1.2 Detalhes do contato das pessoas capacitadas e instituições envolvidas na avaliação e documentação da tecnologia

Nome do projeto que facilitou a documentação/avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)

Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/ avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

CSIRO (CSIRO) - Austrália

1.3 Condições em relação ao uso da informação documentada através de WOCAT

Quando os dados foram compilados (no campo)?

01/09/2005

O/a compilador/a e a(s) pessoa(s) capacitada(s) aceitam as condições relativas ao uso de dados documentados através da WOCAT:

Sim

1.5 Referência ao(s) questionário(s) sobre as abordagens da GST

2.1 Descrição curta da tecnologia

Definição da tecnologia:

Elimination of burning as a pre-harvest treatment of sugar cane, and managing the resultant trash as a protective blanket to give multiple on and off-site benefits.

2.2 Descrição detalhada da tecnologia

Descrição:

Under conventional production systems, sugar cane is burnt before being harvested. This reduces the volume of trash - comprising green leaves, dead leaves and top growth - making harvesting of the cane simpler, and subsequent cultivation of the soil easier. In the humid tropics of North Queensland, harvesting of cane used to be carried out by hand - as it still is in many parts of the developing tropics. Burning was necessary to make harvesting possible in a dense stand (and to reduce the danger of snakes). However, with the advent of mechanical harvesters in the 1960s, burning continued to be practiced through habit.
A new system then brought fundamental changes in soil management: The ‘green cane trash blanket’ (GCTB) technology refers to the practice of harvesting non-burnt cane, and trash blown out behind in rows by the sugar cane harvester. This trash forms a more or less complete blanket over the field. The harvested lines of cane re-grow (‘ratoon’) through this surface cover, and the next year the cycle is repeated: the cane is once again harvested and more trash accumulates in the inter-rows. Generally the basic cropping cycle is the same, whether cane is burnt or not. This involves planting of new cane stock (cuttings or ‘billets’) in the first year, harvesting this ‘plant crop’ in the second year, and then in years three, four, five and six taking successive ‘ratoon’ harvests. In year six, after harvest, it is still common, even under the GCTB system, to burn the residual trash so that the old cane stools can be more easily ploughed out, and the ground ‘worked up’ (cultivated) ready for replanting. A minority of planters, however, are doing away with burning altogether, and ploughing in the residual trash before replanting. A further variation is not to plough out and replant after the harvest in year six, but to spray the old cane stock with glysophate (a broad spectrum non-selective systemic herbicide) to kill it, then to plant a legume (typically soy bean) as a green manure crop, and only replant the subsequent year after ploughing-in the legume. Under this latter system, one year of harvest is lost, but there are added benefits to the structure and nutrient content of the soil.
Whatever variation of GCTB is used, there are advantages in terms of increased organic matter, improved soil structure, more biodiversity (especially below ground) and a marked reduction in surface erosion - from over 50 t/ha to around 5 t/ha on average. Less erosion is good for the growers - but is also of crucial importance off-site, as sediment lost from the coastal sugar cane strip is washed out to sea, and damages the growing coral of the Great Barrier Reef.

2.3 Fotos da tecnologia

2.5 País/região/locais onde a tecnologia foi aplicada e que estão cobertos nesta avaliação

3.1 Principal/principais finalidade(s) da tecnologia

• Reduz, previne, recupera a degradação do solo
• Preservar/melhorar a biodiversidade

3.2 Tipo(s) atualizado(s) de uso da terra onde a tecnologia foi aplicada

Comentários:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Conventional burning of sugar cane before harvest can lead to compaction of top soil and reduced organic matter. There is also, despite the low slopes, a serious problem of sheet/rill erosion that has a negative impact both on the fields, and also off-site on the coral reef.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): soil erosion, weeds, flooding

3.3 Mais informações sobre o uso da terra

Abastecimento de água para a terra na qual a tecnologia é aplicada:

• Precipitação natural

Número de estações de cultivo por ano:

• 1

Especifique:

Longest growing period in days: 300 Longest growing period from month to month: Aug - May

3.4 Grupo de GST ao qual pertence a tecnologia

• Solo/cobertura vegetal melhorada

3.5 Difusão da tecnologia

Comentários:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 800 m2.

Wet tropics region of far north Queensland

3.6 Medidas de GST contendo a tecnologia

3.7 Principais tipos de degradação da terra abordados pela tecnologia

Comentários:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wo: offsite degradation effects, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

3.8 Redução, prevenção ou recuperação da degradação do solo

Especifique o objetivo da tecnologia em relação a degradação da terra:

• Reduzir a degradação do solo

4.1 Desenho técnico da tecnologia

4.2 Especificações técnicas/ explicações do desenho técnico

Harvester harvesting cane and depositing trash on surface

Location: Queensland

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, improvement of ground cover, improvement of soil structure, control of dispersed runoff

Secondary technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase in soil fertility, increase in surface roughness

Mulching
Remarks: "trash blanketing"

4.3 Informação geral em relação ao cálculo de entradas e custos

4.6 Atividades recorrentes/manutenção

	Atividade	Tipo de medida	Periodicidade/frequência
1.	Mulching of inter-rows with trash[previously: burn cane with associated trash and then harvest]	Agronômico	August
2.	Fertilize cane	Agronômico	October
3.	Spray with Amicide (very efficient herbicide, systemic and non-selective)	Agronômico	November
4.	Spray with Amicide	Agronômico	January

4.7 Custos e entradas necessárias pata a manutenção/atividades recorrentes (por ano)

	Especifique a entrada	Unidade	Quantidade	Custos por unidade	Custos totais por entrada	% dos custos arcados pelos usuários da terra
Mão-de-obra	Contract harvesting	ha	1,0	390,0	390,0	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Fertilizer	ha	1,0	120,0	120,0	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Herbicides	ha	1,0	33,0	33,0	100,0
Custos totais para a manutenção da tecnologia					543,0

Comentários:

Machinery/ tools: sugar-cane harvester

The year budgeted above is a non-planting year, the costs therefore refer to an established crop which grows
throughout the year and is harvested in August. The assumption is a cane yield of 80 t/ha. Each of the three categories of costing groups machinery, labour (at US$12 per hour) and inputs together. The comparative costs for a burnt cane crop system with the same yield are (a) contract harvesting = US$ 378 (b) fertilizer = US$ 120 (c) herbicide = US$ 56, plus (d) cultivation = US$ 30. Note that under the burnt cane system, soil cultivation/tillage is required, but the cost of harvesting is a little cheaper. The total for the burnt crop system is US$ 584 compared with US$ 543 for the GCTB crop, representing a saving of approx. US$ 40 (around 7%) per hectare per year.

5.1 Clima

5.2 Topografia

Comentários e outras especificações sobre a topografia:

Landforms: Plateau/plains (floodplain adjacent to ocean)
Slopes on average: Also gentle (ranked 2), moderate (ranked 3)

5.3 Solos

Caso disponível anexe a descrição completa do solo ou especifique as informações disponíveis, p. ex. tipo de solo, PH/acidez do solo, nitrogênio, capacidade de troca catiônica, salinidade, etc.

Soil fertility: Medium and high (both ranked 1)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good

5.6 Características dos usuários da terra que utilizam a tecnologia

Indique outras características relevantes dos usuários da terra:

Off-farm income specification: various off-farm enterprises undertaken to supplement income during years of poor sugar prices

5.7 Média da área de terra própria ou arrendada por usuários da terra que utilizam a tecnologia

5.8 Propriedade de terra, direitos de uso da terra e de uso da água

Propriedade da terra:

• Indivíduo, intitulado

Direitos do uso da terra:

• Indivíduo

6.1 Impactos no local mostrados pela tecnologia

Impactos socioeconômicos

Renda e custos

Impactos socioculturais

Impactos ecológicos

Ciclo hídrico/escoamento

Solo

Biodiversidade: vegetação, animais

Outros impactos ecológicos

6.2 Impactos externos mostrados pela tecnologia

6.4 Análise do custo-benefício

Como os benefícios se comparam aos custos recorrentes/de manutenção(do ponto de vista dos usuários da terra)?

6.5 Adoção da tecnologia

Entre todos aqueles que adotaram a tecnologia, quantos adotaram espontaneamente, ou seja, sem receber nenhum incentivo material/pagamentos?

• 90-100%

Comentários:

95% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

1000 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: It is possible that the few growers who persist in burning will eventually adopt the GCTB system through social and environmental pressure.

6.7 Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades da tecnologia

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada
GCTB systems offer multiple on-farm environmental benefits How can they be sustained / enhanced? Continue to refine the system, by encouraging (a) non burning of trash in the
Increases overall farm income by maintaining yields of sugar cane while How can they be sustained / enhanced? Continue to refine the system.
GCTB systems provide protection to the coral reef, through substantially reducing the sediment yield that reaches the lagoon and thence the Great Barrier Reef How can they be sustained / enhanced? Give recognition to the growers for their overall environmental contribution.

6.8 Pontos fracos, desvantagens/riscos da tecnologia e formas de superá-los

Pontos fracos/vantagens/riscos na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada	Como eles podem ser superados?
Some burning still continues through (a) the few farmers who have not yet adopted GCTB and (b) the common practice of burning trash before replanting	Continue to encourage non-burning for multiple reasons.

7.2 Referências às publicações disponíveis

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

Mullins JA, Truong PN and Prove BG (1984) Options for controlling soil loss in canelands – some interim values. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 6: 95–100

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

Vallis I, Parton WJ, Keating BA and Wood AW (1996) Simulation of the effects of trash and N fertilizer management on soil organic matter levels and yields of sugarcane. Soil and Tillage Research. 38: 115–132

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

Wood AW (1991) Management of crop residues
following green harvesting of sugarcane in north Queensland. Soil Till. Res. 20: 69–85