Varieties for modernVarieties for modernVarieties for modern sugarcane productionVarieties for modern
sugarcane productiongg
Duncan Butler
Synopsis1 Case studies:
Southern Africa Swaziland (RSSC) and South Africa (Tsb)
Papua New Guinea Ramu Sugar (RAIL)
2 Other considerations:
Changing needs
F t d l t Future developments
Part 1Part 1Part 1Southern Africa
Part 1Southern Africa
Case study 1: South Africa and Swaziland
TSB, South AfricaRSSC, Swaziland
Common featuresEnvironment
700 to 800 mm rain 700 to 800 mm rain Net irrigation requirement 1000 mm Potential yield 140 tc/ha/annum Predominant soil type Predominant soil type Pest and disease threats
Tsb Mill t K ti t d M l l Mills at Komatipoort and Malelane 1.2 million tons MCP cane
RSSCRSSC Mills at Simunye and Mhlume 1.8 million tons MCP cane
Same source of varieties - SASRI
DifferencesRegulation
Tsb – South African Sugar Association (SASA) RSSC – Swaziland Sugar Association (SSA)
SASA South African Sugar Research Institute (SASRI) South African Sugar Research Institute (SASRI) Plant breeding programme (N varieties) Variety selection and testing, pre and post release
SSA Varieties imported from SASRI £900 per ton of seed for post 2000 releases Second tier of post release testingSecond tier of post release testing
Differences in variety adoptionVariety released in South Africa
Variety imported to Swaziland, small quantity
V i t b lk d f li t d t i l
Bulked in Tsb nurseries
Variety bulked for replicated trials
Replicated trial programme commencesnurseries p p g
Replicated trial programme continues for 5Commercial
observationup to 5 ratoons
Seed material bulked at central nursery
Commercial adoption
Clean seed supplied to estates (including RSSC)p )
Commercial observation
Commercial adoption
Variety selection trials
Variety selection – common goalsPest and disease resistance/tolerance:
Smut Sugarcane Mosaic Virus
Production traitsS Sucrose content, seasonal
Cane yield, transport costs Milling qualities, ‘processability’ - pith:fiber ratio and g q , p y p
colour
Growth traits Adaptability Tolerance of adverse soil conditions Note that suitability to mechanical harvesting notNote that suitability to mechanical harvesting not
considered important
Ideally no more than 25 % of a single varietyIdeally no more than 25 % of a single variety
Smut
Mosaic
Variety traits
Variety NCo376 N14 N19 N23 N25 N32 N36 N40 N41 N46 N49
Year ofYear of release 1955 1980 1986 1992 1994 1997 2000 2002 2002 2005 2008
Smut Sus* Int Res Int Int Sus Int Res Int Int Res
Mosaic Sus** Int Sus Int Int Sus Int Res Int Res Res
RSD Sus Sus** Sus Int Sus** Sus Int Int SusRSD Sus Sus Sus Int Sus Sus Int Int Sus
Salinity tolerance Good Mod Good Mod Mod Mod Poor Poor
Early Season Mid late Mid late Early mid Early mid Mid late Early mid Early mid Early Early Late
a ymid
Milling qualities Poor Mod Good Good Good Good Mod
NCo376 and N32 unavailable in South African irrigated areas
Incremental plant improvement
T RV/ha as % NCo376 N14 N19 N23 N25 N32 N36 N40
N25 110 108 109 XN25 110 108 109 X
N32 103 110 X
N36 107 X
N40 110 114 110 XN40 110 114 110 X
N41 114 102
N46 112 101
N49 103 105 105
From SASRI variety information sheets
RSSC variety disposition
100%
N19
Others
80%
90%
100%
N25
N2360%
70%
N25
30%
40%
50%
NCo376
10%
20%
30%
0%1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Others under test include: N24, N26, N28, N30, N36
Smut RoguingSSA Smut RegulationsInspection No. Smut % Decision
1 >15 Immediate plough out order1 >15 Immediate plough out order1 5 to 15 Plough out decision deferred to next inspection2 >10 Immediate plough out order2 >5 Plough out deferred to next season2 >5 Plough out deferred to next season
1, following year >5 Immediate plough out order
RSSC future variety disposition
Oth100%
N19
Others
80%
90%
N25
N2360%
70%
N25
30%
40%
50%
NCo376
10%
20%
30%
0%
10%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012
Others : mainly N36
Tsb variety disposition
100%
N14
Others
80%
90%
100%
N23
N1960%
70%
80%
N25
3
40%
50%
N25
20%
30%
N36N320%
10%
2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Others include: N40, N41, N46, N49
N25 plough out order at Tsb
Tsb future variety disposition
Others100%
N14
Others
80%
N23N19
60%
N2540%
N36N32
0%
20%
0%2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015
Others include: N40, N41, N46, N49
Objectives of Tsb variety plan
I d ti f b 0 43 t Increase production performance by 0.43 t RV/ha
Maintain total variety disposition below 20% per variety - reduce P&D risk
Reduce tonnage by 38 000 t (reduce transport costs)p )
Improved mill efficiencies & throughput None of this would be possible without the None of this would be possible without the
availability of new varieties
Why the difference?
South Africa: Supply of new varieties SASRI plant breedingSupply of new varieties, SASRI plant breeding Ready to embrace new varieties Ready to degazette – NCo376 (1983) and N32 (2010) Quick to benefit from incremental plant improvement
Swaziland: S l f i ti t i t d b t l t b d Supply of varieties restricted by cost, plant breeders
rights Conservative approach – extra evaluation and time NCo376 still available, ‘easy option’ but regulated Smut infection pressure on newer varieties Delayed benefit from incremental plant improvementDelayed benefit from incremental plant improvement 8 % yield penalty at RSSC Does this have to be the case?
Variety selection trials sites
Two soil types represented at Pongola and Ubomboyp p g
REML (Restricted Maximum Likelihood))
Tonga - SAMhlume - Swazi Ubombo - Swazi Pongola SASRI
Komatidraai - SA Komati SASRI
Si S i
Mhlati - SA Ubombo S - Swazi
M lk S i
Group 5Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Simunye - Swazi Pongola P - SA
Malkerns - Swazi
Differences in variety adoptionVariety released in South Africa
Variety imported to Swaziland, small quantity
V i t b lk d f li t d t i l
Bulked in Tsb nurseries
Variety bulked for replicated trials
Replicated trial programme commencesnurseries p p g
Replicated trial programme continues for 5Commercial
observationup to 5 ratoons
Seed material bulked at central nursery
Commercial adoption
Clean seed supplied to estates (including RSSC)p )
Commercial observation
Commercial adoption
Part 2Part 2Part 2Papua New Guinea
Part 2Papua New Guinea
Case study 2: Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Ramu Agri Industries Limited (RAIL)
Ramu Sugar – project features
EnvironmentEnvironment 10400 ha Rainfed project - 2,000 mm/yearRainfed project 2,000 mm/year Mean cane yield - 65 to 70 tc/ha
Pest and disease Papua New Guinea - origin of wild cane Significant pest and disease threats expected Some previously unknown diseases Some previously unknown diseases Resistant varieties a central component of pest and disease
control
Ramu Sugar – diseases
Common Name Causal Agent Activity Economic Importance Control Methods
Ramu Stunt Phytoplasma Systemic Very significant Resistant varieties
Downy Mildew Fungal Systemic Very significant Resistant varieties, chemical
Leaf Scald Bacterial Systemic Very significant Resistant varieties
Fiji disease Virus Systemic Very significant Resistant varieties
Ratoon Stunting Disease Bacterial Systemic Very significant Resistant varieties, HWT
Ramu Streak Unknown Leaf ns Unknown
Ramu Orange Leaf Fungal Leaf Unknown Roguing
Ramu Scorch Unknown Leaf ns Unknown
Brown Rust Fungal Leaf ns Resistant varieties
Orange Rust Fungal Leaf ns Resistant varieties
Golden Leaf Syndrome Unknown Systemic Emerging Unknown
No Smut
Ramu Stunt
Sesamia grisescens
Top shoot borer, Scirpophaga excerptalisp
Top shoot borer
Golden Leaf Syndrome
Ramu Sugar – variety history
Variety Resistant Intermediate Susceptible Expanded Phased out
Ragnar Leaf Scald, Fiji, Downy Mildew Ramu Stunt 1983 1986
Cadmus Leaf Scald, Ramu Stunt Downy Mildew Sesamia 1985 1995Cadmus Leaf Scald, Ramu Stunt Downy Mildew Sesamia 1985 1995
Cassius Downy Mildew, Ramu Stunt, Fiji Leaf Scald, Sesamia 1987 1992
Q107 Leaf Scald, Ramu Stunt Weevil Borer, White Grub 1987 1993
Q127 Leaf Scald, Ramu Stunt Top Shoot Borer, GLS 1992 2010
BT65152 Fiji, Ramu Stunt Rust 1993 2002
Q127 – high sucrose but unsuitable for mechanical harvesting
R570 Leaf Scald Ramu Stunt Top Shoot Borer, Herbicides 1998
Q127 high sucrose but unsuitable for mechanical harvesting
Swaziland variety disposition
100%
N19
Others
80%
90%
100%
N25
N2360%
70%
N25
30%
40%
50%
NCo376
10%
20%
30%
0%1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ramu variety disposition
H56752Q77N557
Q90100%
Ragnar BT65152
Q135
Q107 Q117r
PN92 439
UCW5465
F177
CO997Q77N557
PN92-33980%
Ragnar
Q117Q198
Cassius
PN92-439
60%
Q136
Q127
R57040%
Cadmus
B72177
20%
0%
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Ramu stunt Sesamia Top shoot borer GLS
Ramu summary
Variety choice driven by pest and disease issuesy y p Balanced with productivity and growth traits Average ‘life’ of a variety is 10 years Constant supply of new candidates Own breeding programme, PN varieties Ability to change variety rapidly and maintain a broad Ability to change variety rapidly and maintain a broad
spread of varieties has been essential to the project’s survival
F t li Future policy: In house breeding programme … ? Reaction to latest threat – Golden Leaf Syndrome?y Top shoot borer – solution may not be varietal but linked to
Sesamia control Essential to maintain supply of new varietiespp y
Conclusions - case studies
Forward thinking and uninterrupted supply of new varieties is essential for long term success of projectsessential for long term success of projects
Pest and disease as well as productivity and growth traits should be considered
Important to maintain balanced variety disposition with no more Important to maintain balanced variety disposition with no more than 25 % of a single variety
Need a constant supply of varieties to achieve this Static variety policy is undesirable – must take advantage of
continuous plant improvement Must overcome regulatory bottlenecks in industries that do not have g y
their own plant breeding programme. Relevance? New and existing projects. New projects: variety sourcing an important aspect of planningNew projects: variety sourcing an important aspect of planning Existing projects: use new varieties to improve production while
minimising risk; avoid stagnation
Part 3Part 3Part 3Other Considerations
Part 3Other Considerations
Other considerations
Changing needs M h i ti Mechanisation Ethanol and biomass
Future developmentsp Energy canes Biotechnologygy Other end uses for sugarcane
Mechanisation Mechanical harvesting Existing projects, changing from manual harvestingExisting projects, changing from manual harvesting New projects, designed for mechanical harvesting Non-brittle varieties with erect growth habit C t l f h t l d hi d ti it Control of harvest losses and machine productivity Productivity and pest and disease management
Examples Peru – re-emerging industry, limited availability of
varieties from existing industry Mex 73-523varieties from existing industry, Mex 73 523 Colombia – emphasis of plant breeding programme
on machine harvesting qualities Sudan >80 % Co6806 but 100 % mechanical Sudan - >80 % Co6806 but 100 % mechanical
harvesting Australia – Q170 and Q124
Mex 73-523, Peru CC 93-744, Colombia
Q124
Q170
Future developments Requirements Need for varieties with different end use Breeding to date focussed on sucrose
production Concept of ‘Total Energy in Cane’ – sum ofConcept of Total Energy in Cane sum of
energy recovered in cogeneration, ethanol and sugar – West Indies and Reunion
Meeting requirements Alter management of existing varietiesAlter management of existing varieties Biotechnology to accelerate plant improvement Genetic markers (smut, rust, yellow spot)( y p ) DNA fingerprinting GM? Drought tolerance (Brazil), herbicide
resistance (South Africa)resistance (South Africa) Market acceptance??
Thank youThank youVisit our website
www booker tate co ukVisit our website
www booker tate co ukwww.booker-tate.co.ukwww.booker-tate.co.uk
Parasitism of Top Shoot Borer
Ratoon Stunting Disease
Eumetopina flavipes, insect vector of Ramu Stunt
Downy Mildew
Leaf Scald
Fiji Disease
Brown Rust