News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Doubts arise about Pioneer Mill's revival 

Doubts arise about Pioneer Mill's revival

26/06/2008 10:47:00 AM
Last week's collapse of a clarifier at the CSR Sugar's Pioneer Mill near Brandon has stopped the operation of the mill for an estimated 10-14 weeks.

It has also caused a major disruption to the crush as Pioneer Mill cane has to be taken on a tortuous rout to the other three mills, as not all the cane railway lines are compatible.

It looks like being a repeat of the past few years when poor mill performance and late starts have extended the crush past Christmas, or even January as happened this year, and even then 140,000 tonnes of cane was left to stand over.

The old rule of thumb is "never harvest a block that is to be ratooned after Guy Fawkes Night, November 5", as it won't reach its potential. Unfortunately that has happened in recent years and the result is a reduction in production of up to 40pc.

To say Burdekin growers are sceptical about the assurance from CSR Sugar that the problem at the Pioneer Mill "will not have a material effect on earnings in its sugar business" is an understatement.

Canegrowers Burdekin district manager, Jim Collins, said angrily: "On the contrary we believe it will have an enormous and debilitating impact on cane growers and the local community alike, resulting in a likely negative impact on the CSR Burdekin milling earnings.

"Growers have had to endure significant financial losses from poor mill performance and maintenance for a number of years now, and we are fast approaching a situation where their lack of confidence in the local infrastructure may make them question whether to get out of cane altogether.

"We have warned senior CSR Sugar management for the past four years that the continued lack of maintenance, erratic daily mill performance and resulting extension to season length is crippling cane production in the Burdekin, which is down from 9.2 million tonnes to an estimate of 7.5mt this season, and the downward slide looks set to continue.

"The horror run we face this year will be of the same magnitude as the CSR Co-generation debacle of 2005 that saw Pioneer Mill out of action for a similar period.

"The fact is that the Burdekin landscape in the past four years has changed considerably, with cane production yielding to the introduction of cotton, corn, legumes and horticulture and the move from cane to alternative crops is only set to escalate with more growers choosing to make a complete change out of cane."

Mr Collins said CSR's largest mill, Invicta, was yet to put in a good week, and with so much instability abounding in the Burdekin "we can only recommend our growers prepare for a very late harvest, and most likely more standover".

"CSR shareholders should ask how the continuing crop reduction will impact on demerger prospects, company renewable energy aspirations and in particular the recent senior sugar management claims of ongoing reductions to mill capital expenditure."

Send to a Friend
Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


Comments


The root causes of the problems for Australian sugar producers are the subsidies and tariffs implemented by the Europeans, Brazil and the USA.

Sugar farmers are price takers not price setters. To be able to solve the problems of sugar growers, it is critical to be able to identify them.

In real terms Australia is considered the second most efficient sugar producing country in the world, but they cannot hope to compete against corrupted markets. Our politicians naively still believe in the level playing field and they let everyone come here and play for sweet FA at our expense. How Australian sugar producers can be held accountable for that situation is beyond understanding. It is way out of sugar growers’ control. The Europeans started this madness with subsides and tariffs for primary industries because of their recent history of two world wars where many of their population starved. This is deeply ingrained in their psyche.

Of course, European farmers play on this situation and are more militant than our docile mob here in Australia who allow themselves to be shafted from pillar to post.

Australians have never starved and they presume sugar and other primary products will simply be there on the supermarket shelf for them to consume at the lowest possible price.

The Brazilian government has the expressed aim of being the dominant sugar producer in the world. To this end they financially support their sugar producers to achieve this objective. They deliberately flood the market with sugar to force naive players such as Australia out of it so they can dominate and hopefully dictate price at a later date. Brazilians have a coordinated effort from government, farm and mill level. For example, the Brazilians will not outsource or purchase any equipment or technology from overseas for their mills. If they cannot source what they need from Brazil they will work their way around the situation using their own products and resources.

As for the Americans, well, they look after themselves and to hell with the rest.

The Australian government and sugar growers needs to be more proactive by:

* Getting some redress at international forums and courts of law to eliminate these tariffs and subsides promptly. It is time to stand on some big toes! If not, Australians will have to bite the bullet and look after our own sugar interests using all means possible, fair and foul. eg. Tying trade agreements directly to defence contracts and support for wars.

* Pro-actively dovetailing the sugar industry with other future industries and technology such as plastics and ethanol. Oil companies are in bed with the automotive industry and car clubs. Unlike Europe, Canada, USA, Brazil and others, Australia is the only developed country against ethanol. Even New Zealand is pro-ethanol! Government mandating of 10% Ethanol (E10) is an obvious environmental advantage.

The crux of the problem is that our efficient sugar farmers are expected to compete against competitor nations who subsidise their industry. This is an unrealistic and unfair expectation. How can you expect to compete against a whole of government approach adopted by our competitors while our governments pretend it is simply market forces at play? Sugar farmers pay Australian wages and other cost inputs and are expected to compete on a corrupted subsidised world market. This is not a level playing field! Providing temporary price support for local sugar as has recently been done with the current 3c per kg levy on sugar sold domestically is minimally helpful. This is only a small % of the sugar produced in Australia as we export far more than we consume and a result does not increase farm incomes dramatically. This is helpful to a small degree but expect fierce resistance from the confectionary industry who have been accustomed to paying bottom dollar for a top product.

* A more equitable (government enforced) payment system to farmers by millers. Millers will only pay sugar farmers on the sugar content of the sugarcane delivered to the mill and not other products that they use and produce from it. Once the miller has the product they "wrongly" assume ownership of all other products made and used from the sugarcane. Eg. a by-product called bagasse is used as "free" fuel for the mill; the nutrient rich "mud" left over from the crushing process is sold back to the farmer; Molasses extracted is sold as a stock feed etc. It is the mug sugar farmer who gets paid zero for all these products and as indicated earlier even pays the mill to get it back! If the current single desk selling arrangement is abolished and de-regulation is introduced, this would reduce the price farmers obtain for their product even further. Eg. How are individual farmers going to be able to negotiate a fair price for their product if CSR or any other company are the only miller in a cane-growing region? Millers have a monopoly and are able to dictate price. No wonder they vigorously support “de-regulation”.

* Sugar farmers must arrive at a single position on their industry. Sugar grower representatives have to present to government and Australian community a coherent workable solution. Disunity and apathy have come about as result of the "brain drain" suffered by all rural industries as the cream of the youth have gravitated to where real opportunities are offered in the “subsidised” capital cities. Who in their right mind would be a primary producer in Australia today under present conditions? However, a single, strong and professionally presented position is a must.

* If a decentralised population is desirable with all the social and economic benefits that flow from that, a coherent plan has to be in place to encourage people to move to centres other than capital cities. This means jobs for the bush to attract people. This includes sugar farmers. Look how underpopulated and underdeveloped the north and west of Australia is after 200 plus years of settlement. For progress to be made government assistance is initially needed to provide the services and infrastructure necessary to make things viable. The only real development that has taken place is in the capital cities. This is one reason why the creation of new states as has happened in the USA over the same period of time is important. Minimal tax zones should be created for the more isolated areas of our country. People living there are doing us all a service by simply being there. This will help make up part of the way for the lack of services and infrastructure in the bush.

I don't pretend to have the answers but I do want the message to get out that Australian sugar farmers simply want a fair and just price for the product that they already efficiently produce.

The prices have collapsed not because of farmers' incompetence but because of corrupted world markets that have been subsidised for years. How sugar farmers have survived for this long is a miracle in itself. They should be rewarded and congratulated not restructured out of the industry.

This is economic rationalism. The one ray of hope they had was the FTA. This was taken away from them by their own kind. As Shakespeare wrote, "… this was the unkindest cut of all".

Sugar farmers are at the mercy of the decisions of foreign governments and the misfortunes of others. They are the new 'peasantry'.

Posted by Selwyn Johnston on 29/06/2008 8:26:14 PM
1

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Q: What should the Federal Government do to relieve the cost of petrol?

Continue with its current approach
(4.2%)

Cut petrol excise by 5c/l
(1.6%)

Cut petrol excise by 10c/l
(29.9%)

Invest petrol revenue in alternative fuel research
(39%)

Mandate 10pc biofuel content in petrol
(13.3%)

Other
(11.9%)

Total Votes: 428
Poll Date: 23/06/2008

3/09/2008 | They say those who can do and those who can't teach, but in the current economic climate for agriculture, it could well be a future of young people who 'can' having to settle for providing services to agribusiness corporations rather than doing it themselves.
NQR Subscriptions
 
Horse Deals Australia
 
Rural Bookshop
 
JB Fairfax Scholarship for Rural Journalism