Event / Evento: II Workshop on Sugarcane Physiology for Agronomic Applications Speaker / Palestrante: Jorge Donzeli (Sugarcane Research Center - CTC) Date / Data: Oct, 29-30th 2013 / 29 e 30 de outubro de 2013 Place / Local: CTBE/CNPEM Campus, Campinas, Brazil Event Website / Website do evento: www.bioetanol.org.br/sugarcanephysiology

1. Environments
of
Produc1on
and
Agronomic
Management
2nd
Sugarcane
Physiology
for
Agronomic
Applica7on
Workshop
JORGE
LUIS
DONZELLI
R&D
Manager
CTC
Sugarcane
Breeding
Program
jorge.donzelli@ctc.com.br
Campinas,
October,
29,
2013

2. Presenta1on
schedule
Yield
Poten1al
-­‐The
pillars
of
agronomic
produc1on
Defini1on
of
Environments
of
Produc1on
Agronomic
management
-­‐
Varie1es
Agronomic
management
–
Best
Prac1ces
Yield:
where
we
are?
Final
comments

3. YIELD
POTENTIAL
(Yp)*
“the
yield
of
a
cul7var
when
grown
in
environments
to
which
it
is
adapted,
with
nutrients
and
water
non-­‐
limi7ng,
and
with
pests,
diseases,
weeds,
lodging
and
other
stresses
effec7vely
controlled”
(Evans
and
Fisher
1999)
*
Quoted
by
Paul
H.
Moore,
Physiological
Constraints
of
Sugarcane
Yield
Poten7al,
Centro
de
Tecnologia
Canavieira,
Piracicaba,
2013

4. The
pillars
of
agronomic
produc1on
CROP YIELD
175
150
DEF.HÍDR.
125
CLIMA
Divided
in
5
categories
A-­‐B-­‐C-­‐D-­‐E
MI LÍM ET ROS
SOIL
EXC.HÍDR.
100
75
50
25
0
CLIMATE
CHUVA
EVAP.POT.
-25
-50
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
AGRONOMIC
Management
D
Divided
in
5
categories
I-­‐II-­‐III-­‐IV-­‐V
Divided
in
2
categories
Varie1es
+Best
prac1ces
Objec7ve:
the
problems
of
applica7on
of
best
prac7ces
in
agronomic
management

5. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
-­‐
Defini1on
of
Environments
of
Produc1on
Yield
Poten1al
Decrease
from
A
to
E
175
150
DEF.HÍDR.
125
AGRONOMIC
Management
EXC.HÍDR.
SOIL
MI LÍM ET ROS
100
75
50
25
0
CLIMATE
CHUVA
EVAP.POT.
-25
-50
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
A
TCH MÉDIA DE 4 CORTES
TCH
Average
of
4
cuts
B
C
105,0
D
E
100,0
95,0
tcana/ha
90,0
85,0
CLIMA
80,0
75,0
70,0
65,0
88/89
89/90
90/91
91/92
92/93
93/94
94/95
SAFRAS
Harvest
Season
95/96
96/97
97/98
98/99
99/00
Média

6. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
-­‐
Defini1on
of
Environments
of
Produc1on
CTC
data
bank
• 24
years
of
sugarcane
yield
• 20-­‐40
years
of
climate
data
“EDAPHOCLIMATIC”
ENVIRONMENTS OF
PRODUCTION (EEP)
175
150
DEF.HÍDR.
125
EXC.HÍDR.
SOIL
MI LÍM ET ROS
100
75
50
25
0
CLIMATE
CHUVA
EVAP.POT.
-25
-50
J
AMBIENTES
EDAFOCLIMATICOS
SOLOS
SOILS
EEP
A
B
C
D
E
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
AGRONOMIC
Management
D
Clima7c
Regions
REGIÕES
CLIMÁTICAS
I
II
III
IV
A-­‐I Yie A-­‐II
A-­‐III
A-­‐IV
ld
Po
ten
B-­‐I
B-­‐II1al
B-­‐III
B-­‐VI
Decr
ease
C-­‐I
C-­‐II
C-­‐IIIfro
m C-­‐VI
A–I
to
E-­‐
D-­‐I
D-­‐II
D-­‐III
D-­‐VIV
E-­‐I
E-­‐II
E-­‐III
E-­‐IV
V
A-­‐V
B-­‐V
C-­‐V
D-­‐V
E-­‐V

7. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
-­‐
Defini1on
of
Environments
of
Produc1on
175
150
DEF.HÍDR.
125
CLIMATE
EXC.HÍDR.
MI LÍM ET ROS
100
SOIL
75
50
25
0
CHUVA
EVAP.POT.
-25
AGRONOMIC
Management
-50
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
Toneladas Tones
pol/ha
–
Average
of
5
cuts
5 cortes.
de Pol por Hectare (TPH), média de
61%
27%
Ambientes de
Edaphoclima7c
EProdução Edafoclimáticos
nvironments
of
Produc7on
A-V
B-V
C-V
D-V
E-V
A-IV
B-IV
C-IV
D-IV
E-IV
A-III
B-III
C-III
D-III
E-III
27%
A-II
B-II
C-II
D-II
E-II
15,0
14,5
14,0
13,5
13,0
12,5
12,0
11,5
11,0
10,5
10,0
9,5
9,0
8,5
8,0
A-I
B-I
C-I
D-I
E-I
tpol/ha
J

8. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
-­‐
Defini1on
of
Environments
of
Produc1on
175
150
DEF.HÍDR.
125
MI LÍM ET ROS
SOIL
EXC.HÍDR.
100
75
50
25
0
CLIMATE
CHUVA
EVAP.POT.
AGRONOMIC
Management
-25
-50
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
WELL
KNONW
FACTORS
OF
CROP
YIELD
D
?
Varie7es
+
Best
Agronomic
prac7ces

9. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
–
VARIETY
MANAGEMENT
HOW
WE
CHOOSE
VARIETIES
TO
PLANT???
AGRONOMIC
MANAGEMENT
VARIETIES

10. BREEDING PROGRAM FLOW CHART
YEAR 1
Germoplasm
Bank
BREEDING
(Camamu/BA)
YEAR 1
SEEDLINGS
PRODUCTION
(Piracicaba/SP)
PHASE 1
YEAR 2 to 5
DISEASES
TRIALS
Phase 4:
CTC variety
recommendation to
planting in many different
sites.(SEEDS & PD)
CTC’S
VARIETIES
INITIAL SELECTION
(In 18 Experimental
Stations )
PHASE 2
YEAR 5 to 8
REGIONAL
SELECTION
VARIETY TRIALS
(18 EXPERIMENTAL
STATIONS)
Trials in different
Environments of
Production
PHASE 3
TWO CUTS
RIPENING CURVES

11. 28
RELEASED
VARIETIES
15-­‐20
%
more
yield
in
specific
sites

12. VARIETY
RECOMMENDATION
CTC
9001
-­‐
EXAMPLE
5
SOIL
CATEGORIES
HARVESTING
TIME
5
CLIMATE
CATEGORIES

13. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
–
AGRONOMIC
BEST
PRACTICES
DEDICATED
TO
EXPLORE
ALL
GENETIC
POTENTIAL
INCORPORATED
BY
THE
BREEDING
PROGRAM
AGRONOMIC
MANAGEMENT
BEST
PRACTICES

14. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
–
AGRONOMIC
BEST
PRACTICES
TPH
Environment
of
Produc1on
B-­‐II
Average
Yield
(ton
Pol)
–
5
cuts
-­‐
Harvest
season
06/07
to
10/11
Fonte
:
Joaquim,
A.C.
et
al
–
Projeto
Sistemas
de
Manejo
Agronômico,
CTC,
2013

15. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
–
AGRONOMIC
BEST
PRACTICES
TPH
Environment
of
Produc1on
C-­‐II
Average
Yield
(ton
Pol)
–
5
cuts
-­‐
Harvest
season
06/07
to
10/11
Fonte
:
Joaquim,
A.C.
et
al
–
Projeto
Sistemas
de
Manejo
Agronômico,
CTC,
2013

16. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
–
AGRONOMIC
BEST
PRACTICES
TPH
Environment
of
Produc1on
D-­‐II
Average
Yield
(ton
Pol)
–
5
cuts
-­‐
Harvest
season
06/07
to
10/11
Fonte
:
Joaquim,
A.C.
et
al
–
Projeto
Sistemas
de
Manejo
Agronômico,
CTC,
2013

17. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
–
WHERE
WE
ARE?
Average,
maximum
and
theore1cal
sugarcane
yields
and
total
dry
maeer
produc1on
(Australia, Colombia, South Africa)
Cane
(f wt)
(t ha-1 yr-1)
Cane
(d wt)
(t ha-1 yr-1)
Percent
theoretical
maximum
Biomass*
(RUE)
(t ha-1 yr-1)
Biomass (g) per
absorbed
irradiance, MJ
Average
(actual)
84
25
27
27%
39
0.78
Commercial
maximum
(attainable)
148
44
48
69
1.30
Experimental
maximum
(potential)
212
63
69
98
1.86
308
92
100
142
2.96
Type
Maximum
(theoretical)
Source:
Paul
H.
Moore,
Physiological
Constraints
of
Sugarcane
Yield
Poten7al,
Centro
de
Tecnologia
Canavieira,
Piracicaba,
2013

18. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
–
WHERE
WE
ARE?

19. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
–
WHERE
WE
ARE?

20. The
Pillars
of
Agronomic
Produc1on
Final
Comments
•
The
environments
of
produc1on
are
reliable
for
variety
recommenda1on;
•
Un1l
now
the
agronomic
recommenda1ons
–
best
prac1ces
-­‐
are
not
been
used
by
producers
in
a
proper
manner
–
huge
yield
differences
have
been
reported
in
the
same
soil
and
climate
condi1ons
(environments
of
produc1on);
•
Data
survey
(CTC
mutual
control
and
local
observa1ons)
with
producers
have
shown
that
these
yield
differences
are
due
to:
•
i)
lack
of
use
proper
plant
nutri1on;
•
•
ii)
pest
control
and
diseases;
iii)
use
of
flowering
varie1es;
•
iv)
poor
land
prepara1on
and
misuse
of
soil
conserva1on
prac1ces;
•
v)
increase
of
mechanical
harves1ng
with
no
traffic
control
(soil
compac1on
and
traffic
over
plant
rows
–
inter
row
spacement);
•
vi)
use
of
non
suitable
varie1es
for
both
mechanical
harves1ng
and
mechanical
plan1ng;
eg.
RB86-­‐7515;
SP81-­‐3250
•
vii)
mistakes
in
1me
of
plan1ng
and
harves1ng
varie1es
(beginning-­‐middle-­‐
end).

21. Acknowledgment
Antonio
Celso
Joaquim
–
CTC
Researcher
Fernando
Cesar
Bertolani
–
CTC
Researcher
Jorge
Luis
Donzelli
R&D
Manager
CTC
Sugarcane
Breeding
Program
jorge.donzelli@ctc.com.br