Skocaj DM et al.

Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 40 2018

______________________________________________________________________________________

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING FARM NUTRIENT

MANAGEMENT PLANS IN THE WET TROPICS

By

DM SKOCAJ1, D TELFORD2, AP HURNEY3, BL SCHROEDER4

1
Sugar Research Australia, Tully, 2Canegrowers Innisfail District, Mourilyan,
3
Agronomic Consultant, Edmonton, 4University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba
dskocaj@sugarresearch.com.au

KEYWORDS: SIX EASY STEPS,

Nutrient, Management.

Abstract
SIX EASY STEPS is an integrated nutrient management package for the Australian sugar
industry. It enables the adoption of best-practice nutrient management on-farm.
Sugarcane growers and advisors commonly implement steps 1 to 4 of the SIX EASY
STEPS framework to develop nutrient management plans (NMP) for individual or
multiple blocks of the same soil type based on a single soil assay from the block/s.
Developing whole-of-farm NMPs and implementing steps 5 and 6 is more difficult
because there is no consistent process to follow. To ensure all six steps of the SIX
EASY STEPS nutrient management program are applied to the whole farm, a process
was developed for advisory staff in the wet tropics to follow when preparing whole-of-
farm nutrient management plans. The process comprises of five key stages. A key
feature of this process is greater interaction and consultation between sugarcane growers
and advisory staff to develop practical and rational whole-of-farm nutrient management
plans. This is achieved by 1) collating datasets to identify soil types and nutrient
requirements; 2) engaging with the grower to understand their farming system, previous
experiences, nutrient management preferences, limiting factors and opportunities to
refine nutrient management practices; 3) drafting whole-of-farm NMP; 4) refining the
draft whole-of-farm NMP in consultation with the grower; and 5) reviewing and
updating the NMP on an annual basis. Consideration is given to the many complex
factors influencing nutrient management when developing the whole-of-farm NMP;
these also include individual grower’s goals and expectations. The wet tropics Sugar
Industry Partnership (WTSIP) extension officers and other advisory staff have adopted
this process. Advisors who have completed the whole-of-farm NMP process are
supportive of the consistent approach and like the flexibility of being able to tailor
delivery outputs to suit individual grower requirements. Sugarcane growers who have
received a whole-of-farm NMP commented on how they are encouraged to take
ownership of their final NMP and given the opportunity to undertake on-farm
evaluations of different nutrient management practices with the support of their advisor.
Development of whole-of-farm NMP’s will foster widespread adoption of the full SIX
EASY STEPS program throughout the sugar industry.
Introduction
Sugarcane growers need to consider many factors before getting on a tractor to fertilise their
crop. What soil type(s) occur in the block, how should the block be soil sampled, what were the soil
sample results, what are the nutritional requirements of the block based on the SIX EASY STEPS
guidelines for the wet tropics (Schroeder et al., 2007), what is the crop class, was the recommended
soil ameliorant applied? If a legume cover crop was planted what species was grown, how much dry
matter was produced, what was the nitrogen (N) concentration of the plant tissue, what was the
duration of the crop, how even was the growth across the block, how will the legume reside be
194
Skocaj DM et al. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 40 2018
______________________________________________________________________________________

managed? Or, if the crop is harvested and ratooned late in the season, will the block be waterlogged
for prolonged periods, will it be inundated with floodwater, when is the wet season likely to
commence, what is the chance of receiving an early flood, will it be wetter or drier than average?
Consideration also needs to be given to position in the landscape (as this can influence soil
chemical and physical properties and moisture availability), previous land use (have other
agricultural crops been grown in the past?) and the application of mill by-products (what, when,
where and how much was/will be applied?). Then there is new information the grower may have
picked up from attending nutrient management workshops, field days or shed meetings, talking to
other growers or agribusiness representatives, reading industry publications and their own personal
experiences.
Each grower also has different farming and business goals, plant and equipment availability
(own equipment vs reliance on contractors), access to new technology (GPS, rate controllers) and
socio-economic circumstances (farm size, employment off farm, farm debt, etc). They are also
striving to demonstrate environmental responsibility through voluntarily participating in SmartCane
BMP (Anon., 2017a) and complying with Reef Regulations (Anon., 2017b).
On top of all this, there are other agronomic activities (weed control, pest control,
cultivation, planting, harvesting) that require the grower’s attention and timely completion for
successful cane growing (Schroeder et al., 2018a). These all have a significant influence on nutrient
requirements and the grower’s approach to nutrient management.
A whole-of-farm approach to nutrient management planning with individualised support
will enable growers to make more informed nutrient management decisions and facilitate
widespread adoption of the SIX EASY STEPS nutrient management program. The idea of nutrient
management planning is not new with many experienced advisors already producing NMPs at the
block and farm level. However, there was no documented process or consistent approach to
completing a whole-of-farm NMP for advisors to follow. This paper reports on the whole-of-farm
NMP process developed by experienced agronomic researchers and advisors specifically for wet
tropics sugar industry advisory staff and growers.
Process
The wet tropics approach to whole-of-farm nutrient management planning comprises five
key stages. These stages facilitate greater interaction and consultation between growers and
advisory staff to rationalise nutrient requirements, develop practical whole-of-farm NMPs and
provide grower ownership leading to greater adoption of improved nutrient management practices.
Stage 1—Collating data
The advisor collects soil and productivity performance information at the regional/district
level before the initial grower meeting. The advisor is also encouraged to consult reference
materials including soil specific nutrient management booklets, soil survey reports and maps, land
suitability reports, and technical publications especially those reporting on nutrient management
trials.
At the first grower meeting the advisor collates information pertaining to farming history
(including farming system, previous land use, productivity performance, Smartcane BMP self-
assessment), farm layout (including block area, variety, crop class, drainage systems, topography),
farm soil types, soil test results and nutrient application records. It is also a chance for the advisor to
become more familiar with the soil types occurring on farm, their position in the landscape, soil
related crop growth constraints, associated nutrient loss pathways, potential nutrient requirements
and develop a working relationship with the grower.
Stage 2—Grower engagement
Engaging with the grower is a key step of the nutrient management planning process. The
grower is asked a series of questions to improve the advisors understanding of the grower’s
approach to nutrient management; what has been tried over the years, responses obtained, farm
195
Skocaj DM et al. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 40 2018
______________________________________________________________________________________

performance on a block-by-block basis, productivity goals, production constraints and possible

opportunities to improve nutrient management. It also allows the advisor to better understand the
grower’s farming/business goals and expectations, and identify any socio-economic pressures that
may influence the grower’s approach to nutrient management, as well as determining their risk
profile.
A pro forma was developed to help advisors capture important information provided by the
grower to develop the whole-of-farm NMP and thoughts around nutrient management options and
opportunities to manage production constraints that they may be able to present to the grower at
subsequent meetings. This step forms the basis of a grower profile and documents the NMP story
for future reference. It is important this information be available for future reference by the advisor
as it is used in combination with the information collected in stage 1 to draft the whole-of-farm
nutrient management plan. It is also revisited when annually updating the plan. This process should
not be viewed as a question and answer session but rather an opportunity to start the conversation
and better understand how the advisor can help the grower achieve their goals and improve on-farm
nutrient management.
Stage 3 – Draft whole-of-farm NMP
The advisor now uses the information collected in stages 1 and 2 to draft the whole-of-farm
NMP. The advisor begins reviewing current and historical soil test reports to assess their suitability
for interpretation according to the SIX EASY STEPS nutrient management guidelines. Although
the regulated method (Anon., 2017b) stipulates the minimum soil test requirements for calculating
(N) and phosphorus (P) fertiliser inputs it is important to ensure standard industry verified soil test
methodologies are followed and all nutrients required for optimal cane growth can be interpreted
from the soil test report. The advisor should also check soil test reports for ‘erroneous’ items such
as unexpectedly low or high organic carbon (%) values, discrepancies between organic carbon (%)
and PBI values. Any erroneous soil test reports should be discarded.
The soil test results are used to determine block specific nutrient requirements for plant and
ratoon crops according to the SIX EASY STEPS nutrient management guidelines (Schroeder et al.,
2007). Nutrient requirements are then grouped by crop class (plant vs ratoons) and soil type. This
allows the advisor to identify nutrient requirements at the soil type level for plant and ratoon crops
and group soil types with similar nutrient requirements. Soils that can be grouped together often
occur in the same position in the landscape, have similar inherent soil characteristics or previous
management history.
Once the nutrient requirements have been determined, the advisor reviews the grower’s
current nutrient management practices and compares against the requirements identified. At this
stage it is important to review how close the grower’s current practice is to meeting the identified
nutrient requirements. This enables the advisor to determine what changes and fine-tuning to
current practices are required.
Ideally the advisor should try to limit the number of fertiliser products and application rate
changes wherever possible while still meeting nutrient requirements. For plant crops, if the grower
is using a planting contractor, it is also important to understand if there are any limitations around
minimum fertiliser application rates.
For growers to adopt the SIX EASY STEPS guidelines across their whole farm they need to
have ownership of and trust the whole-of-farm NMP. They are also unlikely to implement the plan
unless the multitude of individual block nutrient recommendations can be rationalised into a
realistic and workable whole-of-farm NMP. The most contentious issue in the whole-of-farm NMP
process is likely to be with the rationalisation of nutrient requirements, most notably N. This should
not be a major impediment to developing a whole-of-farm NMP. The nutrient requirements
identified from using the SIX EASY STEPS program are guidelines not absolute values. This
allows for slight variations around the published guidelines in the rationalised nutrient values. If the
value for a particular block is markedly an outlier compared with other blocks of the same soil type
196
Skocaj DM et al. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 40 2018
______________________________________________________________________________________

and management history, the soil type and soil test report need to be reassessed in case they are
incorrect or to determine if there might be a co-dominant soil type influencing the nutrient
requirements. Management history (cropping, fertiliser use and mill by-products) and the
occurrence of different soil series in close proximity can have a significant impact on the nutrient
requirements and it is not uncommon to see the same series soil having different nutrient
requirements.
In these situations, it is better to split the soil into sub-groups rather than try to rationalise
nutrient requirements. This is demonstrated in Table 1 where the Mossman series soil was divided
into three sub-groups (A, B and C). These sub-groups represent blocks where there is another co-
dominant soil type (sub-group A contains blocks where Timara series soil is the co-dominant soil
type and hence require less N), different historical management (sub-group C contains blocks that
previously grew bananas and hence do not require phosphorus (P)) and nutrient requirements are in
line with expectations (sub-group B). Interestingly for this farm, Table 1 also shows P is not
required on Gogarra, Lugger or Tully series soils because of a history of mill by-product application
or Tyson series soils because of previous cropping history.

Table 1—An example of the nutrient requirements for the different soils on a sugarcane farm in
the wet tropics based on soil test results and previous management history. The colour coding
represents how soils with similar requirements can be grouped together to deliver a rationalised
and practical whole-of-farm NMP.
N required P required K Required S required
Group Major Soil Type Area
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Hewitt 8.09 100 20 100 0
1 Bulgun 9.19 110 20 100 0
Mossman (A) 16.12 110 25 100 0
2 Gogarra 10.27 120 0 120 0
Banyan 4.37 120 20 100 0
Coom 2.02 130 20 100 5
3
Mossman (B) 9.66 130 20 100 0
Thorpe 7.06 130 20 100 0
Lugger 33.89 140 0 100 10
Mossman (C) 6.83 140 0 0 0
4
Tully 9.81 140 0 100 0
Tyson 3.44 140 0 100 10

Based on the information collected in stages 1 and 2 and new knowledge being generated
from research projects there may be opportunities to alter nutrient rates and/or fertiliser products on
specific blocks (Schroeder et al. 2018b). It is important to consider the growers risk profile when
devising suggestions for on-farm practice change. The advisor should work with the grower to set
up an on-farm evaluation of the practice change. It is advisable to conduct any on-farm evaluations
of nutrient management practice change over several successive seasons.
This is important given the extreme inter-annual climate variability experienced in the wet
tropics and to ensure the response of the practice change is robust. If the practice change involves
fine-tuning nutrient application rates, the SIX EASY STEPS nutrient rate for the particular nutrient
of interest should be the baseline comparison rate included in the on-farm evaluation. This will give
the grower confidence in the outcomes of the practice change. The learnings generated from on-
farm evaluations of practice change support Steps 5 and 6 of the SIX EASY STEPS nutrient
management program (Schroeder et al. 2018b), which have been overlooked since the introduction
of Reef Regulations in 2010 (Anon., 2017b).
Examples of situations where on-farm evaluations could be used to fine-tune nutrient
requirements (primarily N) include crops harvested and ratooned late in the season, poorly-drained
soils subject to prolonged waterlogging, final ratoon crops (Anon., 2017a; Schroeder et al. 2015),
seasonal climate forecasts favouring higher rainfall (Skocaj et al. 2013; Skocaj, 2015) and
197
Skocaj DM et al. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 40 2018
______________________________________________________________________________________

appropriateness of enhanced efficiency fertiliser (EEF) products. If the grower is interested in using
EEFs the advisor can help identify blocks and situations likely to be most responsive for the grower
to evaluate these products based on current knowledge.
During this stage of the whole-of-farm NMP process, the advisor also develops a future soil
sampling strategy for the grower. This strategy encompasses previous soil testing history, coverage
of soil types, comprehensiveness of soil analyses, meeting minimum regulatory requirements,
management zones, consideration of any productivity constraints that may be related to soil
chemical or physical properties and grower knowledge of soil type changes and differences in
previous management history within blocks.
Stage 4—Refine whole-of-farm NMP
The grower is presented with the draft whole-of-farm NMP. The advisor explains the draft
whole-of-farm NMP to the grower, gathers any outstanding information, checks any items of
uncertainty, provides information on future soil sampling strategy and discusses record keeping
requirements. It is also a chance for the grower to provide feedback on fertiliser recommendations
and their preferred delivery format, suggest necessary changes and confirm if they will be
conducting any on-farm nutrient management evaluations. The advisor then incorporates grower
feedback before finalising the plan.
It is not necessary to present the worksheets used by the advisor in stage 3 to develop the
fertiliser application details to the grower. The purpose of these worksheets is to maintain
transparency in the whole-of-farm NMP process and provide supporting evidence for the nutrient
management recommendations. Generally, growers will be most interested in the soil test and
nutrient requirement summaries and fertiliser application recommendations in the whole-of-farm
NMP. The fertiliser application recommendations should be delivered to the grower in their
preferred format. The delivery format can be as simple as a table or colour coded farm map (shown
in Figure 1) reporting fertiliser recommendations at the block level or as technologically savvy as a
prescription application that can be imported into the grower’s precision agriculture platform. The
grower may also be interested in receiving a list of fertiliser products and total quantities required to
assist with budgeting and stock ordering.

Fig. 1—An example of a rationalised whole-of-farm fertiliser application map prepared for
a sugarcane grower in the wet tropics.
198
Skocaj DM et al. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 40 2018
______________________________________________________________________________________

Stage 5—Review and update whole-of-farm NMP

At the end of every season, the grower and advisor meet to review and update the whole-of-
farm NMP. The advisor uses the grower’s fertiliser application records to compare the fertiliser
program recommended in the whole-of-farm NMP with the grower’s actual practice. It is also an
opportunity for the grower to discuss their experience – what worked well, any issues encountered
following the plan, changes required, possible improvements and confirm soil-testing program. The
advisor and grower also discuss results of on-farm evaluations and agree if there is evidence to
support practice change or additional results needed. The results of on-farm evaluations may not
always support practice change away from the SIX EASY STEPS nutrient management guidelines.
Given the strong focus on improving nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), the grower and advisor
can calculate fertiliser NUE (Bell et al., 2015) to provide additional information on N
responsiveness and hence value add to the whole-of-farm NMP. Fertiliser NUE is most commonly
used by growers and advisors as it assesses the efficiency of both applied and soil N resources
(Dobermann, 2005). NUE varies between seasons, soils, crop classes (plant vs ratoons) and
managers so it is extremely difficult to set NUE targets or look at the results for a single year in
isolation.
The advisor and grower should review NUE values over multiple seasons before using this
information to identify areas of the farm requiring further fine-tuning. This fine-tuning may
encompass areas of the farming system that may be constraining crop growth other than N supply
(e.g. position in the landscape, drainage, weed control, pest and disease management). It may also
indicate oversupply of N fertiliser and it may be possible to fine-tune N management (e.g. reducing
N fertiliser inputs to account for other N sources, applying an enhanced efficiency fertiliser
product). Calculating NUE may also indicate areas of the farm that are highly efficient in using
applied N. It is important for the advisor and grower to understand the factors contributing to these
areas being more efficient as they may be able to apply this knowledge to other areas of the
farm/situations.
To update the plan for the forthcoming year the advisor incorporates any new soil test
results, rolls over crop classes, removes fallow blocks, reviews if any changes are needed to nutrient
requirements, checks if there are any new constraints and incorporates any new on-farm evaluations
or practice change resulting from on-farm evaluations.
Feedback
The whole-of-farm NMP process has been presented to numerous industry stakeholders and
received positive support. wet tropics Sugar Industry (WTSIP) extension offices have adopted this
process to complete whole-of-farm NMPs for growers to help achieve their contractual commitment
under the Reef Trust phase 3 initiative. WTSIP extension officers need to engage with 399 growers
(covering 51 870 ha) and record a practice change that will reduce the grower’s water quality risk.
Not all of the practice changes need to be associated with improved nutrient management but the
whole-of-farm NMP will greatly assist WTSIP in helping meet this target. Since the introduction of
the whole-of-farm NMP process agronomic advisors in Tully have engaged with growers and
prepared plans covering approximately 30% of the sugarcane production area (A Lindsay 2017,
pers. comm., 8 Dec).
Feedback received from advisors completing the plans indicates they support the transparent
process and have started tailoring some of the worksheets to suit their needs. The modifications
made by some advisors has helped improve their knowledge base (inserting additional worksheets
to capture soil test values so that they are better able to recognise differences between soil types and
likely ranges in nutrient requirements for the different soils) and created efficiencies (linked
spreadsheets and inserted formulas). By doing this the advisors are quickly learning much more
about the key differences between soils, expected nutrient requirements and possible outliers in
nutrient requirements arising from previous management or erroneous soil tests results. One advisor
has describe the grower-profiling component as being both fun and extremely constructive for
199
Skocaj DM et al. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 40 2018
______________________________________________________________________________________

developing individualised plans that allow the grower to apply the required nutrients without being
constrained by access to equipment or their appetite for risk. Developing whole-of-farm NMPs is
also a great engagement tool as it offers an opportunity to look more thoroughly at the values on
soil test results, economics of changing fertiliser products, forms and rates, recording keeping and
reinforce the SIX EASY STEPS approach to nutrient management planning.
Sugarcane growers who have received a whole-of-farm NMP appreciate having all their
nutrient management information complied into a single document presented in a format that is easy
to access and understand. Growers are leaving fertiliser application maps in tractors so that, no
matter who is applying the fertiliser, they have clear instructions on what product to apply where
and at what rate. These maps are also forming the basis for the grower to maintain up-to-date
records on nutrient applications, as they only need to supply a few extra details (date, signature,
application method) to meet regulatory requirements.
The whole-of-farm NMP has also given growers greater confidence in ordering the correct
fertiliser products and quantities. Some growers believe this allows them to better prepare farm
budgets and plan the ordering and delivery of fertiliser throughout the season. Other growers have
commented on the whole-of-farm NMP providing the opportunity to look more thoroughly at
individual block nutrient requirements and performance to identify options to modify nutrient inputs
such as reducing N rates in plant cane following a legume cover crop.
The Smartcane BMP soil health and nutrient management module describes growers as
being above industry standard if they have adopted the SIX EAYS STEPS nutrient management
program and developed a whole farm nutrient management plan to ensure the amounts of N and
other nutrients applied are optimal for crops on each major soil type (Anon., 2017a). The whole-of-
farm NMP allows growers to demonstrate they are operating above industry standard for calculating
optimum nutrient rates.
Next steps
It takes a lot of time and commitment from both the advisor and grower to complete a
whole-of-farm NMP, especially in the first year. There is potential to automate some sections of the
process (e.g. importation of data, generation of fertiliser application maps). However, it is important
to ensure the consultative approach is maintained for the grower to have ownership of the plan and
for the advisor to truly understand the nutrient management requirements of the farm and grower.
The revised reef protection regulations propose growers in all reef catchments transition to a
more refined nutrient management approach based on the implementation of a whole of farm
nutrient management plan (Anon., 2017c). This nutrient management plan should consider variety,
crop class, soil type, yield limitations (for example waterlogging and sodicity) and previous history
(Anon., 2017c). The whole-of-farm nutrient management process discussed in this paper complies
with this requirement.
Conclusions
The five stages of the whole-of-farm NMP process promote greater interaction and
consultation between growers and advisory staff to develop rational and practical whole-of-farm
nutrient management plans that maintain the integrity of the SIX EASY STEPS nutrient
management program.
The key benefits of the whole-of-farm NMP process:
• Considers individual grower goals and expectations.
• Considers many of the complex factors influencing nutrient management.
• Promotes grower ownership of final plan.
• Offers flexible delivery options to suit individual grower requirements.
• Provides a consistent and transparent approach for advisors to follow.
• Encompasses all 6 steps of the SIX EASY STEPS process.
200
Skocaj DM et al. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 40 2018
______________________________________________________________________________________

• Identifies other limiting factors to production not just nutrient management.

• Contributes to improved productivity, profitability, environmental sustainability.
Many experienced advisors throughout the sugar industry have been following a similar
process to develop NMP but have not documented their experiences. Documenting the whole-of-
farm NMP process is a useful way of transferring knowledge and experience onto newer advisors
and an opportunity to promote a consistent and transparent process for advisors to follow.
Developing whole-of-farm NMPs also provides an excellent opportunity for advisors to engage
with growers.
Acknowledgements
The Wet Tropics Sugar Industry Partnership (WTSIP) and Terrain NRM for encouraging
documentation and adoption of the whole-of-farm NMP process. We are also grateful for the
valuable feedback and support received from advisors, growers and industry stakeholders.
REFERENCES
Anon. (2017a) About Smartcane BMP. http://www.smartcane.com.au/aboutBMP.aspx (accessed
10/12/2017).
Anon. (2017b) Reef protection regulations for sugarcane farming in the wet tropics, Burdekin and
Mackay-Whitsundays.https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/agriculture/sustainable-
farming/cane-farmers (accessed 10/12/2017).
Anon. (2017c) Broadening and enhancing reef protection regulations. Consultation Regulatory
Impact Statement, September 2017. Office of the Great Barrier Reef, State of Queensland
(Department of Environment and Heritage Protection)
https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/reef/enhancing-reef-protection-regulations-
ris.pdf (accessed 10/12/2017.
Bell MJ, Moody P, Salter B, Connellan J, Garside AL (2015 Agronomy and physiology of nitrogen
use in Australian sugarcane crops. In ‘A review of nitrogen use efficiency in sugarcane.
SRA Research Report’. (Ed MJ Bell) pp 87–122. (Sugar Research Australia: Brisbane).
Dobermann AR (2005) Nitrogen use efficiency—state of the art.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronmyfacpub/316 (accessed 10/12/2017).
Schroeder BL, Wood A, Moody P, Stewart B, Panitz J, Benn J (2007) Soil-specific nutrient
management guidelines for sugarcane production in the Johnstone catchment. Technical
Publication TE07001, Indooroopilly, BSES Limited.
Schroeder B L, Salter B, Moody PW, Skocaj DM, Thorburn PJ (2015) Evolving nature of nitrogen
management in the Australian sugar industry. In ‘A review of nitrogen use efficiency in
sugarcane. SRA Research Report’. (Ed MJ Bell) pp. 14–86 (Brisbane: Sugar Research
Australia).
Schroeder BL, Wood AW, Calcino DV, Skocaj DM, Hurney AP, Allsopp PG (2018a) Good
planting and cultivation practices in sugarcane production. In P Rott (ed): Achieving
sustainable cultivation of sugarcane Vol 1. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited,
Cambridge, UK.
Schroder BL, Skocaj DM, Salter B, Panitz JH, Park G, Calcino DV, Rodman GZ, Wood AW
(2018b) ‘Six Easy Steps’ nutrient management program – improving with maturity!
Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 40: this issue.
Skocaj DM, Everingham YL, Schroeder BL (2013) Nitrogen management guidelines for sugarcane
production in Australia: can these be modified for wet tropic conditions using seasonal
climate forecasting? Springer Science Reviews, 1(1–2), 51–71.
Skocaj D (2015) Improving sugarcane nitrogen management in the wet tropics using seasonal
climate forecasting. Research thesis, James Cook University.

201