Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FINE-TUNING OF FIELD DESIGN
DURING REPLANTING TO
ENHANCE THE YIELD
POTENTIAL AND MECHANISED
OPERATIONS : HOLISTIC
CONSIDERATIONS
1
RAMLI ABD MAJID
By
INTRODUCTION
PARAMETERS
RAINWATER HARNESSING
MAXIMIZING LAND UTILIZATION
MECHANIZATION
COST COMPARISON
CONCLUSION
2
PAPER WILL BE PRESENTED AS
FOLLOWS:
3
From the Initial Model Newplanting in MPOB, Jerantut, Pahang several Model Replantings had been created in:
Kumpulan Fima Berhad
Malaysian Kuwaiti Investment Co (MKIC)
Sabah Softwoods
Kretam Holdings Bhd
Sawit Kinabalu Sdn Bhd (Rubber)
INTRODUCTION
4
PARAMETERS
USE OF GIS/GPS + DRONES
Most companies have purchased the equipment but not fully utilized
More on-the-ground inputs are required to formulate the design incorporating:
Road design
Types of terraces
Drainage design for water management
5
CURRENT INDUSTRY ISSUES
Yield stagnation
Mechanization
6
REASON FOR YIELD STAGNATION
LOW PLANTING DENSITY
7
MAXIMIZING THE PLANTING DENSITY
Despite availability of the Violle and Constant Planting Density techniques,
how many plantation companies:
Are aware of their existence?
Are implementing them?
Have revised their SOPs to adopt the systems?
8
Planting density will be determined by:
Road design and density
Terrace density
Planting distances
Maximum land utilization
MAXIMIZING THE PLANTING DENSITY
9
IMPACT ON LOW PLANTING DENSITY
At 98 palms/ha, loss of 32 palms/ha = 25% of yield potential.
Taking average yield of 22 mt/ha, the loss will be 5.5 mt/ha x 5,000ha = 27,500 mt/year x 23 years = 632,500 mt x RM500/mt FFB = RM316.25 million or RM2,750/ha/year !!!!!!!!!
MAXIMIZING THE PLANTING DENSITY
10
MAXIMIZING THE PLANTING DENSITY
What had caused the blunder?
Poor road design = higher road density
Lower terrace density
Use of standard distance at 8.5m apart irrespective of the terrace distances!
Lining done by contractors
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
REFUSAL TO CHANGE - COMPLACENT
11
Practical work on measuring palm planting densities on terraces
12
Practical work on measuring palm planting densities on terraces
13
ROAD DESIGN / DENSITY
Well-designed road will achieve following objectives:
Fully functional
Optimum density
Maximum land for planting
14
ROAD DESIGN / DENSITY
Parameters:
Terrain
Slope
Carry
Drainage pattern
15
ROAD DESIGN / DENSITY Estate Phase Road Density Terrace Density Planting Density Previous Planting Density
(m/ha) (m/ha) (palms/ha) (palms/ha) 0° - 5° 6° - 15° > 16°
Cendana I 118 1,053 137 70 58% 37% 5%
II 168 1,145 135 120 58% 37% 5%
PJ Nagus I 103 873 148 130 48% 11% 41%
II 137 598 145 130 63% 15% 22%
PJ Merutai I 110 1,006 143 131 75% 10% 15%
II 87 - 152 121 100% - -
PJ Indera I 97 - 153 101 100% - -
II 66 - 152 119 70% 30% -
PJ Sabahan I 201 654 127 108 - - 100%
II 179 735 130 106 - - 100%
Terrain
16
ROAD DESIGN / DENSITY
Main and collection road alignment
17
TERRACE TYPES & DENSITIES
Types of terraces will be determined by
the slope:
Double terraces : 6° - 15°
Single terraces : 16° - 25°
18
DOUBLE TERRACES
PJ Nagus Teluk Siak
19
TERRACE TYPES
Single terraces (Teluk Siak)
Single terraces (PJ Sabahan)
Single Terraces
20
DOUBLE TERRACES
Advantages:
a) Minimum disturbance to soil structure
b) Minimum surface/lateral erosion
c) Better moisture conservation
d) Early mechanized / semi-mechanized operations
e) More efficient supervision (from excellent access)
21
SINGLE TERRACES
Now constructed wider between 4.0 – 5.0m for
eventual mechanization
Disadvantage
a)Early semi-mechanized operations not possible
due to frond interference
22
GIS / GPS
Most useful in the initial planning
Useful to determine the final planting density (tree count)
Not fully utilised
23
CONSTANT PLANTING DENSITY
A modified version of the Violle system.
How the system works
Measure average terrace distances using Tru Pulse ( a digital equipment)
Record each distance on Field Inventory pegs for each terrace
Use table to determine the planting distances
Each planting distance recorded of the Field Inventory peg
24
CONSTANT PLANTING DENSITY
Terrace/palm distances based on 142 palms/ha
Terrace distance (m) Palm distance (m)
9.1 7.9
8.8 8.0
8.5 8.2
8.2 8.5
7.9 8.8
7.6 9.1
7.3 9.4
7.0 9.7
25
MECHANICAL HOLING
Disadvantages of manual holing:
a) Not uniform
b)Inadequate depth – restricts root development
c) Where is the labour?
d) Where is the work quality?
e) Low productivity
26
MECHANICAL HOLING
Disadvantages of mechanical auger
a) Cementing of the edges of the holes –
will impede good early root development
b) Same sub-soil used in the planting hole
27
MECHANICAL HOLING - BIG HOLE
Advantages:
a) Bigger hole
b) Filling with good top soils = better root development = better growth = higher yield
c) Better moisture retention
d) Excavated soils utilized as stop bunds to minimize lateral erosion
e) Same excavator can be utilized simultaneously to repair terraces
28
Big-hole
29
MECHANICAL HOLING
“Fear” of lodging/bending can be
resolved by mandatory use of
ramming stick during planting
30
Use of ramming stick
31
RAINWATER HARNESSING
Why rainwater harnessing?
Climate change
Very low rainfall
Poor soils
32
RAINWATER HARNESSING
Techniques implemented
Hump and sump
Silt pits
Planting platforms
33
A hump
34
A sump in Minamas Plantation
(Teluk Siak)
A sump in Perlating Jerneh
(MKIC)
35
Planting on platform (PJ Indera, MKIC)
36
Planting on platform (PJ Indera, MKIC)
37
RAINWATER HARNESSING
NEW APPROACH IN
LADANG PERLATING JERNEH
Construction of sumps in front of frond
stacks in terraced areas
38
39
Before
40
After
41
Objectives
To maximise land use : 0-wastage
To increase planting density
MAXIMIZING LAND UTILIZATION
42
MAXIMIZING LAND UTILIZATION
APPROACH
“Zip system” i.e. construction of raised
platforms which are connected to elevated
paths.
43
ZIP SYSTEM
ADVANTAGES
Palms above water during flash floods
Minimizes fertilizer wash off
Good palm-to-palm and palm-to-road access
Mechanised operations
Efficient supervision
44
“Zip” system in Sarawak
“Zip” system in Palembang,
Indonesia
45
“Zip” system in Palembang, Indonesia
46
WHY MECHANIZE?
Current status: Acute shortage of workers Rising costs Will worsen in future
47
WHY MECHANIZE? Reasons for labour shortage
“Yo-yo” Government policies on recruitment of foreign workers.
Huge opportunities in Indonesia. No reason to come to Malaysia.
Comparable earnings in Indonesia.
Very low Malaysian Ringgit divert workers to work in other countries e.g. Saudi Arabia.
Continued indifferent attitude of Malaysians to work in plantations.
48
WHY MECHANIZE?
Questions to ponder:
* What will be the scenario in 5-10
years time?
* How serious are plantation
companies in over coming the
worsening situation?
49
IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH
MODEL REPLANTINGS
MECHANIZATION
50
Company/Estate % of Area Mechanized
Now Before
KUMPULAN FIMA BERHAD
Ladang Cendana 75 0
˗ Phase I 80 0
˗ Phase II
MALAYSIAN KUWAITI INVESTMENT CO SDN BHD
Ladang Perlating Jerneh 90 40
Ladang PJ Nagus
˗ Phase I 90 40
˗ Phase II 100 50
Ladang PJ Merutai
˗ Phase I 80 50
˗ Phase II 100 60
Ladang PJ Indera
˗ Phase I 100 50
˗ Phase II 100 60
Achievements to date
51
MECHANIZATION
Types of operations which can be mechanized
Mechanical holing (big-hole)
Distribution of seedlings direct to planting points
– 0- casualty achieved in MKIC estates
Semi-mechanized fertilizer applications
Semi-mechanized P&D work
Semi-mechanized weeding work
52
MECHANIZATION
Land Preparations
Mechanization never done “impromptu”
Requires vision and meticulous planning in form
of:
Construction of elevated paths
Construction of double-terraces
Construction of wider single terraces
Implementing “zip” system
53
54
Semi-mechanical in-field
collection
Semi-mechanical spot spraying
55
LABOUR : LAND RATIO Improved Labour: Land Ratio
Example on 1,800ha estate:
100% manual operations @ 1:10ha = 180 workers
70% mechanized operations @ 1:25ha = 50 workers
Balance 30% @ 1:10ha = 54 workers
Total labour requirement = 104 workers
Reduction = 76 workers or 42%
56
No Operation Unit of Measure Quantity Rate (RM) Total
Model Conventional
1 GIS / GPS Ha 121 25 3,025 25 0
2 Blocking Ha 121 50 6,050 - 50
3 Pre-lining Ha 121 50 6,050 50
4 Mechanical felling/chipping Palms 120 palms/ha = 14,520 7.5 108,900 900 900
5 Construction of Ganoderma pits Palms 135 palms x 121ha = 16,335 7.2 117,612 962
6 Road construction:
Main roads M 30 m/ha x 121ha = 3,630m 1.3 4,719
Collection roads M 90 m/ha x 121ha = 10,890m 1.1 11,979
16,698 138 138
7 Terrace construction: Model
Double terraces M 68ha x 1,000 m/ha 1.8 122,400
Single terraces M 29ha x 900 m/ha 1.5 39,150
161,550 1665
Terrace const.: Conventional M 97ha x 950 m/ha = 92,150 1.5 138,225 1,425
8 Construction of elevated paths Ha 24 500 12,000 500
9 Construction of raised platforms Palms 942 7.5 7,065 1,178
(6ha x 157 palms/ha)
10 Holing:
Mechanical Palms 18,997 1.5 28,496 235
Manual Palms 18,997 1 18,997 157
TOTAL 5,603 2,720
Notes:
Although conventional replanting is cheaper by 47% but it has the following limitations:, it has the following limitations:
* Higher risks on future Ganoderma infection - loss of potential yield
* Not prepared for eventual mechanization - higher manual labour requirement = higher production costs
* Loss of potential yield from flooding in low-lying areas
* Cost difference between construction of double and single terraces is only 15% but the benefits are many
Cost/Ha
COST COMPARISON
57
COST COMPARISON
Higher cost on Model Replanting by 47% due to:
Construction of Ganoderma pits
Construction of elevated paths
Construction of double-terraces (15% higher than single terraces)
Mechanical holing
58
COST COMPARISON
Conventional Replanting has following limitations:
Very high risk from Ganoderma infection
Fields not prepared for eventual mechanization
Higher manual labour requirement
Lower yield
Higher cost of production
59
CONCLUSION
Achievements through Model Replanting:
Maximum planting density
Maximum land utilization
Mechanization
Improving soil moisture
60
ALBERT EINSTEIN
“STUPIDITY IS DOING THE SAME
THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN
AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT
RESULTS”
61
OWNERSHIP
“INI REPLANTING KU”
62
Replanting in Teluk Siak – Minamas Plantation
63
THANK YOU THANK YOU
