Hugh Martin THOSE OF us who are still strong believers in the viability of the sugar industry were not deterred in our support when last year the crop recorded its lowest production in 50 years. We comforted ourselves with the knowledge that when you hit rock bottom the only place to go is up. We even allowed for another year at the same level taking into consideration the inevitable effects the two floods in May and September would have on cane population and on sugar quality in this year's crop. So our expectations were not ambitious. Maybe around 180,000 tonnes sugar - six or so tonnes more than last year's? What a disappointment we set ourselves up for.
When the Long Pond factory stopped its milling operations about three weeks ago with quite a bit of cane left in the fields the 2003 crop officially ended and production stood at 152,165 tonnes, a new record.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
The obvious question of course is, "What went wrong?" There is no doubt that the floods of last year had a significant effect on the final outcome. My information is that several hundred hectares of cane were flooded out in a number of areas and could not be reaped. In cases where reaping took place the juice quality was so badly affected that it took an additional three tonnes of cane or more to make a ton of sugar.
In addition the rains also hampered the replanting programme as equipment could not go into many of the fields. The end result was a reduction in the amount of cane reaped; as much as 170,000 tonnes less than last crop. But this alone does not explain the disastrous outcome. All of that had been factored into the early projections. As late as March this year the projections were revised and the target of 174,000 tonnes sugar was set.
Not one of the factories achieved its target and that included the very efficient Worthy Park and the recently hi-tech-retooled Appleton. The truth is that there was just not enough cane to produce the sugar required. Or more precisely there was not enough cane of the quality necessary and that was because the fields were not properly maintained for the most part and replanting was not done where it should have been. This brings forcefully into question the method of estimating crop yields and production. Every year at about mid-crop the projected crop target is revised but invariably the final figures fall well below it.
The industry needs to take a closer look at its methodology. Undoubtedly, heavy rains at critical points of growth and maturity will have an adverse effect on juice quality and very little can be done to offset that. The reduction resulting from this however is never great enough to account for the overall shortfall.
To my mind the problem lies not so much in unfavourable weather conditions but more in the management of the fields. An important factor in determining expected production is acreage in cane. From that cane population and consequently, tonnage, are estimated. And this, quite often, is where things go awry.
CANE PRODUCTION
Enough cane is not being produced on the acreage under cultivation. In 2001 a total of 2,184,534 tonnes of cane were milled. This yielded 201,556 tonnes of sugar at a tonnes cane/ton sugar ratio (tc/ts) of 10.84. Last year canes milled dropped to 1,936,613 tonnes and sugar produced to 173,269 tonnes at a tc/ts of 11.18. Compare that to this year's final figures of 1,766,502 tonnes cane and 152,165 tonnes sugar at 11.61tc/ts. Clearly the problem lies in cane production where the sugar is really being produced for extraction by the factory.
It is an oft-repeated phrase in the industry that the best fertiliser a farmer can apply is his own footprint. When a farmer doesn't walk his field he is unlikely to know about the huge gaps that exist in it caused by several factors including poor germination in newly-planted fields and damaged stools in ratoon fields caused by mechanical operations such as harvesting.
He is not aware of the sections with a drainage problem or a weed, a disease or even a fertiliser situation. In short, farm management. This is where the industry has fallen short and until it is addressed all the resources that are pumped into it will only go down the drain.
IMMENSE LOSSES
It is true that cane farmers suffered immense losses a few years ago when the price of cane plummeted as a result of a revaluation of the Jamaican dollar and that they have been struggling to recover ever since. In addition financing for replanting available to them has always been late in coming so the inputs have tended not to be applied on a timely basis. An example is the $150-million replanting loan facility promised by the Minister of Finance in December 2001.
This is only now ready, too late to have any impact on the 2004 crop, which at this point doesn't look as if it will be much better than this year's. In spite of this gloomy picture though there is much optimism in the industry and a lot of new acreages are being put into cane not only by the Sugar Company of Jamaica but also by the two privately-owned estates, Worthy Park and Appleton. The determination is obvious and 2005 seems to be the target for the resurgence of the sugar industry.
Hugh Martin is a communication specialist and farm broadcaster. E-mail: humar@cwjamaica.com
