, 50 year future) did not appear productive-as most actions were seen as fairly immediately needing attention. During the exercise, the three research and extension organisations were often seen as one "multiple personality" agent of responsibility, generally retaining their present division of labor in their roles.
Observations The first and most visible conclusion from the collaboration map is that it is the growers themselves that have predominate responsibility in achieving increased sustainability. Perhaps this is rightly so as they derive income from their operation, their heirs take over the resulting farms, and their continued presence on the land with the necessary skills and knowledge is vital to good farm management. This massive responsibility also speaks of a concomitant right to acquire and manage resources from the rest of society, such as large irrigation dam infrastructure investments and research/development funding. The growers of Mackay recognise their responsibility as the most appropriate major force in increasing sustainability and will need support from all other sectors. Clearly, they can't do it alone, but they need to be in charge.
Research and extension organisations are seen as the most appropriate agents for collaboration toward increased sustainability. They have slightly different tasks but approximately equal responsibilities among themselves during the exercise, it was clear that their role was one of responding to needs on the farm, as agreed by the farmer and assumed increased representation to and accountability from institutions was accomplished, largely through the actions of the membership/representative bodies such as ACFA/Canegrowers/ASMC in speaking for the growers.
Commercial segments (harvesters, material & equipment manufacturers, and marketing efforts) were seen as taking roles in providing new tools, materials for pest control, new fertilisers, appropriate equipment, IPM scouts, and development of value added products.
Governments were seen as having a role in channeling financial support through large infrastructure investment that benefits all of society, such as the current Teemburra Dam proposal. They have a further role of facilitation or "getting out of the way" by providing investment allowance or tax credit for beneficial investments on the farm like conservation structures. They have a role in education and the passing on of farmer skills beyond the farm based education ideas, as in the local TAFE. Local government seems less important than the wider local community in assisting progress toward sustainability, but the role of local government and the ICM framework in water supply and drainage scheme development was clearly important.
137 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
So potentially responsible bodies like SRI appear to have very little to do with sustainability beyond general support or occasional specific problem solving.
11.5 Strategies Inherent in Achieving Outcomes.
Controlled Erosion With growers and research organisations taking a primary role in developing on-farm practices as described in the scenarios, local government also has a role in the way it manages, or fails to manage, road drainage systems, planning controls on conversion of farmland to other uses, and the essential interplay between rural and urban water supply & waste planning.
Vertical Expansion In addition to key participation by growers and research, development of new products will involve considerable effort by the mill processors and the QSC marketing arm. Commercial interests may take a role in development of new products from sugar or development of inputs that reduce costs such as biological innoculants. Government is seen as taking a facilitative role through policy planning, infrastructure funding, tax incentives, etc. to support increasing returns for existing lands.
Social Responsibility In developing and communicating increased social responsibility of cane farming, the local community is important to set standards and provide immediate feedback to growers. While there is some help from researchers, the representative organisations are placed in the position to receive comment from society and communicate growers' response back to society.
Increased Soil Health, Decreased Compaction, and the Transition to Biological/Mineral Fertiliser Approaches It should be clear from descriptions in Phase II and III indicator work that these will be benefits.
Increased Water Supply While some growers can independently develop additional water supplies through on-farm dams, irrigation bores, water harvesting schemes or other practices, participants saw a major role for all levels of government. This was seen as both leaving more dollars in growers hands to implement sustainable practices and also their support for large scale projects like the current Teemburra Dam. Similarly increased drainage was seen as often beyond the farm (albeit with significant work done on farm). With state sponsored drainage schemes and local government commitment important. Water retention, improving efficiency in irrigation and reducing water contamination are largely accomplished as discussed in the scenarios by growers, research, and extension but with a commitment by state water resources water quality monitoring programs.
Implementation of IPM In addition to action by growers and researchers, significant action could be taken by private industry such as providing IPM scouts to assist on-farm monitoring, development of new commercial products (chemical, biological, and mineral) and independent consultants.
Breeding for Sustainability is seen as action by mills and growers to identify needs enhanced by communication of needs via representative organisations.
Stable Viable Economies fall broadly across many agents of responsibility and evidence the multitude of opportunities for achieving progress in this outcome. While each has responsibility, again farmers see themselves at the center of achieving this goal, but not as the sole recipient of its reward.
138 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Psychological Health is similarly widely spread across the groups with the strongest responsibility within the local community where interaction is strongest. This also points to the primacy of local community standards over outside standards from cities or centralised bureaucracies. Again, governments take a supportive role in indicating support for agriculture and consulting with the sugar industry rather than taking unilateral action (like eliminating tariffs). Mills directly govern whether or not they go to continuous crushing and its attendant social disruption.
Transfer of Farming Skills falls first to those with the exiting skills and their strategies of training children, apprentices and staff, with the assistance of extension agents. Educational opportunities also fall to representative organisations to promote, lobby, and facilitate the availability of structured courses and to the government TAFE system.
Increased Representation and Accountability (Institutions) Government must be accountable and accept representation, as do industry bodies and both are directed by growers and their representative grower and miller organisations. The lobbying role of Canegrowers Association is especially clear.
Effective research and Extension is equally divided between growers and key service agencies, many of the strategies are presented in the earlier scenarios and indicators sections. Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Bibliography
Akobundu, I.O. (1992) Integrated weed management techniques to reduce soil degradation, Proc lstlntl Weed Control Congress, Monash Univ, Melbourne, Weed Science Soc of Victoria Allsopp, P.G. and K.J. Chandler (1990) Cane grub research and control in Australia since 1970.1990 Proc Intl Soc Sugar Cane Technol, Entomology Reports: 810-814 Allsopp, P. (1989) Pheromone research targets cane grubs, BSES Bulletin, April: 23 Altieri, M.A. (1987) Agroecology: the scientific basis for alternative agriculture, Boulder: Westview Press Amiet, P.J. and AW. Jones (1970) Soil conservation in relation to cane growing, Proc Qld Soc Sugar Cane Technol, 38th Conf: 143-155 Andreae, M. (1990) in Levine, J.S., Global biomass burning; atmospheric, climatic, and biospheric implications, MIT Press Anich, G.N. & M.K. Wegener (1992) Rainfall analysis to improve urea application decisions in trash blanketed sugarcane, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf Anon (1981) The concept of living mulch, Am Vegetable Grower, September: 38 Anon (1983 Jan) Severe crop damage even after Aldrin application, BSES Bulletin, Jan: 11 Anon (1983 Jul) Trash blankets reduce surface water runoff, BSES Bulletin, Jul: 21 Anon (1984) Natural predators control soldier fly in southern region, BSES Bulletin, April: 20 Anon (1991 Aug) New fertiliser option for cane growers on the horizon, Australian Canegrower, 12 August: 20 Anon (1991 Oct) Field days with a conservation theme, South African Sugar Journal, October: 318 Anon (1992 Aug ) The answer lies in the soil: Henzell, Australian Canegrower, 14, 10: 10 Anon (1992 Sept) U.S. sugar squeeze, The Land, 3 September: 4 and American trade pact threat to sugar exports, Queensland Country Life, 3 September Anon (1992 Nov ) Killer fungus project scaled down, Aust Canegrower, 2 Nov: 11 Anon (1992 Dec) New age pigs on sugar diet are lean and sweet, Qld Country Life, 3 Dec: 24 Anon (Jul 1985) New look at old fungus to control cane grubs, BSES Bulletin, July: 14-15 Arakel, A.V. (1990) Coastal sedimentation in north Queensland: past and present trends in D. Yellowlees Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef region, Proc Workshop Nov 17-18, James Cook University, Townsville Atkinson, P.R. and K.J. Nuss (1989) Associations between host plant nitrogen and infestations of the sugar cane borer, eldana saccharina walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), Bulletin of Entomological Research, 19, 3: 489-506 Azim, A., A. Ali, F.A. Mir & M.A. Bhatti (1987) Nutritional value of sugar cane bagasse treated with oyster mushroom (pleurotus ostreatus), Proc 4th AAAP Animal Science Congress, Hamilton, NZ Baird, J. (1987) Processing of green cane, Proc of the Green Cane Symposium, Ingham May 1987, CSR Ltd Tech Field Dept: 20-21
Barnewall, P.J. and J.G.I. Passmore (1973) Analysis of sugar cane farm size and potential for horticultural diversification- Mackay region in Ullman and Nolan Pty Ltd, A plan of development for the Pioneer River and tributaries, report to the Joint Committee of Pioneer & Upper Pioneer River Improvement Trusts, Mackay. Also as QDPI Info Series QI88016, 1988.
Barret Purcell and Associates Pty Ltd and CSIRO Centre for Advanced Analytical Chemistry (1991) Impact of Pesticides on the Riverine Environment with Specific Reference to Cotton Growing Baxter, B. (1983) Green cane harvest review, Aust Cane Grower, Apr-May Becking, J.H. (1961) Studies on nitrogen fixing bacteria of the genus beijerinckia, Plant Soil, 14: 49-81 Bell, A.F. (1935) Sick soils, Proc Qld Sugar Cane Technol Conf. 9-18 Berry, W. (1981) The gift of good land: further essays, cultural and agricultural, San Francisco: North Point Press Bieske, G.C. (1983) Queensland regional CCS trends. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf: 95-102 Bieske, G.C. (1964) Green manuring in the central district, Proc QldSoc Sugar Cane Conf: 105-109 Blackburn, F. (1984) Sugar cane, New York: Longman Cheshire, 415 pp Blake, J.D. and K.E. McNeil (1978) A comparative study of alcohol concentrations in green and burnt cane and changes occurring in milling, Proc QldSoc Sugar Cane Technol 45th Conf: 127-132 Boeninger, M., M. Hawkins, P. Marsin and R. Newman (1988) Occupational exposure to silicate fibers and PAHs during sugar cane harvesting, Ann Occup Hyg, 32, 2: 153-169 Bradley, D. (1992) How to have your cake and eat it" Science, 7 Nov: 15 BSES (1990) Annual Report, Brisbane: BSES
140 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Bureau of Meteorology (1965) Climate of Pioneer, region 13- Qld, Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia Bushnell, J, C Francis & J King (1991) Design of resource efficient environmentally sound cropping systems, J Sust Agric, 1,4:49-65 Capelin, M. A. and B.G. Prove (1983) Soil conservation problems of the humid coastal tropics of North Queensland. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf. 87-93 Carey, B. & G. Milligan (1991) The impact of Cyclone Joy on the Pioneer Catchment: a catchment management perspective, QDPI Project Report QO 91008 Chapman, A. (1992) New machine maximises benefits of green cane harvesting, Aust Canegrower, 13 July: 20 Chapman, L.S. (1990) Nitrogen fertilisation for trash conservation farming at Mackay. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf. 85-89 Chapman, L. S. (1991) Increase efficiency-bury urea, Australian Canegrower, 22 April: 19 Chapman, L.S., R. Ferraris, & M.M. Ludlow (1992) Ratooning ability of cane varieties: variation in yield and yield components, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf Chapman L.S. and N.K. Greenwood (1988) Current fertilisation practices in the Australian sugar industry cited in Sugar Research Council Workshop on improving the efficiency of use of nitrogen and water by sugarcane, Meringa Sugar Exp Stn, Dec 8-9 Chapman L.S., D.M. Halsall & AH. Gibson (1992) Biological nitrogen fixation and sugarcane, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf: 90-97 Chapman, L.S., M.B.C. Hayson and P.G. Saffigna (-1992) N cycling in cane fields from 15 N labelled trash and residual fertiliser, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf Chinloy, T. and B.M. Hogg (1968) Rotation of pangola grass and sugarcane on a Jamaican sugar estate, Sugar Mfg Assn of Jamaica Ltd, Jamaica, West Indies Commonwealth Government, (1992), National Strategy for ESD, AGPS, Canberra Chou, C.H. (1987) Alleopathy in sustainable agriculture in Taiwan, Proc 11th Conf Asian Pacific Weed Science Soc: 1- 11 Couchman, J.(1987) Milling experiences with green cane supply, Proc of the Green Cane Symposium, Ingham May 1987, CSR Ltd Tech Field Dept: 16-17 Curl, E.A. (1963) Control of plant diseases by crop rotation. Bot Review 29,4: 413-479 Depinto-Smith, D.R. and F.M. Mason (1992) A review of conservation practices in the Mackay cane growing district, QDPI, Mackay Dick, R. (1988) Harvesters can be modified to cut green cane, BSES Bulletin, April: 9-16 Dickson, S.W. (1941) Experiments in the growing of poona pea amongst sugar cane, Proc Qld Sugar Cane Technol Conf. 215-217 Doebereiner, J. (1961) Nitrogen fixing bacteria of the genus beijerinckia derx in the rhizosphere of sugar cane, Plant Soil, 15:211-216 Douglas, I. (1967) Natural and man-made erosion in the humid tropics of Australia, Malaysia and Singapore, Intl Assn ofHydrol Sciences, Publication 757 Douglass, G.K. (1985)When is agriculture sustainable? in T. Edens, C. Fridgen and S. Battenfield (eds) Sustainable agriculture and integrated farming systems, East Lansing: Michigan State Univ Press DPIE (1988) National Soil Conservation Strategy, Canberra: DPIE Dymond, G.C.(1944) Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technol Assn Conf Eavis, B.W. and K. Chase (1973) Trash mulch and sugar cane in Barbados. Proc British West Indies Sugar Technologists Meeting Environmentally Sustainable Development Working Groups (ESD) (1991) Agriculture: Final report, Canberra: AGPS Evans, H.J., and L.E. Barker (1977) Biological nitrogen fixation for food and fiber production, Science 197: 332-339 Evans, H. (1948) Annual report, Sugar Cane Research Station, Mauritius, also see 1947 Annual Report Farmer, N. (1987) Observations on milling performance (of green cane)Proc of the Green Cane Symposium, Ingham May 1987, CSR Ltd Tech Field Dept: 18-20 Forgash, A.J. (1984) History, evolution and consequences of insecticide resistance, Pesticide, Biochemistry & Physiology, 22: 184 Foster, D.H. and P.C. Ivin (1981) Losses of sugar and water from cane in fires. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf. 13-20 Foster, D.H., K.C. Leverington, R.A. Price, IK. Melrose (1977) The implications of green cane harvesting, Internal Report prepared for the Sugar Industry Review Cmttee Foster, D.H. (1979) Trends in green cane processing, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol, Admin sessions: 11 Freney, JR., O.T. Denmead, A.T. Wood, P.G. Saffigna, L.S. Chapman, G.J. Ham, A.P. Hurney, and R.L. Stewart (1992) factors controlling ammonia loss from trash-covered sugar cane fields fertilised with urea Fertiliser Research, 23
141 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Freney, JR., O.T. Denmead, AW. Wood, P.G. Saffigna, L.S. Chapman and A.P. Hurney (1991) Ammonia loss from sugar cane fields as affected by fertiliser placement, irrigation, and canopy development, Proc Aust Soc of Sugar Cane Technol, 13: 38-43 Fuelling, T.G. & D.R. Ridge (1981) Cane transport review: soil compaction aspects, BSES Project Report #308.80.005, November Furnas, M. J. (1990) The nutrient status of Great Barrier Reef waters in D. Yellowlees Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef region, Proc Workshop Nov 17-18, James Cook University, Townsville Gerritse, R.G., J.A. Adeney & M.L. Sharma (1991) Henry's law and the mobility of organochlorines in soils, Report Div Water Resources CSIRO, Wembley, WA 6014 Gips, T. (1987) Breaking the pesticide habit: alternatives to 12 hazardous pesticides, Penang, Malaysia: Intl Org of Consumers Unions Hall, J.K. and N.L. Hartwig (1978) Atrazine mobility in two soils under conventional tillage, J Env Qual, 7: 63-68 Hansen, M. (1986) Escape from the pesticide treadmill: Alternatives to pesticides in developing countries, preliminary report, Consumers Union: Mt Vernon, NY : p 5 Hardman, JR., L.G.W. Tilley & T. Glanville (1985) Agronomic and economic aspects of various farming systems for sugar cane in the Bundaberg District, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol: 147-153 Hare, W.L., J.P. Marlow, ML. Rae, F. Gray, R. Humphries and R. Ledgar (1990) Ecologically sustainable development, a submission, Melbourne: Australian Conservation Foundation Hausler, G. (1990) Hydrology of north Queensland and coastal streams and their ground water in D. Yellowlees Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef region, Proc Workshop Nov 17-18, James Cook University, Townsville Hitchcock, B.E. (1965) Investigations on earth pearls in Queensland cane fields. Proc Intl Soc Sugarcane Technol Conf Entomology Reports: 1460-1465 Holdom, D. (1991) Biological control of cane grubs and other pests, BSES Bulletin, October Holz, G.K. and P.G. Shields (1985) Mackay sugar cane land suitability study: part 1 and 2, QDPI Land Resources Bulletin QV 85001, Brisbane: QDPI Howard, Sir A. (1943) An Agricultural Testament, London: Oxford Univ Press Hudson, N.W. (1971) Soil Conservation, London: Batsford Hunter, H.M. & G.E. Rayment (1990) Agricultural contaminants in aquatic environments-an overview in D. Yellowlees Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef region, Proc Workshop Nov 17-18, James Cook University, Townsville Hunter, H.M., B.A. Cowrie, D.W. Lack, M.N. Hunter, J.E. Berthelsen, P.J. Thorburn, & DP. Sinclair (1988) The interaction between applied fertiliser, stubble management and tillage method on grain sorghum yields, Biloela Res Stn Program Review, QDPI Pub RQR 88019: 54-55 Hunter, H.M. (1992) Agricultural contaminants in aquatic environments: a review, QDPI Land Management Div Pub QB 92002 lUingworth, J.F. (1921b) Natural enemies of sugar cane beetles in Queensland, BSES Div Entomology Bulletin, 13: 1-47 lUingworth, J.F. (1921a) A study of natural methods of control for white grubs, BSES Div Entomology Bulletin, 12: 1-20 Jarvis, E. (1934) An effective cane beetle trap Cane Growers Qrtly Bulletin, 1 Apr: 117-120 Jones, T.W., W.W. Kemp, J.C. Stevenson & J.C. Means (1982) Degradation of Atrazine in estuarine water/sediment systems and soils, J Env Qual, 11: 632-638 King, N.J. (1934) Trash conservation Cane Growers Qrtly Bulletin, 1 Apr: 126-132 King, N.J. (1954) An analysis of trash conservation, Proc Qld Sugar Cane Technol Conf: 197-200 Kingston, G., J. Dickenson, & D. Smith (1990) Rural land use practices in coastal north Queensland in D. Yellowlees Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef region, Proc Workshop Nov 17-18, James Cook University, Townsville Kraak, J.C. (1984) The agronomic and economic implications of green cane harvesting and subsequent trash retention. Bachelors Thesis QAC, Lawes Kuhn, G. Fertiliser products for coastal Queensland in D. Yellowlees Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef region, Proc Workshop Nov 17-18, James Cook University, Townsville Li, S.W., and W.C. Liu (1986) The association of nitrogen fixing bacterium, beijerinckia-like species with sugarcane. Proc Intl Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf: 9-17 Lorenzi, H.J., M.O. Gandini & A.L. Gazon (1989) Trash blankets: the potential to control weeds and the effect on ratoon cane development, Proc Intl Soc Sugar Cane Technol: 571-575 Makepeace, P.K. & R.C. Williams (1988) Evaluation of herbicide programs for green cane trash blanket situations, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol: 139-146 Makepeace, P. (1988) trash blankets may have herbicidal effect, BSES Bulletin, Jan: 18-19
142 Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Mansour, I.M. and Y. A. Hamdi (1983) Studies on certain fungi and actinomycetes associated with the rhizosphere of sugar in Iraq, Proc Intl Soc Sugarcane Technol Conf. 137-741 Marx, J.L. (1983) Plants and resistance to herbicide pinpointed, Science, 220: 41-42 Matthews, A. and P. Makepeace (1981) A new slant on soil erosion control, Canegrowers Qrtly Bulletin, 45: 43-47 McKenzie, D.C., T.S. Abbot, and F.R. Higginson (1991) The effect of irrigated crop production on the properties of a sodic vertisol, AustJSoil Res, 29: 443-453 McMahon, G.G., and L.H. Teske (1989) Minimum tillage planting. Proc Aust Soc Sugarcane Technol Con/:85-87 McMahon, G. (1991) Green cane trash blanketing promoted in Burdekin district, BSES Bulletin, Oct: 18-19 Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrenens III (eds)(1972) Limits to growth: report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind, London: Earth Island Mitchell, A., C. Rasmussen, S. Blake, R. Congdon, J. Reghenzani, H. Sturmey & P. Saffigna (1990) Nutrient concentrations and fluxes in north Queensland coastal rivers, and streams in D. Yellowlees Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef region, Proc Workshop Nov 17-18, James Cook University, Townsville Moody, P.W. & L.S. Chapman (1990) Nitrogen and phosphorous in agricultural soils of Queensland in D. Yellowlees Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef region, Proc Workshop Nov 17-18, James Cook University, Townsville Moreno, E.R.A. (1992) Sugar cane as effective biomass to decrease net C02 emissions, an issue to be included in the response options to climatic change IN Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Response Strategies Working Group Workshop, Canberra 20-23 Jan WMO/UNEP Moss, A.J., G.E. Rayment, N. Reilly, and E.K. Best (1992) A preliminary assessment of sediment and nutrient exports from Queensland coastal catchments: A "desk study", QLD Depts of Environ & Heritage and Primary Industries, Jan Most, B.H. & A.J. Vlitos (1965) Studies on endogenous gibberellin-like substances in sugar cane, Proc Jntl Soc Sugar Cane Technol 611-623 Moxham, R.W. (1992) Biological farming, agroecology, and the environment: a comparative study of four organic rice farms in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area, Graduate Diploma Thesis ANU, Resource & Environmental Mgtnt, Canberra Murphy, K.M. and I.C. Macrae (1985) Nitrogen fixing bacteria in the rhizosphere of sugarcane in tropical Queensland, Proc Aust Soc Sugarcane Technol: 121-126 Myers, R.J.K. and D.R. Ridge (1988) Nitrogen nutrition of the sugar crop- soil nitrogen, nitrogen uptake, fertiliser responses, nitrogenous, compounds in the product, and nitrogen balance sheets cited in Sugar Research Council Workshop on improving the efficiency of use of nitrogen and water by sugarcane, Meringa Sugar Exp Stn, Dec 8-9
National Research Council, US Academy of Science, (1989) Alternative Agriculture, National Academy Press, Washington Newsome, R (1992) Cane grower finds pump helps improve crop, Lismore Northern Star (Northern Farmer section) 17 July:3 Newton, M., K.M. Howard. B.R. Kelpas, R. Danhaus, CM. Lottman & S. Dubelman (1984) Fate of glysophate in an Oregon forest ecosystem, J Agric Food Chem, 32, 1144-1151 Osborn, A.H. (1974) Predators, parasitoids and pathogens of the sugar cane soldier fly (inopus rubriceps), Proc Intl Soc Sugar Cane Technol, volume 1: 423-427 Pink, H.S. (1975) Land and water management on cane farms, Proc Qld Sugar Cane Technol, 42nd Conf: 85-89 Prammanee, P and P.G. Saffigna, A.W. Wood, J.R. Freney(1989) Loss of nitrogen from urea and ammonium sulphate applied to sugar cane crop residues" Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf, 77-84 Prove, B.G. and W.S. Hicks (1990) Soil and nutrient movements from rural lands of North Queensland cited in Yellowlees, D. (ed.)Land use patterns and nutrient loading of the Great Barrier Reef Region, Proc Conf Nov 17-18 1990, James Cook Univ, Townsville:67-76 Prove, B.G. (1991) A study of the hydrological and erosional processes under sugar cane culture on the wet tropical coast of northeastern Australia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, James Cook Univ, Townsville RCS Hassall Pty and Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd (1992) Downstream effects of agricultural practices. Key issues and directions: a discussion paper for QDPI DEAP Committee, March, Spring Hill: Qld Ridge, D.R. and R.G. Dick (1989) The performance of modified harvesters in green cane, Proc Aust Soc Sugarcane Technol Conf. 65-69 Ridge, D.R. (1984) green cane harvesting research continues, Bureau of Sugar Cane Experiment Stations Bulletin, 5:12- 13
143 Keeping It Sweet - A CF
Ridge, D.R., A.P. Hurney, and K.J. Chandler (1979) Trash disposal after green cane harvesting, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol: 89-93 Ridge, D.R. & R.G. Dick (1985) Current research on green cane harvesting and dirt rejection by harvesters, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol: 19-25 Ruschel, A.P., and E. Matsni, J.O. Filtto, V.C. Bittencourt (1978) Closed system nitrogen balance studies in sugar cane utilising 15-ammonium sulphates, Proclntl Soc Sugar Cane Technol, 16th Congress: 1539-1547 Russo, R.O. & G.P. Berlyn (1990) The use of organic biostimulants to help low input sustainable agriculture, J Sust Agric, 1,2:19-42 Sallaway, M.M. (1979S) Soil erosion studies in the Mackay District Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol: 125-132 Sallaway, M.M. (1979)Trash retention as a soil conservation technique, Proc Aust Soc of Sugar Cane Technol, 1979T: 133-137 Senanayake, R. (1989) Sustainable agriculture-definitions and parameters for measurement- a discussion paper, in Planning for sustainable agriculture: why plan?, Cane working papers, Bureau of Rural Resources & Roseworthy Agricultural College, South Australia Shaw, G.R. & G.A. Brotherton (1992) Green cane harvesting- a dilemma, Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Conf Sheets, T.J. (1970) Persistence of triazine herbicides and related problems, Res Rev, 32: 287-310 Shrestha, R.B. and C. Gopalakrishnan (1991) Water use efficiency under two irrigation technologies- a quadratic production function analysis, Intl J Water Resources Development, 7,2: 133-137 Smith, N.J., P.J. McGuire, J. Mackson, and R.C. Hickling (1984) Green cane harvesting- a review with particular reference to the Mulgrave Mill area, Sixth Proc Aust Soc of Sugar Cane Technol: 21-27 Smith, A.E. (1982) Herbicides and the soil environment in Canada, Can J Oil Sci, 62: 433-460 Soule, J.D. and J.K. Piper (1992) Farming in nature's image, Covelo CA: Island Press Srivastaya, M.K. & S.P. Shukla (1989) Effect of manures, irrigation, and varieties on sucrose percentage in sugarcane, Bharatiya Sugar, 14, 10:19-24 Standing Cmttee on Agriculture(SCA), Aust Agric Council, Sustainable agriculture, Melbourne: CSIRO Stewart, R.L. (1987) Agronomic aspects of green cane farming, Proc of the Green Cane Symposium, Ingham May 1987, CSR Ltd Tech Field Dept: 8-9 Stickley, B.D.A. (1985) Persistence of ethoprophos in soil, BSES Project Report, 102.00.006, Dec Sturgess, O.W. (1982) Problems of declining CCS Aust Sugar Journal 74: 399-400 Sturgess, O.W. (1987) Vale BHC, BSES Bulletin, Oct: 3-6 Teran, F.O. (1989) Integrated Management of soil pests in sugarcane, Sugar Y Azucar, Nov: 23-31 Teske, L.H. & I. Gibbons (1991) Green cane vs burnt cane- what is the difference? Australian Canegrower, 4 Nov: 22 Thompson, G.D. (1966) The production of trash and its effects as a mulch on the soil and on sugar cane nutrition. Proc SAfr Sugar Technol Assn: 233-342 Thompson, G.D. (1965) The effects of trash conservation on soil moisture and the sugar cane crop in Natal, Proc 39th Congress Sugar Technol Assn: 143 -156 Tisdale, J.M. and J.M. Oades (1979) Stabilisation of soil aggregates by the root system of ryegrass, Aust J Soil Research, 17: 429-441 Tucker, B.V., D.E. Pack & J.N. Ospenson (1967) Adsorption of bipyridilium herbicides in soil, J Agr Food Chem, 15: 1005-1008 Urguiaga, S., K.H.S. Cruz and R.M. Boddey 91992) Contribution of nitrogen fixation to sugar cane: nitrogen 15 and nitrogen balance estimates, Soil Sci Am J, 56, Jan-Feb: 105-114 Van der Sommen, F.J. (1989) The concepts of sustainability in the context of the national conservation strategy, Planning for sustainable agriculture: why plan?, Working papers, Bureau of Rural Resources & Roseworthy Agricultural College, South Australia Van Huis, A. (1982) Integrated pest management in the small farmer's maize crop in Nicaragua, Biocontrol News and Information, ABS1021 Vance, P., D. Swete-Kelly, and T. Pressland (1992) Towards sustainable agriculture workshop, Brisbane Conf& Workshop Series QC91014, Brisbane: QDPI, Plant Industry Div Wardrop, A.J. (1986) Environmental effects of herbicides used in conservation cropping systems: a review, Technical Report Series No 129, Vic DARA AGDEX100/682, July Wauchope, D. (1978) The pesticide content of surface water draining from agricultural fields: a review, J Env Quality, 7: 459-472 Wehtje, G., L.N. Mielke, J.R.C. Leavitt & J.S. Shepers (1984) Leaching of Atrazine in the root zone of an alluvial soil in Nebraska, J Env Qual, 13: 507-513 Wen, D., Y. Tang, X. Zheng and Y. He (1992) Sustainable and productive agricultural development in China, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 39: 55-70
144 Keeping It Sweet - ACF Wills, A.K. and D.E. Baker (1988) Plane creek Sugar cane land suitability study, QDPI Land Resources Bulletin QV 88003 Winchester, J.A. & N.C. Hayslip (1988) The effect of land management practices on the root know nematode (meloidogyne incognita actita) in south Florida, Proc Fla State Hort Soc, 73: 100-104 Wood, A.W. (1983) Chemical soil degradation in The nature of soil degradation, Soil Management Symposium, Ingham, 15 Apr, Macnade & Victoria Productivity Cmttees Wood, A.W.(1991) management of crop residues following green harvesting of sugarcane in north Queensland, Soil & Tillage Research, 20:68-85 Wood, A.W.(1985) Soil degradation and management under intensive sugarcane cultivation in north Queensland, Soil and Management, 1, 4: 120-124 Woodhill, J. and J.O. Lin (1991) The challenge of working together: a study on the development of sustainable land use in the Murrumbidgee irrigation region, Melbourne: Aust Cons Fdn World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED) (1987) Our common future (The Brundtland Report) Oxford: Oxford Univ Press
145