Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697794836921.pdf (Fiji)
2017 Annual Report PARLIAMENTARY PAPER NO.

170 OF 2019 PARLIAMENT OF FIJI Page 2 FOREWORD FOREWORD Major rehabilitation of cane farms was carried out in 2017 after the devastation caused by tropical cyclone Winston previous year.

There was an increase in the area planted compared to previous years.

The development of new varieties is a very passionate work that requires a lot of patience.

Theoretically, it would take 12 years to develop a new variety but practically it takes much longer.
New varieties are developed from sugarcane flowers by a process called crossing.

In 2017, 219 crosses were made which is far less than what would usually be made in a year.

This was due to the massive damages to the flowering beds at Dobuilevu.

A total of 1,784 packets of fuzz were sown and this was from the previous year’s stock.

Poor germination of fuzz was noticed and only 156 packets germinated producing 4,000 seedlings.
The evaluation and selection of varieties in the different stages of the plant breeding program were carried out with some difficulties.

423 varieties were selected from stage 1 and advanced to stage 2, 88 varieties were advanced from stage 2 to stage 3 and 12 varieties were selected from stage 3 and progressed to stage 4.
Nine nutrient budget trials were established to study the cost benefit of the agronomic practices and six sites were selected to collect information on fertilizer use and behaviour in the Fiji Sugar Industry.

The analytical laboratory analyses soils from farmers’ fields and provides fertilizer recommendations to the farmers and in 2017, 2075 soil and 45 plant samples were analysed for fertilizer recommendations and research trials.

In addition 1,093 cane samples were analysed from the Research trials.
The Institute is responsible to protect the industry against diseases and pest incursions.

Routine screening of Fiji leaf gall (FLG) disease continued during the year.

Three hundred eighty soil samples from the four mill areas were analysed for plant parasitic nematodes.

The rouging team based at the four mills inspected 2813 farms covering an area of 8363 hectares and removed 747 diseased FLG stools.

Fiji is the only country in the world that has not been affected by SMUT disease.
An incursion plan in collaboration with the Biosecurity has been put in place to encounter this disease.

The transfer of information to the growers is delivered through the Technology Transfer program wherein grower demonstration trials, field information days and meetings are held with groups of growers or individually.

In 2017 another initiative was launched called Cane Development Programme.

Under this program nil producers are provided with the technical support to get back into farming.
The Institute staff were assigned a certain number of growers under this program and advice was provided to the nil producers to plant cane.

My sincere appreciation to all the staff for their valuable contribution towards the progress of the Institute and I also thank the Chairman and other board members for their guidance and support.
Acting Chief Executive Officer Prem N Naidu 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT MISSION STATEMENT Page 3 MISSION STATEMENT Board Members Professor Rajesh Chandra - Chairman (re-appointed 2 March 2018) Dr K.S Shanmugha Sundaram (term expired on 1 March 2018) Professor Paras Nath (resigned on 7 December 2017) Mr Daniel Elisha (term expired on 1 March 2018) Mr Abdul Khan (resigned on 18 July 2017) Mr Sundresh Chetty (term expired on 1 March 2018) Mr Manasa Tagicakibau (resigned on 18 July 2017) Mr Graham Clark (appointed 18 July 2017) Ms Reshmi Kumari (appointed 18 July 2017) Dr Sanjay Anand (appointed on 7 December 2017) Mr Raj Sharma (appointed on 12 June 2018) Mr Ashween Nischal Ram (appointed on 18 June 2018) Professor Ravendra Naidu (appointed on 13 March 2018) Science Audit Committee Members Dr. Shanmugha Sundaram Mr. Sundresh Chetty Mr. Graham Clark Dr Paras Nath Mr. Abdul Khan Dr. Sanjay Anand PARLIAMENTARY PAPER NO.
170 OF 2019 PARLIAMENT OF FIJI SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 4 ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS SRIF FSC SIT SCGC SCGF MoS SPF FMS EU CIRAD POCS or pocs NPK N P K RCBD Rep Trt or Trts Tph or Tpha Tsh or Tsha TC/TS or tc/ts AVG./Avg.
LF[YEAR] G x E FFE QBPS FSI ASPAC LBC FTIR CQD IMG UV-VIS RMSECV SOI ENSO South Pacific Fertilisers Fiji Meteorological Services European Union Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Fiji Sugar Corporation Ltd Sugar Industry Tribunal Sugar Cane Growers Council Sugar Cane Growers Fund - - - - - - Ministry Of Sugar - - - - Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le - Pure obtainable cane sugar - Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium - Nitrogen - Phosphorus - Potassium - Randomized Complete Block Design - Replication - - - - Treatment(s) Tonnes cane per hectare Tonnes sugar per hectare Tonnes cane per tonnes sugar (tonnes of cane required to produce 1 ton of sugar) Lautoka Fiji [year in which the fuzz was planted], e.g.
LF2014 Fijian Sugar Industry - Average - - Genetic by Environment - Farmer Feel Effect - Quality Based Payment Scheme - - Australian Soil and Plant Analysis Council - - - Cane Quality Department Industry Management Group - - Ultra violet visible light spectrum - Root Mean Square Error of Cross validation - - Lime Buffering Capacity Frontier Transform Infra-Red Southern Oscillation Index El Niño Southern Oscillation 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.................................................................................................................................. 2 MISSION STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 3 ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... 5 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 6 1.1 METEOROLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 CROP IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 22 1.3 CROP MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 30 1.4 CROP PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................... 54 2.0 Crop Production ................................................................................................................... 63 2.1 Seed cane Production
 ............................................................................................................................... 63 3.0 Technology Transfer ............................................................................................................. 65 2.1 Labasa Extension ...................................................................................................................................... 65 2.2 Lautoka Extension .................................................................................................................................... 68 2.3 Rarawai Extension .................................................................................................................................... 68 2.4 Cane Development Programme ............................................................................................................... 70 4.0 SRIF Estates .......................................................................................................................... 76 3.1 Drasa Estate .............................................................................................................................................. 76 3.2 Labasa Estate ............................................................................................................................................ 76 5.0 Media & Publication ............................................................................................................. 77 4.1 MEDIA & PUBLICATION ............................................................................................................................ 78 6.0 FACP .................................................................................................................................... 80 7.0 APPROVED VARIETIES ........................................................................................................... 90 8.0 GLOSSARY
90 8.0 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................ 93 9.0 FINANCIAL REPORT ............................................................................................................... 95 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 6 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 7 1.1 METEOROLOGY The Meteorological Stations at Sugar Research Institute of Fiji is equipped with a range of l instruments and maintained with the help of the Fiji Meteorological Service (FMS).
The stations are located at its head office in Drasa, Lautoka, Rarawai, Labasa and Penang.

.

The climatological stations are manned by observers who take climate readings of temperatures (dry, wet, maximum and minimum, earth temperatures at 5cm, 10cm and 50cm, rainfall, amount of cloud, visibility and wind force and direction) at 9am daily.

At the end of each month, data is compiled and forwarded to the Fiji Meteorological Service (FMS).
Similarly, rainfall figures from each sector from the eight districts are compiled and kept for our records.

The climatic data is used to produce climate summary and predicting of weather forecast for the country.

The Research Institute provides a summary statement towards the Fiji Sugar Cane Rainfall Outlook which becomes an advice to farmers on possible farm activities such as land preparation, planting, cultivation, fertilizer application, weedicide application and harvesting from sugarcane belt areas.
El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) ENSO is an irregular cycle of persistent warming and cooling of Sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

The warm extreme is known is El Niño and the cold extreme, La Niña.

Scientists now refer to an El Niño event as sustained warming over a large part of central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean.
This warming is usually accompanied by persistent negative values of Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a decrease in the strength or reversal of the trade winds, increase in cloudiness in the Pacific and a reduction in rainfall over most of Fiji which can, especially during moderate to strong events, lead to drought.

La Niña is a sustained cooling of the Pacific Ocean.
The cooling is usually accompanied by persistent positive values of SOI, and increase in strength of the trade winds, decrease in cloudiness and higher than average rainfall for most of Fiji with frequent and sometimes severe flooding, especially during the wet season (November to April).

Rainfall Fiji enjoys a tropical maritime climate without extremes of heat or cold.

The peak period for cyclones in the region is usually from November to April.
The annual average rainfall is usually between the ranges 2000mm to 3000mm.

From the table below, it can be seen that the total rainfall for all mills was either very close to or in the annual average rainfall range.
Table 1: 2017 Rainfall (mm) figures for All Mills MONTH January February March April May June Lautoka Mill Rainfall (mm) 166 697 370 11 66 31 Rain Days 13 20 17 6 4 5 Rarawai Mill Rainfall (mm) 347 631 374 89 43 14 Rain Days 12 20 15 4 1 3 Labasa Mill Penang Mill Rainfall (mm) 122 779 361 16 125 83 Rain Days 29 26 21 6 11 5 Rainfall (mm) 171 540 440 32 167 10.6 Rain Days 22 21 24 10 18 7 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 8 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Table 1: 2017 Rainfall (mm) figures for All Mills CONT’D Lautoka Mill MONTH July August September October November December Total Average Rainfall (mm) 10 27 2 25 130 187 1721 143 Rain Days 2 5 1 5 13 14 105 9 Rarawai Mill Rainfall (mm) 0 40 9 17 186 244 1993 166 Rain Days 0 5 1 6 13 13 93 8 Labasa Mill Penang Mill Rainfall (mm) 2 93 130 29 261 120 2122 177 Rain Days 2 7 7 6 18 7 145 12 Rainfall (mm) 1.4 48.7 60.6 8.1 187.2 133.0 1799.1 150 Rain Days 5 14 8 9 22 24 184 15 Table 2.1: Monthly Rainfall figures for Lautoka Mill with the Long Term Averages Jan Feb Mar Apr May 66 166 697 370 4 17 20 88 75 Monthly rainfall No.
of rain days 47 yrs avg (1970-2016) % of avg 11 6 363 329 319 191 6 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Avg.

25 130 187 1721 265 10 2 16 99 136 196 1987 306 51 87 66.2 95 25 20 Jun 31 5 69 45 27 5 71 38 2 1 75 3 46 212 116 14 105 13 95 13 5 Table 2.2: Monthly Rainfall figures for Rarawai Mill with the Long Term Averages Jan Feb Mar Apr May 347 631 374 15 20 89 Monthly rainfall No.
of rain days 4 47 yrs avg (1970-2016) 378 358 358 196 46 % of avg 92 176 105 Jun 43 14 3 92 77 47 18 12 1 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 17 186 244 1993 93 13 73 104 152 240 2135 93 16 122 102 12 40 5 66 61 0 0 40 0 9 1 13 6 Table 2.3: Monthly Rainfall figures for Penang Mill with the Long Term Averages Monthly rainfall No.
of rain days 47 yrs avg (1970-2016) % of avg Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 49 32 167 11 171 540 440 5 14 7 18 10 24 21 414 360 362 253 151 93 49 68 3 72 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 8 187 133 1799 24 184 9 22 85 108 152 264 2358 76 71 41 150 122 13 110 11 7 123 61 8 50 22 Avg.

307 14 329 68 Avg.

277 28 363 65 Table 2.4: Monthly Rainfall figures for Labasa Mill with the Long Term Averages Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Avg.

Monthly rainfall 122 779 361 16 125 83 No.
of rain days 29 26 21 6 11 5 2 2 93 130 29 261 120 2122 326 7 7 6 18 7 145 22 47 yrs avg (1970-2016) 389 365 363 237 107 75 49 55 76 119 183 257 2275 350 % of avg 31 214 99 7 117 111 4 171 172 24 143 47 93 95 Relook at year…average should be up to 2017 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 9 Total and Average Rainfall for each Mill 1720.9 1993.1 2121.6 1799.1 143.4 166.1 176.8 149.9 L A U T O K A R A R A W A I L A B A S A P E N A N G MILL Total Rainfall Average Graph 1: shows the total and the average rainfall figures for all the 4 mills.
The tables and graph above indicates the total and the average rainfall figures for all the sugar mills across the sugarcane belt areas.

The highest rainfall of 779mm was recorded for the month of February at Labasa mill while the least rainfall of 0mm was recorded for the month of July at Rarawai mill.
Lautoka Mill Table 3: Rainfall (mm) data for Lautoka Mill Month Rainfall (mm) Rain (days) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 66 31 166 697 5 13 20 370 17 11 6 4 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 130 2 10 13 1 2 27 5 25 5 Dec 187 14 Total Avg.
143 1721 8.8 105 Monthly Rainfall for Lautoka Mill 697.0 369.8 ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 165.6 65.5 11.2 31.0 10.2 27.2 2.0 24.5 187.3 129.6 MONTHS SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 10 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Graph 2: Shows the monthly rainfall received by Lautoka mill.
Table 4: Rainfall (mm) figures for each Sector of the Lautoka Mill Sector Drasa Saweni Natova Legalega Meigunyah Yako Malolo Nawaicoba Lomawai Cuvu Olosara Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Aug 35 62 37 56 58 7 59 38 33 55 68 Jun 40 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 15 18 21 28 23 36 20 28 35 51 Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Sector Avg.
Total Rainfall received for each Sector under Lautoka Mill 2706.6 2481.3 2066.8 2084.0 1955.5 2674.0 1730.4 1183.5 1189.2 1142.1 845.4 ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Graph 3: Shows the total rainfall figures for each sector of the Lautoka Mill SECTOR Average Rainfall received for each Sector under Lautoka Mill 225.6 206.8 172.2 173.7 163.0 222.8 144.2 98.6 99.1 95.2 70.5 ) m m ( l l i a f n a r e g a r v e A 250 200 150 100 50 0 Sect Avg Sector Mill avg Graph 4: Shows the average rainfall figures for each sector and the deviation compared to the overall mill average for Lautoka Mill 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 11 Table 5: Rainfall (mm) data for Rarawai Mill Month Rainfall (mm) Rain (days) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 43 14 347 631 12 20 3 374 15 89 4 1 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 186 9 13 1 17 6 41 5 0 0 Dec 244 13 Total Avg.
1993 166.3 7.8 93 Monthly Rainfall for Rarawai Mill 631.2 346.6 374.2 ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 89.4 43.0 13.6 0.0 40.0 8.5 16.8 243.9 185.9 Graph 5: Shows the monthly rainfall received by Rarawai mill.
MONTHS Table 6: Rainfall (mm) figures for each sector of the Rarawai Mill Jun Feb Mar Apr May Sector 12 59 Varoko 0 78 Mota 17 58 Koronubu 43 Rarawai 14 63 108 Veisaru 37 47 Varavu 0 70 Naloto 24 50 Tagitagi 18 45 Drumasi 18 47 Yaladro Jan Jul 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 37 72 40 89 56 17 55 34 30 57 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Sect Avg.
Total Rainfall received for each Sector under Rarawai Mill 2912 2456 2185 3210 1993 1922 1897 2130 2064 1743 ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Varoko Mota Koronubu Rarawai Veisaru Varavu Naloto Tagitagi Drumasi Yaladro SECTOR SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 12 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Graph 6: Shows the total rainfall figures for each sector of the Rarawai Mill Average Rainfall received for each Sector under Rarawai Mill ) m m ( l l i a f n a r e g a r e v A 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Varoko Mota Koronubu Rarawai Veisaru Varavu Naloto Tagitagi Drumasi Yaladro Sector Sect Avg Mill avg Graph 7: Shows the average rainfall figures for each sector and the deviation compared to the overall mill average for Rarawai Mill Table 7: Rainfall (mm) data for Penang Mill Month Rainfall (mm) Rain (days) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 32 167 11 171 540 7 18 10 22 21 440 24 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 187 22 49 61 8 14 8 9 1 5 Dec 133 24 Total 1799 184 Avg.
150 15 Monthly Rainfall for Penang Mill 539.5 440.0 170.9 166.7 187.2 133.0 32.4 10.6 1.4 48.7 60.6 8.1 ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Graph 8: Shows the monthly rainfall received by Penang mill.
MONTHS Jan 45 171 56 Table 8: Rainfall (mm) figures for each sector of the Penang Mill Sector Ellington 1 Malau Nanuku Ellington 11 Note: NR – no reading Feb Mar Apr May 162 77 540 600 Jun 38 167 10.6 20 115 32 440 289 NR 21 112 142 423 346 336 56 88 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec NR 14 133 1 91 83 8.2 NR NR 187 126 53 8 42 25 61 46 15 49 44 Total Sect Avg 57 150 139 565 1799 1386 92 42 435 188 2282 190 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 13 Total Rainfall received for each Sector under Penang Mill 2281.8 1799.1 1385.8 ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 565 Ellington 1 Malau Nanuku Ellington 11 SECTOR Graph 9: Shows the total rainfall figures for each sector of the Penang Mill Average Rainfall received for each Sector under Penang Mill ) m m ( l l i a f n a r e g a r e v A 200 150 100 50 0 Ellington 1 Malau Nanuku Ellington 11 Sector Sect Avg Mill avg Graph 10: Shows the average rainfall figures for each sector and the deviation compared to the overall mill average for Penang Mill Table 9: Rainfall (mm) data for Labasa Mill Month Rainfall (mm) Rain (days) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 16 125 83 122 779 5 11 29 26 361 21 6 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 261 18 93 130 7 29 6 2 2 7 Dec 120 7 Total Avg.
2122 176.8 145 12.1 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 14 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Monthly Rainfall for Labasa Mill ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 779.0 360.6 121.7 125.4 83.4 93.4 130.3 2.0 28.6 15.6 261.2 120.4 Graph 11: Shows the monthly rainfall received by Labasa mill.
MONTHS Table 10: Rainfall (mm) figures for each sector of the Labasa Mill Sector Waiqele Wailevu Vunimoli Labasa Bucaisau Wainikoro Seaqaqa Feb Mar Apr May Jan Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Jun 27 36 82 83 56 55 62 55 80 29 77 58 84 Sect Avg 203.3 192.5 268.9 176.8 271.8 186.2 256 Total Rainfall received for each Sector under Labasa Mill 3226.5 3262 3071.8 2439 2309.7 2121.6 2234.3 ) M M ( L L A F N A R I 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Waiqele Wailevu Vunimoli Labasa SECTOR Bucaisau Wainikoro Seaqaqa Graph 12: Shows the total rainfall figures for each sector of the Labasa Mill 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 15 Average Rainfall received for each Sector under Labasa Mill ) m m ( l l l i a f n a r e g a r e v A 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Waiqele Wailevu Vunimoli Labasa Sector Bucaisau Wainikoro Seaqaqa Sect Avg Mill avg Graph 13: Shows the average rainfall figures for each sector and the deviation compared to the overall mill average for Labasa Mill Table 11: Past 22 years met data for the Lautoka Mill Jun Year Feb Mar Apr May Jan Jul 90 34 7 115 180 106 64 13 98 52 28 49 26 34 55 122 14 17 7 27 6 10 Aug 20 233 1 136 147
 123 43 134 277 91 77 22 1 65 7 131 53 33 0 35 210 27 Sep 60 59 23 92 97 19 164 6 84 31 52 202 26 223 10 92 296 46 30 43 3 2 Oct 11 40 38 149 142 259 39 76 6 103 115 111 103 42 206 112 120 75 53 19 153 25 Nov 102 3 481 354 167 96 54 52 38 142 113 268 216 52 299 275 35 354 37 2 87 130 Dec Total SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 16 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 22 years Total Rainfall for Lautoka Mill 3457 3010 2246 2331 1214 2045 1706 1458 1845 1580 1490 3563 3116 2877 2365 2301 2438 1541 2072 1721 1300 975 ) m m ( l l a f n a R i 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Graph 14: Shows the total rainfall received by Lautoka Mill for the past 22 years.
Year Table 12: Past 22 years met data for the Rarawai Mill Jun Year Feb Mar Apr May Jan Jul 75 26 1 95 211 59 77 6 128 53 19 42 52 28 53 92 0 9 5 5 6 0 Aug 24 202 1 108 84 79 44 72 378 63 91 14 9 27 24 114 46 30 0 22 148 40 Sep 43 55 82 67 92 22 145 2 63 40 57 239 21 237 32 41 238 31 6 53 10 9 Oct 8 82 46 138 177 224 49 63 21 72 120 140 81 57 141 268 173 96 46 43 128 17 Nov 110 9 498 226 153 85 38 64 3 237 143 305 375 48 485 299 100 277 57 7 17 186 Dec Total SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 17 22 years Total Rainfall for Rarawai Mill 6795 ) m m ( l l a f n a R i Graph 15: Shows the total rainfall received by Rarawai Mill for the past 22 years.
Year Table 13: Past 22 years met data for the Penang Mill Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Feb Mar Apr May Jan 340 911 179 730 447 315 378 163 54 264 481 64 1241 1255 59 695 990 311 354 150 84 171 Jun 237 22 37 72 263 51 17 29 149 101 59 25 104 79 40 75 165 103 42 15 57 11 Jul 85 37 12 102 148 82 163 25 95 31 24 36 19 68 23 39 19 62 24 5 13 1 Aug 40 135 13 55 67 109 70 41 196 36 83 30 75 52 14 99 75 31 16 53 - 49 Sep 78 59 170 324 71 38 100 6 79 113 81 204 38 114 57 44 215 37 0 59 1 61 Oct 53 71 22 379 203 323 50 46 1 54 108 45 21 22 249 185 147 122 99 124 73 8 Nov 216 9 125 287 187 119 27 82 30 96 34 330 381 28 430 388 60 116 65 28 126 187 Dec 193 67 239 462 606 256 66 297 41 108 164 558 242 493 165 171 430 254 520 196 550 133 Total 2403 3173 1275 3849 3749 2114 1862 1889 1573 1517 1825 2617 3384 3064 1644 3273 3430 2342 2176 1311 2086 1799 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 18 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 22 years total rainfall for Penang Mill 3173 2403 3849 3749 2114 1862 1275 ) m m ( l l a f n a R i 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 3384 3064 3430 3273 2617 1825 1517 1889 1573 1644 2342 2176 2086 1799 1311 Graph 16: Shows the total rainfall received by Penang Mill for the past 22 years.
Year Table 14: Past 22 years met data for the Labasa Mill Jun Year Feb Mar Apr May Jan Jul 86 38 1 119 122 68 103 19 92 111 17 30 10 93 88 100 12 27 18 0 1 2 Aug 4 100 3 81 10 55 62 16 113 18 50 49 3 16 42 81 38 115 2 82 203 93 Sep 72 50 85 89 73 21 74 15 48 51 64 327 45 153 17 60 175 105 6 36 0 130 Oct 186 140 84 271 100 162 109 25 47 85 69 131 47 14 165 161 189 216 275 7 104 29 Nov Dec Total 2714 2735 1556 3143 3655 2148 2420 1833 1567 1796 2153 2787 2450 2479 2275 2867 2954 2755 1679 1168 1773 2122 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 19 22 years total rainfall for Labasa Mill 3655 3143 2714 2735 2420 2787 2450 2153 1833 1567 2479 1796 2148 1556 2954 2755 2275 2867 1679 2122 1773 1168 ) m m ( l l a f n a R i 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Graph 17: Shows the total rainfall received by Labasa Mill for the past 22 years.
Year Table 15: Total Rainfall Figures for all the Four Mills for the past 22 years Lautoka Year Rarawai 2704 2641 1294 3341 3413 1822 1678 1921 1961 1746 2162 2804 3021 2593 1657 3033 2640 2268 1250 1101 1908 1993 Penang 2403 3173 1275 3849 3749 2114 1862 1889 1573 1517 1825 2617 3384 3064 1644 3273 3430 2342 2176 1311 2086 1799 Labasa 2714 2735 1556 3143 3655 2148 2420 1833 1567 1796 2153 2787 2450 2479 2275 2867 2954 2755 1679 1168 1773 2122 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 20 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Past 22 years total rainfall figures for all mills ) m m ( l l a f n a R i 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Lautoka Rarawai Year Penang Labasa Graph 18: Shows the total rainfall received by the 4 mills for the past 22 years.
Table 16: Meteorological data for Sugar Research Institute of Fiji, Lautoka 2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Months → Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Parameters ↓ Relative Humidity (%) 48 yrs avg Air Temperature Mean Maximum 48 yrs avg Mean minimum 48 yrs avg Mean Highest maximum Lowest minimum Raised pan Earth thermometers 5cm 48 yrs avg 10cm 48 yrs avg 50cm 2 yrs avg NR NR 13 13 31 27 29 27 30 29 29 29 28 28 29 29 29 29 28 28 29 14 Avg 69 72 31 30 22 23 26 33 19 179 25 27 25 26 23 20 *NR – not recorded Earth Thermometers The earth thermometers at SRIF are at depths of 5cm, 10cm and 50cm.
The 48 years average of thermometers at depths 5cm and 10cm were calculated to be 27°C and 26°C respectively.

The 50cm thermometer was recently installed in 2016, thus, the 2 years’ average calculated was 20°C.

Evaporation The raised pan average for this year was calculated to be 179mm.

Jan, Feb, Sept and Oct recorded above average evaporation while the remainder of the months recorded below average evaporation.
2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 21 Relative Humidity This year’s humidity is calculated to be 69% but the 48 years average has been calculated to be 72%; thus making this year’s reading as below average.

Percentage relative humidity per month e g a t n e c r e P 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Graph 19: Shows the total rainfall received by the 4 mills for the past 22 years.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 22 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 1.2 CROP IMPROVEMENT 1.2.1 Plant Breeding Crossing Due to various problems, 2017 crossing season have few obstacles such as: Low intensity of flowering.

- - Un-matured stalks posing problems to survival in crossing solutions.

- Low pollen viability.

The breeding plots were ratooned in late November 2016 contrary to recommended ratooning and planting of new plots to be by August every year.
The farmer failed to harvest the cane as well as give advance notice on his incapability to do so.

More than 400 varieties including officinarum were available however only 15-20% flowering due to late ratooning.

In conjunction to the shortage of flowers, other alternative sources were used to supply flowers: 1.

Dobuilevu Advanced stage trial – LF2009 series Stage 4 2.

Rarawai Advanced stage and Stage 3 Trial – LF2009, LF2010, LF2011 and LF2013 series.

3.
3.

Drasa Advanced Stage and Germplasm core collection.

4.

Commercials at all 3 stations.

Cross setting Due to the insufficient amount of varieties flowered in Dobuilevu, crossing sheds were centralized in two location.

Temporary shed was constructed in Rarawai to cater male flowers from Lautoka and Rarawai while crossing Dobuilevu was continue as usual.

Temporary shed was also erected at Rakesh residence in Vunikavikaloa due to the unavailability of the crossing shed.
Total of 219 crosses were set during the 2017 crossing season, 116 crosses set in Rarawai and 103 crosses set in Dobuilevu.

The main source of flowers for Rarawai was from the germplasm in Drasa and the advance stages in Rarawai whereas flowering bed was the source for Dobuilevu.
The total breakdown are as follows: Table 1.2.1: Cross type and distribution by location Location Rarawai Dobuilevu Total cross set Total bi-parental crosses Total poly crosses 116 103 90 57 26 46 All the dried female flowers from the 219 crosses were harvested and sent to Rarawai for fuzz sowing.

Fuzz Sowing The fuzz sowing was begun on 20th March 2017 and proceed until 18 August 2017.
The prolong period of sowing was due to the availability of man power and fuzz since all the fuzz in store were sown are from 2017 crossing season was also used.

Total of 1784 packet were sown, 156 manage to germinate.

Table below summarise parentage combination of germinated fuzz.
2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 23 Table 1.2.2: Summary of parentage combination of germinated fuzz Commercial Crosses Experimental Crosses Total DATE 20/03/2017 28/03/2017 4/4/2017 5/4/2017 10/4/2-17 25/4/2017 26/4/2017 4/8/2017 11/8/2017 Total l a t n e r a p - i B 6 6 8 none 2 none 6 2 5 m u t s u b o R 4 none 1 none none none 3 none none s u h t n a i r E 3 5 8 1 1 none 2 none none s d i r b y h K I / J I none 7 16 1 none 2 none none none T B - T K 2 none none none none none none none none m u r a n i c i f f O none none none none none none none 5 none y l o P 2 6 9 none none none 2 22 19 17 24 42 2 3 2 13 29 24 156 Out of the 156 germinated fuzz, 95 were commercial crosses (60 – poly crosses, 35 bi-parental) and 61 are from experimental crosses such as commercial varieties crosses with IJ/IK, Erianthus, KT-BT or Officinarums.
The overall germination percentage was 9%.

The germinated seedling was transferred to the green house for hardening and later potted.

Potting started in December with the total of 130 trays potted which has the total of 4,000 seedlings.

Stage 1 Trial Stage 1 trial is the seedling stage of the Plant breeding program.

The seedlings from the crosses are planted side by side in the field with the standards in rows of 100 seedlings.
The selection criterion is limited to the most basic inherited character i.e.

sugar which is estimated on the basis of the brix which is a measure of total soluble solids in cane juice which includes sucrose in greater component.

In some cases, the clone appeal is taken into consideration in terms of physical appeal and agronomic desirability.

The clones are selected against the brix of the standards (commercial varieties) and advanced as Stage 2 i.e.
the clones that have brix close to or greater than the standards are selected.

In some cases, clones with lower brix are considered based on its appeal i.e.

agronomic desirability in terms of stalk height, thickness, tillering, and vigour.

No biochemical evaluation is carried out in this stage as due to cane stalk limitations.

This LF2014 series was evaluated (brixed) and the selected clones were advanced and planted as LF2014 Stage 2 in Rarawai.
On the other hand, LF2016 series Stage 1 seedlings were also planted in Rarawai.

The following is a detailed account on these projects.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 24 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LF2016 Stage 1 The LF2016 Stage 1 was planted at Rarawai Estate field 6 in January 2017.

The seedling was from 2016 fuzz sowing.


Due to the devastating effect of cyclone Winston in 2016, the fuzz sowing facilities such as green house and germination chamber were partly/full damage which causes many delays in fuzz sowing and hardening process.

Power disruptions also occur frequently which disturb consistent operation of the germination chamber.
Seedling Distribution Figure 1.2.1 & 1.2.2: Stage 1 seedling distribution A total of 3100 seedlings from various crosses were planted followed by irrigation.

The trial was planted in three Bed where Bed 1 and Bed two have the same plot size of 12 meters per plot whereas Bed 3 have the plot size of 6 meters.

Evaluation and selection will be carried out in 2018.
2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Trial planting 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 25 Figure 1.2.3: Stage 1 seedling planting SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 26 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LF2014 Stage 1 This trial was deem for evaluation in 2016 since it was planted in 2015 however due to the devastating effect of cyclone Winston and post cyclone drought, the assessment and evaluation of this trial was delayed in 2016 and the trial was end up slashed.

Therefore the evaluation was done on the first ratoon in 2017.
Total 5520 one eye sett seedling was planted on this trial which to be evaluated.

Based on the brixed obtain and field observation, 423 varieties were selected for LF2014 Stage 2.

Clone from selected varieties were harvested and planted as LF2014 Stage 2 trial.

Stage 2 Trial Stage 2 trial is the first clonal stage after selection from the seedlings.
The selected clones from the crosses in Stage 1 are advanced to this trial and given an index that becomes its identity for the rest of the breeding program.

The selection and evaluation is carried out in the Plant crop.

The first part of evaluation in Stage 2 is to conduct brixing on all clones as well as the standards and also recording the phenotypic characters and agronomic desirability i.e.

the growth, appeal, stalk height/ diameter, flowering tillering.
The varieties are selected on the basis of the above parameters compared to the data of the standard varieties (commercials).

This phase is known as preliminary selection.

The selected varieties are then sampled with the standards and brought to the small mill where bio- chemical analysis is done.

Final selection is based on comparison of the bio-chemical data (Brix, POCS, and Fibre), the field observations are noted during brixing in the field of the sampled varieties with the standards.
These selected varieties are then advanced to the observation plots.

The main activities for stage 2 trial this year was the evaluation of 2015 Series and the planting of 2014 Series.

LF2014 Stage 2 The LF2014 Stage 2 is located in field 5, Rarawai Estate and was planted from 29th of September, 2017.

Total of 423 clones was planted with Mana and Naidiri as standard.

The field was occasionally submerged in flood waters in December but no effects observed on cane growth.
LF2015 series Stage 2 The LF2015 series trial was located in Rarawai Field 6 Bed 2 and was planted from 27th November 2016.

It has 599 varieties planted as 1row x 6m plots in one beds.

The cane was 9 months old when selection was initiated in July 9th.

Initially the trial was irrigated and discontinued after the rain.

The trial was generally weed free during time of selection.

Timely cultivation and implementation of trial activities was carried out and monitored.
Preliminary selection Six stalk samples of the 599 selected varieties were harvested and send to the small mill for biochemical evaluation with the standards.

The phenotypic and agronomic characters of all varieties were also recorded during field assessment.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 27 Final Selection Final selection was carried on the 599 varieties based on the bio-chemical data received from the small mill as well as field data recorded during field assessment.
The field notes on the agronomic characters were consolidated with the biochemical data (see Appendix) and 88 clones were selected and advanced to Stage 3.

Stage 3 Trial The ultimate goal of sugarcane breeding is to develop genetically improved varieties that have a positive impact on the sugar industry.
In the early, segregating generations the breeder selects the progeny of the crosses so as to remove those with undesirable or inferior genotypes, progressively moving towards a smaller number of elite lines.

This third stage is the largest part of a breeding program and involves identifying the products of genetic segregation and recombination and finding the ‘best of the bunch’ as reliably and as quickly as possible, while minimizing the risk of failing to retain a superior line.
LF2013 Stage 3 Total of 92 clones from selected varieties of LF2013 Stage 2 was planted in 2015.

However, due to the devastating effect of cyclone Winston the evaluation was not able to be carried out in 2016.

The trial was slashed in February 2016 and the ratoon was also harvest and send to the mill during 2016 harvesting season.

Evaluation and selection Six stalk samples of the 92 selected varieties were harvested and taken to the small mill for biochemical evaluation (table 1.2.3) with the standards.
The phenotypic and agronomic characters of all varieties were also recorded during field assessment.

Samples were also sent to crop protection department for disease screening.

Based on the data gathered, 12 varieties were selected, harvest and planted as stage 4 seed bed for the 2013 series.
Table 1.2.3: Biochemical data of LF2013 series (12 varieties) Variety Name LF13-116 LF13-238 LF13-405 LF13-410 LF13-427 LF13-441 LF13-452 LF13-454 LF13-460 LF13-468 LF13-485 LF13-543 Std BRD BRD BRD BRD BRD BRD BRD BRD BRD BRD BRD BRD Rep Trt Brix Pol Purity Fibre Pocs OTHER COMMENTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 10 71 45 58 65 66 55 62 44 38 52 18.4 15.79 85.66 9.19 12.23 PURPLE CANE 19.8 17.05 86.24 9.94 13.15 SUCKERS GROWING UP 18.4 15.51 84.49 10.24 11.76 18.4 15.92 86.62 8.80 12.48 LOOK LIKE MANA SIDE SHOOT 19.4 17.02 87.63 9.98 13.25 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 28 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LF2015 Stage 3 Total of 88 clones was selected from LF2015 Stage 2 and planted as LF2015 Stage 3.
Post planting irrigation was done followed by pre-emergent spray and fertilizer application.

Germplasm Germplasm is a collection of useful genetic material which are kept and maintained in terms of the whole plant or part of the plant being the reproductive/ vegetative part of the plant.

It is used generally for breeding and conservation purpose.

In breeding, germplasm is crucial for maintaining important varieties that would be used as parents for crossing (inter-specific and/ or inter-generic).
On the other hand a consistent and well monitored upkeep of the germplasm sees that the seed material of the important varieties are available if the reserves elsewhere had been affected by unforeseen disasters.

In such case the variety could be propagated to revive the loss.

In sugarcane, germplasm is as important to breeders who continuously exploit the gene expression by important hybrids through various combinations and crossing.
As a result the ISSCT (International Society for Sugarcane Technologists), one of the major organizations governing world sugar research, administers two such collections in India and USA.

The germplasm material is available to all participating member countries for further research.

Germplasm collection expeditions has also been widely supported and financed by ISSCT.
Like all major breeding organizations, Sugar Research Institute of Fiji also has its own germplasm collection located in Lautoka, Fiji Islands.

It used to have more than 4000 clones in it which involved pure species of sugarcane genera as well as other related genera (Erianthus spp.)

and local and imported commercial hybrids.


However, due to mechanical harvesting and inconsistent monitoring over the past, the correct identification of the varieties has become questionable as plots and roadways had become heavily infested with volunteer canes whereas some plots have no cane.
This project will be aimed to resurrect germplasm in terms of characterizing the restored clones from the core collection whereby valuable information on desirable characteristics would be gathered and a database created.

Also the imported fuzz and varieties will be sown and planted respectively and included in the trial if available during trial planting.

The project has different phases which 2017 was mainly focus on phase one which is the resurrection of germplasm from its current status.

.
.

Plant replicated trial.

Total of 320 clones were harvested from the old germplasm in Drasa Field 24 plot 4 bed 3 and transplanted to Field 24 plot 3 bed 1 and also 320 clones to Rarawai field 7 bed 1 and field 9 bed 2.

These clones were planted in replicate therefore a total of 640 (1 x 8 meters) plots was planted for each locality.

Post planting management practices was well organized and monitored.

The remaining 200 clones will be transplant to Dobuilevu in 2018.
Visa cane Through visa cane initiative program agreement, total of 38 varieties were received from CIRAD Visa, France.

With the close monitoring of biosecurity personals, the clone, setts were treated prior to planting, each set (which contains two/three eye sett) was treated.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 29 The treatments are as follows:  Dip in hot water (58 degree Celsius) for 5 minutes  Treated with insecticide  Treated with fungicide  Plant 2 or 3 one eye sett per pot.
 Left for 30 minutes and watered with fresh water and transfer into germination chamber with a constant moderate temperature on 36 degree Celsius.

Individual varieties were planted in three pots where two pots consist of 2 eye setts each and the third pot has 3.

Total of 7 eye sett per variety were planted and kept in the germination chamber with a constant temperature of 37 degrees Celsius for 21 days.

Germination Only 2 out of the 38 varieties planted fail to germinate.
Total of 94% germination, however, few varieties were vigorously germinates and other were obviously in slow grow mode.

Seedlings were transferred to temporary shed after three weeks for further assessment and monitoring in collaboration with biosecurity.
Evaluation Few varieties have symptoms which were suspected cause by some disease such as: Iron deficiency   Red stripe  Bunchy tops These varieties were continuously monitored for the development of the suspected diseases but they were clear as they develop.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 30 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 1.3 CROP MANAGEMENT 1.3.1 Agronomy Nutrient Budget for Sugar cane in Fiji - Labasa This study will provide insight to the sugar industry as a whole on the cost benefit of the agronomic practices in response to crop yield and finally carryover to sugar and molasses yields.

Growers will be able to better understand the importance of nutrient management, while a quantification of carryover of nutrients into the final milling products is determined.
Total of nine sites were selected for the trial planting of which three trials were planted in Vanua Levu.

The treatments were selected according to the current scenario to differentiate the nutrient deficit and surplus added by the farmers during the crop cultivation.

This will also highlight the importance of soil analysis and the recommendation that needs to be followed by the farmers.
The treatments used are given in the table below: Table 1: Treatment details Treatments Fertilizer Rates Nil 1 Farmer Practice ( Actual usage) 2 75% of recommended rate 3 Recommended rate 4 Time of Application 8 weeks after planting 8 weeks after planting 8 weeks after planting 8 weeks after planting All sites planting was carried out by November, 2017 and cultivation work will be carried out as per work plan.

The growth measurements will be recorded at 3, 5 and 7 months.
Rain water samples will be collected at all sites as per rain days.

The biochemical and yield attributes will be taken on maturity.

The sugar, mill mud, molasses, waste water and mill ash samples will be collected on daily basis as the mill will commence.

Trial planting pictures of Waiqele site are shown below: Figure 1: Trial marking Figure 2: Trial planting 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 31 Also all sites were sampled and land preparation was done accordingly.
Soil profile of each site was conducted to see the nutrient status of each horizon present at the trial site.

This was done before the trial planting phase and the results are shown below: Table 2: Labasa and Seaqaqa districts soil profile information SRIF 7 – Solove Profile No.
RRK, MLV Described by 25.08.17 Date Vunimako, Solove sector, Location Seaqaqa Hilly flat Long fallow (7 years) – Para grass land River alluvium Good None Reddish brown in colour Good – easily cultivated and top soil is friable Best when land is dry Topography Land use/ Vegetation Parent Material Drainage Rockiness/ Stones Soil colour Cultivability SRIF 8 – Wailevu RRK, MLV 28.08.17 Movo, Tabia, Wailevu Sector Very flat and smooth Long fallow (5 years) – Para grass land River alluvium Good None Greyish brown in colour Good but top soil is large and cloggy Best when land is dry SRIF 9 - Waiqele RRK, MLV 08.09.17 Kaba road, Waiqele central, Waiqele sector Hilly flat Fallow for 7 years before planning rice last year River alluvium Needs more drains None Greyish brown in colour Good – easily cultivated.
Top soil is friable Best when land is dry Mechanical cane harvester Traffic ability Improvements suggested Best when land is dry Minimum tillage Trash blanketing Aglime and NPK (Recommended rates) Ferruginous (Sandy clay) Topsoil/ Subsoil texture Other observations More drains needed Control the spread of paragrass from neighboring fields Korovuli Dystric Nitosols Typic Paleustults clayey, ferruginous, isohyperthermic Soil series FAO Soil Legend Soil Taxonomy (USDA, 2003) Sampling for analysis All horizons Best when land is dry Subsoiling Aglime and NPK (Recommended rates) Loamy clay More deeper drains required Best when land is dry More drains needed Subsoiling Trash blanketing NPK (Recommended rates) Topsoil is moist and friable.
Sandy clay soil type More deeper drains required Tiri Thionic Fluvisols Typic clayey over loamy, mixed, isohyperthermic All horizons Sulfaquept fine Labasa Dystric Gleysols Humic Epiaquepts clayey over sandy, mixed, isohyperthermic All horizons SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 32 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Soil Profile Study – Labasa & Seaqaqa The images and tables that follows shows the soil profile and description of each pit.
A B1 B2 B3 B4 C Figure 3: SRIF 7 – Solove soil profile Table 3: SRIF 7 – Solove soil profile description Layers Layer 1 Horizon A Depth 0 – 11cm Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 B1 B2 B3 B4 C 11 – 48cm 48 – 81cm 81 – 101cm 101 – 120cm 120 – 130cm 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT formed, Description Dark brown soil (7.5YR 4/2), moist sandy clay, soils are medium, granular and moderately formed, friable, clear horizontal boundary.
Red soil (2.5YR 5/6), moist sandy clay, medium, granular and moderately friable, indistinct horizontal boundary.

Reddish brown in colour (5YR 5/4), moist sandy clay, medium, granular and moderately formed, friable, distinct yellowish mottle, distinct horizontal boundary.

Red in colour (2.5YR 5/8), moist sandy clay, medium, granular and moderately formed, firm, small distinct yellowish brown mottle.
Distinct horizontal boundary Reddish brown in colour (5YR 5/4), moist, sticky sandy clay, medium, granular and moderately formed, firm, wavy horizontal boundary.

Very dark grey in colour (7.5YR N3), moist and silty, medium, aggregates and strongly formed, very firm, clear horizontal boundary.
1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 33 B1 Bg C1 C2 Cg Figure 4: SRIF 8 – Wailevu sector soil profile Table 4: SRIF 8 – Wailevu sector soil profile description Layers Layer 1 Depth 0 - 47cm Horizon B1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Bg C1 47 – 69cm 69 – 99cm Layer 4 C2 99 – 130cm Description Dark brown (10YR 3/3), moist, loamy clay, medium, granular and moderately formed, friable, distinct horizontal boundary.
Dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2), moist, loamy clay, medium, granular and moderately formed, friable, grey mottles visible, wavy horizontal boundary.

Brown in colour (10YR 5/3), very moist, heavy clay, medium, granular, moderately formed, sticky clay (can easily be molded into shapes), clear horizontal boundary.
Reddish brown in colour (5YR 5/3), very moist and heavy clay, medium, granular and strongly formed, very sticky clay (can easily be molded into shapes), greyish mottles visible, distinct horizontal boundary.

Layer 5 Cg 130 – 160cm Greyish colour soil (5YR 6/1), very moist and heavy clay, medium, granular and strongly formed, very sticky clay (can easily be molded into shapes), clear wavy boundary.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 34 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Figure 4: SRIF 9 – Waiqele sector soil profile *Table 4: SRIF 9 – Waiqele sector soil profile description Layers Layer 1 Depth 0 - 32cm Horizon B1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 B2 B3 C1 32 – 64cm 64 - 76cm 76 - 86cm Layer 5 Cg 86 - 108cm Layer 6 C2 108 – 142cm B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 Cg Description Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), moist, clay, formed, medium, granular and moderately friable, clear horizontal boundary Brown in color (7.5YR 5/3), moist, clay, medium, granular and moderately formed, friable, clear horizontal boundary.
Brown in color (7.5YR 5/3), moist, clay, medium, granular and moderately formed, friable, black mottles, clear horizontal boundary.

Grayish brown in color (10YR 5/2), very moist, sticky and heavy clay, medium, granular, moderately formed, friable, grey mottles visible, clear horizontal boundary.

Brown in color (10YR 5/3), very moist, sticky and heavy clay (can easily be molded into shapes), small grey mottles visible, distinct horizontal boundary.
Brown in color (10YR 5/3), very wet, sticky clay (can easily be molded into shapes), clear horizontal boundary.

*Note: Presence of water hindered further digging of the pit Nutrient Budget for Sugar cane in Fiji - Lautoka, Ba and Nadi Sugar has been the major agricultural export form Fiji for over 100 years, as well as being a major source of employment and of foreign exchange.
A number of reasons have been proposed for the decline including changes in land leasing arrangements, limits in the number of people entering the cane-growing sector workforce, increasing lengths of ratoons, extreme weather events and poor extension support for farmers.

Concern has also been expressed in some quarters about the fertilizer 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 35 regime in use – the advice given to farmers and the practices of the farmers themselves.
There has also been a move towards cane quality payment system, where higher quality cane production is rewarded financially.

Information is readily available on the imports of nutrients and the distribution of elements as fertilizers (ex-South Pacific Fertilizers).

Once the fertilizers leave the factory, the situation becomes much less clear.
While it is known how much fertilizer is delivered to particular farms, there is no certainty, in many locations, about how much fertilizer is added to a particular field.
Yields of cane per field are collected at harvest time and recorded by the FSC, but there is very limited information in how much nutrient is removed along with the cane (analyses of fresh cane are very few in number and are really only available for the Lautoka and Labasa mill areas), how much might be lost in trash burning, and what happens at the mills is poorly understood.
A recent survey (Morrison and Gawander, unpublished data) has shown that the sugar produced by the different mills contains different amounts of nutrients (in some cases substantially different), such that an accurate assessment of the overall mill outputs cannot be completed using a single concentration for each element.

Soil Profile Study – Lautoka, Ba & Nadi A 2m x 2m hole was dug up by an excavator at all the 6 sites.

A vertical cross section of the soil was studied.


Various soil horizons became apparent.

Table 5: SRIF 1 – Waqadra estate trial site details Parameters Date Topography Location Top soil / Subsoil texture Soil series name FAO Soil Legend name Soil Taxonomic (USDA, 2003) Details 09/08/17 Smooth, flat, ploughed, harrowed Waqadra alluvial basin along Nadi river west bank.

Approx.
200m west of Nadi backroad bridge and cement works clay loam on silty clay Nadi Orthic Ferralsols Tropeptic Eutrustox clayey, mixed, isohyperthermic SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 36 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Figure 5: SRIF 7 – Waqadra estate soil profile Table 6: SRIF 5 – Rarawai FSC estate trial site details Parameters Date Topography Location Top soil / Subsoil texture Soil series name FAO Soil Legend name Soil Taxonomic (USDA, 2003) Note Details 17/08/17 Level 40 chains south east of Rarawai Sugarmill-300 yards west of Ba-Koronubu Road mostly silty clay Veisaru Dystric Gleysols Aeric Epiaquept, fine, kaolinitic water table at 200cm 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 37 Figure 6: SRIF 5 – Rarawai FSC estate soil profile SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 38 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Table 7: SRIF 4 – Etatoko trial site details Parameters Date Topography Location Top soil / Subsoil texture Soil series name FAO Soil Legend name Soil Taxonomic (USDA, 2003) Note Details 17/08/17 very flat and smooth Etatoko Locality near the Wailailai River system between Vadravadra and Ba town, 400m west of highway going to Tavua Clay throughout Matavelo Dystric Gleysols Aeric Epiaquepts, fine, kaolinitic isohyperthermic More drains required and deeper Figure 7: SRIF 4 – Etatoko/Itatoko soil profile 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 39 Table 8: SRIF 3 – Koronubu trial site details Parameters Date Topography Location Top soil / Subsoil texture Soil series name FAO Soil Legend name Soil Taxonomic (USDA, 2003) Note Details 17/08/17 Very flat Gyan Singh Cane Farm, Koronubu, about 4.7km southeast of Rarawai sugar mill where the Ba River meets the Nadrou drainage system Clay loam over clay Vatuma Hasplic Kastanozem Fluventic Haplustolls fine, mixed Isohyperthermic Very versatile land for horticulture using irrigation Figure 8: SRIF 3 – Koronubu soil profile SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 40 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Table 9: SRIF 2 – Buabua trial site details Details Parameters 09/08/17 Date Gentle
 slope of 0.5 degrees sloping south towards north Topography Base of Buabua foothills near Lautoka 2km inland from highway Location Clay loam on clay Top soil / Subsoil texture Drasa Soil series name FAO Soil Legend name Eutric Nitosols Soil Taxonomic (USDA, 2003) Ultic Haplustalfs, fine ferruginous, Isohyperthermic Figure 9: SRIF 2 – Buabua soil profile 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 41 Soil sampling at all site Soil sampling was carried out at all the 6 sites.
Standard SRIF soil sampling procedure was used whereby a zigzag pattern was used to dig out core soil samples from the top layer (at a depth of 20cm).

The core samples were thoroughly mixed and sub sampled to make one composite sample.

This sample was submitted for chemical analysis.

Chemical analysis of soil samples Soil was brought to the analytical laboratory for chemical analysis.
Analysis carried out was pH, phosphorus, macronutrients (Calcium, Magnesium and Potassium), particle size analysis and organic carbon.

1.3.2 Effect of lime on soil properties and sugarcane yield in Fiji Table 10: Trial details Parameters Location Variety Trial Design Replications Plot size Date Planted Crop Stage Number of treatment Details Drasa, Lautoka Aiwa Randomized Complete Block Design 4 6 rows x 10 m x 1.37 m 16 April 2014 Second ratoon 4 Table 11: Treatment details Treatment No.
1 2 3 4 Details No lime was applied 0.7 tonnes per hectare of lime was applied in furrows 1.4 tonnes per hectare of lime was applied in furrows 2.1 tonnes per hectare of lime was applied in furrows Objectives The objectives of this project was to determine the effects of applying lime on soil properties, sugar and cane yield in sugarcane belt of Fiji, Issues and background Fiji soils are acidic in nature which may be one of the reasons attributed to the declining productivity of sugarcane.
There are various reasons for declining productivity and low pH such as:  Continuous mono-culturing of sugarcane on Fiji soils  Soil erosion  Continuous use of ammonia based fertilisers on sugarcane cultivated soils In Fiji, sugarcane has been mono-cropped for past 125 years.

Soil test result from Fertilizer Advisory Service indicates that majority of the soil pH are well below 5.5 - 6.5 pH range which is usually the preferred pH required by sugarcane.
Despite the alarming low pH values of sugarcane cultivated soils, the growers do not use ameliorants such as lime to improve the soil pH.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 42 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT A trial was laid out in Drasa to study the effect of lime application on soil chemical properties, crop productivity and grower profitability.

The results of the study will be used to educate growers on application of lime in their fields.

A trial site at Drasa was selected.


Soil sample was carried out for the nutrient status and pH of the soil.

The pH buffering capacity carried out to determine the amount of lime required to increase the pH of the soil.

Amount of agricultural lime was calculated for each plot and applied in furrows.

The plots were marked out in the field and cane was planted manually with 3 eye bud setts and covered with soil using a hoe.
Pre-emergent herbicide (diuron 80 @ a rate of 4kg/ha) was applied to control weeds in the field.

Fertilizers Blend A and B were applied as per the laboratory recommendation to supply cane with the required nutrients.

Likewise, Blend C fertilizer was applied to ratoon cane.

Growth measurements were carried out at 3, 5 and 7 months.

Samples of sugarcane leaves were collected for laboratory analysis and recommendation for ratoon cane.
Trial maintenance including weed, pest and disease control were carried out throughout the project.

The trial suffered damages from the strong wind of Tropical cyclone Winston in 2016 that led to broken tops and lodging of cane.

2014 -2015 Plant crop data Trial was laid out in April after which the dry weather conditions settled in.

Thus poor germination with an average of 35.5% was noticed as per table below.
Table 12: Germination percentage Rep → Treatment ↓ 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Total Avg 30 46 36 39 43 41 38 49 27 28 39 35 37 26 32 24 136 140 144 146 34 35 36 37 Growth measurements were taken at 3, 5 and 8 months after plnating cane.

The results obtained are tabulated below.
Table 13: Growth measurements Treatment (tonnes/ha) 0 0.7 1.4 2.1 Tillers per stool 3m 5m 8m 3m 4 4 3 5 5 6 5 7 8 6 7 7 33 30 32 33 Stalk Height 5m 8m 53 51 52 59 119 112 111 122 Population (x 103/ha) 5m 3m 15.5 14.1 14.0 16.9 14.1 13.1 13.0 16.1 8m 17.5 17.1 16.3 20.2 %brix in juice Table 14: Cane analysis results Treatment (tonnes/ha) 0 0.7 1.4 2.1 21 20 20 21 %pol in juice %fiber in cane %pocs tc/ha ts/ha 20 18 19 20 10 10 10 10 16 15 15 16 84 100 80 94 14 14 12 15 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 43 2017 Second ratoon crop data Table 15: Growth measurements Treatment (tonnes/ha) Tillers per stool 3m 5m 8m 3m 0 0.7 1.4 2.1 8 7 8 7 9 8 7 8 7 6 7 8 Height 5m 89 90 85 87 52 55 61 65 Stalk 8m 125 127 124 130 Population (x 103/ha) 8m 5m 3m 21.6 21.3 18.2 21.9 21.9 19.2 21.8 19.2 20.1 22.9 22.2 20.1 %brix in juice %pol in juice %fiber Table 16: Cane analysis results Treatment (tonnes/ha) 0 0.7 1.4 2.1 19 19 19 20 18 18 18 19 cane 11 11 11 11 in %pocs tc/ha ts/ha 14 14 15 15 81 83 84 82 12 12 12 13 There was no significant difference in plant growth, stalk population, tiller production, cane and sugar yield between the treatments.
Lime is slow reacting.

1.3.3 NUTRIENTS IN THE FIJI SUGAR INDUSTRY Table 17: Trial details Parameters Variety Trial design Replications Plot size Table 18: Treatment details Treatment No.

1 2 3 4 Details Naidiri Randomized Complete Block Design 4 6 rows x 10m x 1.37m Details No fertilizer was applied Farmer practice 80% recommended rate Recommended rate A project has been designed to gather information about fertilizer use and behaviour in Fiji.
Most of the work done in Fiji in regards to fertilizer has focused on determining optimal fertilizer requirements for cane production in Fiji.

Much less focus has been paid to the issue of nutrient budgeting and the behaviour of nutrient elements within the various sectors of the industry as a whole.
There is very little information on how much nutrient is removed along with the cane during harvesting (analyses of fresh cane are very few in number and are really only available for the Lautoka and Labasa mill areas), how much might be lost in trash burning, and what happens at the mills is poorly understood.

Hence, the project is designed to understand to gather information on behaviour of nutrients within Fiji sugar industry.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 44 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT A total of six sites within Lautoka and Rarawai mill area has been selected for the project.

Soil profile studies has been carried out for the sites prior to planting to determine the physical and chemical properties of the soil at a depth of 1 meter.

All six sites were planted in the replanting season after a thorough land preparation.

Seed cane were obtained from seed cane nursery at SRIF.
Naidiri- an early maturing variety was used for planting.

Three different rates of fertilizer treatments; farmer usual practice rate, 80% recommended rate and recommended rate of Blend A, B and C along with a control were used at each trial site.
Table 19: Trial site details Site Mill Area Rarawai Rarawai Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Rarawai Farmer’s name Gyan Singh Rarawai estate Rajendra Prasad Waqadra estate Rajnesh Naicker Subra Mani 1.3.4 Biochemical Lab Farm No 6303 1696 35 129 19025 1416 Sector Koronubu Rarawai estate Drasa Waqadra estate Lovu Rarawai Location Koronubu flat Field 18, plot 2 No.

18 road Waqadra estate Buabua Etatoko The sugar laboratory analyses sugarcane samples from Research projects.
The laboratory may either analyse sugarcane as a whole or as a part (juice).

The analysis considered is dependent on the requirement of the researcher.

Biochemical Analysis The small mill aims to provide necessary information on cane such as %pol, %brix, %fibre and %POCS on various ongoing trials.

Moreover, it is a vital aspect of variety selection from the initial stages till the final selection of breeding trials.
In addition, analysis is carried out to quantify the quality of sugarcane in response to various agronomic practices, impacts of Pest & Disease or as a field audit.

A total of 1093 cane samples were crushed for the year which was 50% more compared to 2016.

The small mill and laboratory had forecasted to analyse a total of 2000 samples but this target was not achieved due to the aftermath recovery of T.C Winston on almost 80% of the forecasted crop.
Thus samples were only received from a few of the Rarawai and Lautoka research trials.

Majority of the samples crushed were received from the variety selection program as displayed in chart 1.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 45 A Summary of Samples analysed in 2017 Agronomy 1% QA 13% Breeding 86% Chart 1: Percentage of samples received for 2017.

During the season all the samples were analysed by the FT-NIR analysis via the Spectracane.
Table 20: A detailed presentation of sample received in 2017 Trial Name QA samples LF2010 - stage 4 LF2011 - stage 4 LF2013 - stage 3 LF2009 - stage 4 LF2015 - stage 2 Lime Trial Grand Total No.

of samples 140 80 96 92 72 597 16 Total 140 937 16 1093 Training Analytical Instrument Training A one-day training was conducted by the Perkin Elmer engineer on the use of the UV-Visible spectrophotometer (Lamda 365), including familiarization of the range of analysis the software offers.
The training also included hardware maintenance and basic servicing.

A three-day training was conducted on the use of the Alpha-P FT-NIR, facilitated by the Bruker Optics servicing manger.

The training involved use of the software, maintenance and basic servicing of the hardware and a few hands-on analysis practical.

1.3.2 Fertilizer Advisory SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 46 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Analytical Laboratory SRIF is a leading provider of independent analytical services.
The analytical laboratory acts as a link between the growers and the industry by providing analytical services for advisory and research programs.

This service is essential due to the rising cost of fertilizers and to maintain optimum production in the future.

Analytical services provided at SRIF analytical laboratory includes soil, foliar and cane analysis.
Soil and leaf samples are received from all sugar cane districts including Penang, Rarawai, Lautoka and Labasa for fertilizer recommendation and from SRIF research trials.

At the analytical laboratory at SRIF, all analytical procedures are fully documented.

The in-house validated analytical methods deliver consistent and reliable lab reports on the samples.
Grower service team has created a detailed sample and report tracking system to assure prompt communication to our growers on lab results and to maintain traceability on samples and reports.

Soil and leaf testing for recommended fertilizer – all cane farmers planning to plant must have their soils analysed to get the correct recommendation to improve yield.
Beneficiaries Farmers - fertilizer advisory service which includes fertilizer recommendation and new farm assessment is provided to all the sugarcane farmers.

The laboratory gives fertilizer recommendations to growers in the cane belt area on the basis of soil and leaf sample analysis from their fields.

The FAS service is linked to the grower and the sugar industry stakeholders in terms of soil nutrient data and fertilizer usage.
Major Instrument List  pH meter  VELP Digestion system  Lachat FIA instrument  PerkinElmer AAS (Analyst 400)  NIR Spectracane  Schmidt and Haehcsh Polarimeter  FTIR 3.1.1 Soil Analysis A total of two thousand and seventy five soil samples were received for analysis comprising of one thousand six hundred and nine advisory soil samples and four hundred and sixty six research soil samples.

Reports are released by email as soon as they become available from the laboratory to the FSC extension staffs.
The laboratory staffs understand the importance of timely advice; therefore the staffs are equipped and staffed to process samples quickly and efficiently.

The sample requests are completed within two weeks from the date sample received.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 47 Table 21: Summary of soil samples for 2017 Mill Lautoka Rarawai Penang Labasa Total Advisory 804 347 46 412 1609 Research 296 65 0 105 466 Total 1100 412 46 517 2075 l s e p m a s f o .
o N 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Total number of soil samples received in 2017 804 296 347 65 Lautoka Rarawai 46 0 Penang Mill Advisory Research 412 105 Labasa SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 48 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Table 21: Summary of soil samples per sector per district for 2017 District No.
of soil samples Sector Name Drasa Lovu Lautoka Saweni Natova Drasa Estate Legalega Meigunyah Qeleloa Yako Malolo Nawaicoba Waqadra Estate Lomawai Cuvu Olosara Varoko Mota Koronubu Rarawai Veisaru Varavu Naloto Rarawai Estate Tagitagi Drumasi Yaladro Waiqele Wailevu Vunimoli Labasa Bucaisau Wainikoro Daku Labasa Estate Natua Solove Bulivou Seaqaqa Estate Ellington 1 Malau Nanuku Ellington 2 Lautoka Nadi Sigatoka Rarawai Tavua Labasa Seaqaqa Penang TOTAL Total SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 49 Number of soil samples received per District for Lautoka Mill l s e p m a s l i o s f o .
o N 250 200 150 100 50 0 237 107 120 59 i n e w a S a v o t a N 36 42 20 27 o k a Y l a o e e Q l l l o o a M 47 44 u v u C i a w a m o L 13 a r a s o O l 19 a b o c i a w a N 12 e t a t s E a r d a q a W Lautoka Nadi Sigatoka District Graph 1: Summary of soil samples per sector for Lautoka district Number of soil samples received per District for Ba Mill l s e p m a s l i o s f o .
o N 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 60 u b u n o r o K 33 a t o M 17 o k o r a V 99 o r d a a Y l 46 u r a s i e V 2 i a w a r a R 32 u v a r a V 19 o t o a N l Rarawai District 36 Tavua Graph 2: Summary of soil samples per sector for Ba district SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 50 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Number of soil samples received per District for Labasa Mill 80 71 l s e p m a s l i o s f o .
o N 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 16 l e e q a W i u v e l i a W i l i o m n u V 47 44 31 26 a s a b a L u a s i a c u B u k a D o r o k i n a W i 51 e v o o S l 24 a u t a N 0 e t a t s E a s a b a L 21 u o v i l u B 1 e t a t s E a q a q a e S Labasa Seaqaqa District Graph 3: Summary of soil samples per sector for Labasa district Number of soil samples received per District for Penang Mill 23 16 4 3 l s e p m a s l i o s f o .
o N 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ellington 1 Malau Nanuku Ellington 2 Penang District Graph 4: Summary of soil samples per sector for Penang district 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 51 Trainings  Soils training was provided by Mr. Seru, a consultant previously employed as a soil scientist for Ministry of Agriculture, Koronivia Research Station.

 Soil identification and classification workshop by Prof John Morrison held at Waterfront Hotel, Lautoka on 5th July, 2017.
3.1.2 Leaf Analysis The analytical laboratory had received 45 plant samples for advisory analysis.

The samples have been analyzed and fertilizer recommendation sent for the next year ratoon crop.

Table 22: Summary of Plant samples for 2017 Mill Lautoka Rarawai Penang Labasa Total Advisory 44 1 0 0 45 Research 0 0 0 0 0 Total 44 1 0 0 45 l s e p m a s f a e l f o .
o N 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Number of leaf samples received per Mill 44 0 Lautoka 1 0 Rarawai 0 0 Penang 0 0 Labasa Mill Advisory Research Graph 5: Number of leaf samples received by district Lautoka Table 23: Summary of Leaf Samples per Sector per District for 2017 Sector Name District Drasa Lovu Lautoka Saweni Natova Lomawai Cuvu Olosara Rarawai Estate Sigatoka Rarawai TOTAL No.
of soil samples 10 2 2 3 8 10 6 3 1 Total 25 19 1 45 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 52 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Number of leaf samples received per District 10 8 6 3 2 2 3 10 l s e p m a s f a e l f o .
o N 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Drasa Lovu Lautoka Saweni Natova Lomawai Cuvu Olosara Lautoka Sigatoka District 1 Rarawai Estate Rarawai Graph 6: Summary of Leaf Samples per Sector per District for 2017 Trainings Facilitated training for FSC Extension Staffs on leaf sampling held at Penang, Tavua, Ba and Lautoka from 23rd - 29th March, 2017.
3.1.3 Small Mill Analysis The small mill laboratory is established to analyze research cane samples for cane and sugar yield for determination of percentage pure obtainable cane sugar (%POCS).
A number of activities were carried out as follows,  Cane receiving and unloading (receive the cane at the mill and unload it from the transport vehicle)  Cane preparation (cutting and shredding cane to prepare it for juice extraction)  Juice extraction – pressing shredded cane  Juice clarification - remove suspended solids from the juice  Take reading using polatronic and refractometer  Data was dispatched to the respective staff through email.
3.1.4 Quality Assurance The analytical laboratory took part in ASPAC proficiency programs.

The laboratory continues to adhere to quality control checks in every analysis.

The laboratory conducts the QC checks by having standards as well as random control samples and referring to the accepted range of values for QC samples.

Any value out of the range is investigates and corrective measures are undertaken to ensure the criteria set for quality assurance is followed.
We also specialize in Method Development and Validation Testing.

All work completed by the laboratory undergoes a stringent Quality Control and Quality Assurance review process prior to final report release.

As a full service laboratory, SRIF staff is committed to meeting quality requirements with accuracy and quick turnaround times.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 53 Impacts of the sucrose post-harvest deterioration in sugarcane by Leuconostoc sp.
bacteria on the Fijian Sugar Industry profitability The postharvest deterioration in sugarcane results in loss of sucrose content, lower purity and higher acidity of juice and then decrease in mill efficiency.

Thus in turn it has a financial impact to the millers and growers.
According to the literature, the sucrose postharvest deterioration is mainly caused by the bacteria Leuconostoc and under favorable conditions such as high temperature and humidity, amount of mud clinging to the culm and leaves, length of sugarcane billets, and degree of burning, sucrose is degraded into dextran plus fructose.
According to the FSC data in 1989 preliminary experiments showed that as the crushing season progresses and the proportion of burnt cane increases, there is a concomitant dramatic rise in the dextran content.

This was confirmed by regressing dextran levels against both delay to crush and percentage burnt (R2 of 0.77).
This has been further supported by experiments on dextran accumulation over time conducted by FSC which showed that the dextran content of cut green cane remains roughly constant at minimal levels (<30 ppm) for a week, while for burnt cane dextran levels reach 700 ppm after 2 days and 2,400 ppm after 7 days (John Davies, 1996).
According to previous experiments, we formulate the following hypotheses: The amount of dextran or moreover deterioration would be most obvious in burnt sugarcane and billet cane than in green and whole stalk canes.

The extent of delay in cut-to-crush would be the main activator of an increase of the rate of sucrose deterioration, along with the influence of very low or very high temperatures and high humidity.
The greater the length of mill breakdowns would be expected to increase the amount of sucrose deterioration during milling processes.

Thus a study to evaluate the impact of sucrose deterioration on the Fiji sugar industry profitability caused by Leuconostoc sp.

has been established through the AAP2013 funding.

It will be carried out by FSC and SRIF, within 4 years.

The study focuses on 4 common commercial varieties across the Fijian sugarcane belt.
Thus a 4.0ha trial consisting of the four varieties namely; Mana, Naidiri, LF91-1925 and Qamea has been planted in November at the SRIF estate in Drasa.

The trial follows the split-split randomized block design.

The sugarcane samples will be harvested during the 2018 harvesting season of which the Juice and mill products will be analyzed at the SRIF sugar laboratory.
The chemical results will quantify sucrose deterioration as a function of different factors and identify the main factors causing loss of sugar purity and mill efficiency in Fiji and of the indicators that can be used to check the process quality.

This project intends also to enlighten farmers on the best management practices that would reduce the loss of financial benefits and also the problems it would impose on milling processes and eventually the revenue for the industry and the nation.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 54 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 1.4 CROP PROTECTION 1.4.1 Pathology Fiji leaf gall (FLG, Fiji disease) was first described in Fiji and is widespread in the Fijian islands.

FLG threatened the existence of the Fijian Sugar industry in the late 1800s and there have been periodic outbreaks whenever a susceptible variety has been released.

The primary method of managing FLG is varietal resistance.
Resistant varieties have been successfully used in Australia and Fiji to manage outbreaks of FLG.

Mana the dominant variety in the Fijian sugar industry is intermediate to susceptible to FLG.

FLG is spread by a vector (disease carrying agent), called plant hopper (Perkinsiella vitiensis).

The screening was carried out for LF2013 series.

There were negative linear relationships between standards and days (R²=0.8663) as shown in figure 2 below.

The linear equation is y=-7.0045x+102.69 resistance to FDV.
Out of 97 varieties, 85 varieties were resistant, 13 varieties were moderate, and 2 varieties were susceptible.

San d ard s vs Days o f RD5 0 (Avg.


o f 3 d ays) Ava of 3reps Linear (Ava of 3reps) y = -7.0045x + 102.69 R² = 0.8663 0 5 D R r o f s y a d g n n e e r c S i 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Disease Rating (0 - 3: Resistant, 4-6: Moderate, 7 - 10: Susceptible) Graph 1: Linear regression between standards and days of RD50 The values represented on the graph is the average number of days of screening the test varieties with standards.
These results show that transmission of the virus was successful in the sugarcane varieties and the standard varieties reacted as expected.

1.4.2 Nematology Nematological surveys were carried out in Penang, Rarawai, Lautoka and Labasa mill districts of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu from October 2015 to August 2018.

All fields from which a sample was collected had a long history of sugarcane production.
A total of 380 soil samples were collected representing 3800 fields from the rhizosphere region, 10cm from base of the sugarcane plant and at a depth of 20cm.

Soil samples were collected using shovels.

The soil samples were collected from four sectors of Penang, ten sectors of Rarawai, fourteen sectors of Lautoka and ten sector of Labasa mill districts respectively, from each sector 10 soil samples were collected and each sample was a composite of 20 soil cores.
2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 55 Total numbers of free-living nematodes and numbers of plant parasitic nematodes (by genus) were obtained from fresh samples.

Nematodes were counted and identified at 40X and 100X magnifications using a compound microscope.

Root-knot nematodes, Lesion nematodes and other species were recorded.

Data analysis The data were analyzed according to the occurrence of nematode population based on two factors; frequency and relative density.
The survey was conducted to assess the frequency occurrences of root knot and lesion nematodes on sugarcane fields of Penang, Rarawai, Lautoka and Labasa mill regions.

The frequencies of the nematodes species in all the surveyed areas highly varied from one area to another (Table 1).
Out of 380 analyzed samples, 320 and 295 were found infested with lesion and root knot nematodes respectively in all the 38 sectors, therefore, the overall frequency occurrence of these species were 84.21% and 77.63% respectively.

The frequency occurrence of lesion nematodes was 100% in Koronubu, Tagitagi, Nawaicoba, Yako, Waiqele, Wailevu, Vunimoli, Bucaisau and Daku sectors while rootknot was 100% in Mota, Yaladro, Drasa, Lovu, Natova, Nawaicoba, Yako, Waiqele, Wailevu and Vunimoli sectors.
In the Labasa sector, frequency occurrence of lesion nematode was minimum at 50% whereas occurrence of Rootknot in Cuvu and Ellington 2 sectors were 30% and 10% respectively.

Table 1: Number of root knot and lesion nematodes present in 200cc soil samples from different sectors.
S/N Name of Sectors Rarawai Drumasi Mota Koronubu Naloto Varoko Yaladro Tagitagi Varavu Veisaru Nanuku %population density for Lesion 55.1 77.9 44.1 68.2 53.3 60.5 63.3 36.3 59.6 75.0 19.8 30.7 69 84.3 39.29 37.4 59.57 42.59 28.66 63.4 61.9 41.84 %Frequency for RKN 90 80 100 90 80 90 100 90 90 90 90 90 40 10 100 100 70 70 70 100 40 70 %Frequency for Lesion 80 90 70 100 70 90 90 100 80 90 80 90 90 90 90 90 80 80 60 90 60 80 Mill Region Rarawai Rarawai Rarawai Rarawai Rarawai Rarawai Rarawai Rarawai Rarawai Rarawai Penang Penang Penang Penang Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka %population density for RKN Malau Meigunyah 22 Qeleloa Ellington 1 Ellington 2 Drasa Lovu Lautoka Saweni Legalega Natova SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 56 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Nawaicoba Yako Lomawai Olosara Cuvu Table 1: Number of root knot and lesion nematodes present in 200cc soil samples from different sectors.
S/N Name of Sectors 23 Malolo 24 25 26 27 28 29 Waiqele 30 Wailevu Vunimoli 31 Labasa 32 33 Bucaisau 34 Wainikoro Daku 35 Natua 36 Solove 37 Bulivou 38 %population density for Lesion 32.11 42.78 56.2 54 76.39 80.65 34.02 56.07 63.24 50 59.3 57.97 61.42 44.9 49 70 %population density for RKN 67.9 57.2 43.8 46 23.6 19.4 66 43.9 36.8 50 40.7 42 38.6 55.1 51 30 %Frequency for Lesion 90 100 100 60 60 80 100 100 100 50 100 80 100 90 90 70 %Frequency for RKN 60 100 100 40 50 30 100 100 100 50 90 70 80 80 80 70 Mill Region Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Lautoka Labasa Labasa Labasa Labasa Labasa Labasa Labasa Labasa Labasa Labasa The population density of root knot and lesion nematodes on all the surveyed sectors of four mill regions highly varied from field to field on sugarcane crops.
The highest population density of Rootknot was recorded from Nanuku sector (80.2%), Lesion nematodes were recorded from Ellington 2 (84.3%) and Cuvu sector (80.65) of Penang and Lautoka mill region (Table 1).

Thus, the individual farms in different sectors that had high population of Root knot are Waiqele (960) and Lesion nematodes were found in Wailevu (1485).
Hence, overall the average incidence of the plant parasitic nematodes (Lesion and Rootknot) in Penang mill region was 5.54%, in Rarawai mill region it was 19.93%, in Lautoka mill region it was 34.42% and in Labasa mill region it was 40.12%.

However, soil collected at Ellington 2, had a ratio of one farm out 10 farms with Meloidogyne spp.
Overall, 52.46% of the sample had lesion populations and 47.54% of the sample had root knot population which was high enough to indicate a potential for damage contributing to the largest portion of risk towards sugarcane plants.

The survey results showed that sugarcane is a host plant to economically important Plant Parasitic Nematodes which might decrease production of sugarcane in Fiji, with very slight difference in their population densities.
The survey provides information on frequency occurrences and population density of lesion and root knot nematode associated with sugarcane in four mill regions.

Plant parasitic nematodes (PPN) cause annual yield losses of about $100 billion worldwide, with 70% of the damage attributed to root-knot nematodes.

In Fiji, no such data is available indicating the infestation level.
The survey of four mill districts has indicated that there is a need to establish the management practices to determine the extent of damage contributing to the current yield decline.

The study area has shown the presence of PPN and stated that sugarcane in Fiji is a good host of lesion and root-knot nematode.
The high density of the lesion and root-knot nematode species and the frequency occurrence of this nematode population in this survey were expected in the study areas, since farmers have not been using any control measures for reducing the population.

Moreover, it is observed that the practice of 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 57 mono cropping with long number of ratooning years is too common.

Thus, a nematode management practice in Fiji hasn’t been successful.
Lack of use of nematode control interventions, inadequate knowledge and technical knowhow by farmers could also have contributed to high nematode densities.

1.4.3 Disease Control The system used in the protection of crops against diseases and pests remains the same as that of previous years.

The disease control unit is involved in intensive rouging programme to eradicate all traces of Fiji disease from commercial fields.
The roguing of disease fields and intensive checking of all farms within a mile radius of the known diseased fields and intensive checking of all farms within a mile radius of the known diseased farms.

However, the disease remains endemic in wild canes and Saccharum edule (Duruka) in the neighbourhood of commercial plantings and is always transmitted to the cultivated crop by the Fijian sugarcane leaf hopper, Perkinsiella vitiensis.
The Disease Control Unit covered an area of 8363 ha during their crop inspection.

Of this total 1489 ha plant crops and 6874 ha were ratoon cane.
Table 2: Rouging Report from January-December 2017 Lautoka Months Plant Ratoon Plant Ratoon Plant Ratoon Nadi Labasa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Penang Table 2: Rouging Report from January-December 2017 – CONT’D Ba/Tavua Sigatoka Months Plant Ratoon Plant Ratoon Plant Ratoon Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 58 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT The incidence of Fiji Leaf Gall Disease is increasing in the sugarcane farms given the availability of the pathogen (Fiji Disease virus) from infected seed cane, high leaf hopper population and weather conditions.
Also the planting of Saccharum edule (Duruka), an alternate host of Fiji Leaf Gall Disease planted along and near cane fields contributes to the spread of the disease found in some Districts.

Table 3: Summarized Rouging Report from January-December 2017 Mill District Lautoka Nadi Labasa Sigatoka Ba/Tavua Penang Total No.

of Farms Inspected Area Rouged (Ha) Plant Ratoon No.
of FLGD stools Rouged 483 277 748 350 421 534 2813 56.44 236.19 751.08 177.64 142.18 125.57 1489 1724.14 1011.47 1726.85 765.34 1059.18 586.69 6874 59 120 0 520 48 0 747 Sigatoka have the most stools infected in 2017.

Out of the total 2813 farms inspected 747 stools were rouged.

Rouging was carried out at its normal routine basis.

There was no major disease outbreak in Vanua Levu except for minor incidences of Brown rust which alleviated after the rains.

There was no yield loss reported by the farmers.


1.4.5 Biosecurity Sugarcane smut Sugarcane smut is a disturbing, fungal disease caused by Sporisorium scitamineum (Ustilago scitamineum).

Smut, the most easily recognized disease of sugarcane has a black whip that is of pencil thickness.

It is sliver- greyish black and powdery in colour.

On maturity it ruptures and a large number of the minute black smut spores (teliospores) are liberated and disseminated by the wind.
It causes a great deal of damage to susceptible varieties.

The teliospores may survive in the soil for long periods, up to 10 years.

The spores and sporidia are also present in the infected plant debris in the soil.

The smut spores and dormant mycelium also present in or on the infected setts.

The primary spread of the disease is through diseased seed-pieces (setts).

Spores present in the soil also spread through rain and irrigation water and cause soil-borne infection.
The secondary spread in the field is mainly through the smut spores developed in the whips, aided by air currents.

Favourable Conditions -continuous ratooning and dry weather during tillering stage favours the disease.

The Burkard 7 - day Spore samplers are used for an early detection of smut pathogen in the country.

Spore traps consists of a tape which has a sticky surface thus traps the spores.

Spore identification is done by the two techniques: light microscopy and molecular tests.
2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 59 A molecular test intensifies capacities of spore trapping and is a certain method for smut spore confirmation.

The polymerase chain reaction test will be used.

PCR can detect small amounts of sugarcane smut DNA extracted from spores fixed on the spore trap tape.

Three Spore traps were procured on the 16th of June, 2016.
These traps contain a jelly coated tape placed in the periphery of the drum which will be inspected under microscope as well as through a molecular diagnosis known as PCR the tapes will be changed every changed every 7 days.

The DNA samples will initially be screened with the universal ITS primers ITS1F and ITS4.

The specific sugarcane smut test will use the primers ITS1F and Rev2 (5’-GATCCGCCAGCTCTTTCGTAAT-3’).
The three smut traps will be moved around every three months (subject to changes) to international importing vicinities to ensure all possible areas is covered.

A draft SMUT incursion plan for the Fijian Sugar Industry has been put in place to encounter the disease.

SRIF is working closely with BAF to make certain all precautions are taken.

An MOU between the two organizations is underway.


Figure 1: Sporisorium scitamineum spores from Woodford, Australia, viewed under microscope 10x objective at SRIF, Lautoka, Fiji.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 60 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Figure 2: First spore trap placed at meteorology station, SRIF, Lautoka.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 61 Figure 3: second smut spore trap placed at the Fiji Ports Authority, Lautoka, Fiji.

Figure 4: Second spore trap from an altered angle.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 62 1.0 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Table 4: Resistance rating of Fijian sugarcane varieties to Sugarcane Smut Variety KIUVA VOMO VATU AIWA BEQA GALOA LF94-694 MANA RAGNAR MQ33-371 KABA LF91-1925 NAIDIRI YASAWA LF05-1502 MALI Rating Number 1 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 Rating Class* HR HR IR I I I I I I IS S S S S HS HS *Rating classes – HR= highly resistant, IR = intermediate to resistant, I = intermediate, IS = intermediate to susceptible, S = susceptible, HS = highly susceptible Table 4 above shows the resistance rating of Fijian sugarcane varieties sent to Sugar Research Australia (SRA) for testing.
The testing was carried out against resistance to Sugarcane Smut which produced results ranging from highly resistant (rating number 1) to highly susceptible (rating number 8) varieties.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2.0 Crop Production Page 63 2.0 CROP PRODUCTION 2.1 SEED CANE PRODUCTION 2.1.1 Labasa As the weather was favorable for the (March – April) planting season in 2016, the available seed cane at SRIF Labasa estate was around 1000 tonnes.
Total of 752 tonnes of cane was sent to the mill for crushing which passed the age of 7 – 9 months and was not of good quality seed cane for planting.

Around 100 tonnes of Qamea/ Viwa was sold to farmers during Oct – Nov planting window.

In estate 40 tonnes of seed cane was used for planting (Viwa/ Qamea).

About 10 tonnes of seed cane (Qamea), 2 tonnes Naidiri, 5 tonnes Viwa, 4 tonnes Ragnar and 2 tonnes of LF91 - 1925 was used to plant demonstration plots at 8 different locations of Vanua Levu.
2.1.2 Lautoka It is important that quality seed cane is used for establishment of good crop.

Surveys were carried out in the replanting season in Penang district and Drasa sector to assess quality of seed cane material.

Teams comprising of SRIF research staffs and FSC extension staffs visited individual farms with seed cane.
The assessment was based on healthy growth of cane, healthy eye buds, absence of growth cracks, amount of green leaves, and age of cane in terms of months, weeds and general upkeep of farm.

2.1.3 Rarawai The following table summarises the seedcane nurseries developed in the Rarawai/ Tavua district in 2017.

Table 2.1.3: Seedcane nurseries Farmer Variety Jai Krishna Mana Salesh Qamea, LF91-1925 Estate - Kaba Kaba Estate - Mana Mana Sector Rarawai Mota Estate Estate Farm No.
Area 1566 903 1695 1695 Date Planted Dec-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Dec-17 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 The nurseries were developed with seedcane from mother plots established from Hot Water Treated seedcane.

Generally all the seedcane nurseries were well kept in terms of timely husbandry practices advised, implemented and monitored.

2.1.4 Penang A visit was made to Penang district on 05th October, 2017 to inspect the quality of available seed material for replanting season in October.
Four SRIF staffs accompanied by FSC field staffs carried out the assessment in all four sectors.

Quality seed cane were identified by the team in each sector.

Poor seed cane that were under stress were not selected.

The following table provides details of the seed cane that were assessed; SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Comments 0.8ha accepted Harvested Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Not good quality seed materia, notice that eye buds drying and cane are lodge.
Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Harvested Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Harvested Harvested Rejected Harvested Accepted Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Accepted Rejected 0.2ha accepted Young cane, seed materials can be used in next year planting season Accepted Page 64 2.0 Crop Production Table 2.1.4: Seed cane assessment Mill Penang Penang Sector Locality/Zone Farm No.
Ha Tonnes Age Crop 7 Plant 7 Plant 412 Naria 412 Rewasa 121 2.8 272 0.4 140 20 Penang 412 Dugavatu 236 0.4 20 8 Plant Penang 412 Malau 200 2 100 7 Plant Penang Penang 412 Malau 412 Malau 193 0.4 1002 0.4 20 20 7 Plant 8 Plant Penang 412 Ellington 44 0.6 30 8 Plant Penang 412 Labau 32 0.4 20 7 Plant Penang Penang Penang Penang Penang Penang 412 Dugavatu 412 Korotale 412 Korotale 412 Waimari 412 Malau 412 Malau 264 0.4 11285 0.4 1360 0.4 474 0.4 190 0.6 177 0.4 20 20 20 20 30 20 7 Plant 7 Plant 7 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 7 Plant Penang 412 Malau 179 0.4 20 7 Plant Penang 413 Vunitogoloa 15056 0.2 10 9 Plant Penang Penang Penang Penang 413 Vunitogoloa 413 Nanuku 413 Nanuku 413 Wailevu Penang Penang Total of 22 farms 413 Wailevu 413 Nanuku 15090 0.2 868 0.2 878 0.2 888 1.2 934 0.8 881 0.2 13 10 10 10 40 30 10 640 8 Plant 7 Plant 7 Plant 7 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 3.0 Technology Transfer Page 65 3.0 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER The aim of this project is to effectively transfer research outputs to cane growers in all the sugar mill areas.
Demonstration plots are laid out where farmers visit the demo sites to see, learn and adopt ways to improve their unit production.

The key focus areas of the demonstration plots are to cover following topics  Weed control  Varieties  Effect of clean seed  Application of recommended fertilizers In recent years the cane production and yield per hectare has declined drastically in the Fiji Sugar Industry.
Keeping this in mind, Sugar Research Institute of Fiji has embarked on technology transfer meetings to educate farmers in all aspects of sugar cane husbandry so that farmers can increase and sustain production at reasonable levels which will be beneficial for all.

Various training was held by SRIF, and SRIF and other stakeholders such as FSC.

Meetings were held by inviting farmers in a locality in various sectors.
Research staffs participated actively in the trainings by giving presenting on best farming practices, soil fertility, weeds, quality seed cane, varieties and pest and diseases.

17 grower meetings were held from the month of April to June in several sectors.

The meetings were generally held at farmers’ residence in the evenings.

Demonstrations on leaf and soil sampling, quantity of weedicide used per knapsack, pests and diseases were shown to farmers.
Meetings were followed by question and answer sessions where farmers were allowed to raise their issues and concerns in regards to sugarcane farming.

Farmers concerns were noted, and best advices were provided to improve productivity.

Booklets and pamphlets were distributed among the farmers to enhance their knowledge.

Details of the meetings are attached in appendix.

Fertilizer application is vital for healthy growth of cane.

Sugarcane removes a large quantity of nutrients from soil at harvest.
Sugarcane leaf sampling is conducted to determine correct amount of fertilizer required for the ratoon crop.

Thus, it is important to conduct leaf sampling appropriately.

FSC extension staffs were trained on importance of leaf sampling, leaf sampling period, correct procedure for leaf sampling and treatment of samples.

A demonstration of correct leaf sampling procedure was demonstrated in the field.

The training was well received by the participants.
Questions were raised about leaf sampling as well as in other areas such as fertilizer, varieties, and soil sampling.

2.1 LABASA EXTENSION Strategies have been put in place by the Institute to assist in Labasa mill achieving the 1Mt of cane.
This includes: Improving technology transfer and farmer training Training Staff Decreasing production cost (Economies of scale) SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 66 3.0 Technology Transfer Increasing cane yield of productive growers – vertical growth to 75 t/ha by timely operations and best management practices.

Increase area for early and mid-maturing cane varieties Application of recommended fertilizers and conditioners Maintain vigilance in field control of pest and diseases.
Zero tolerance to weed Intercropping and relay cropping Rehabilitation of unproductive cane land via Joint Venture Farmers were met during field days and the Institute representative meets them on a one-to-one basis which is more effective as discuss individual challenges with specific remedies recommended.

The millers requested the Institute to take surveys from time to time on issues of concern such as cane quality in the field compared to mill figures.
A preliminary survey was conducted by Sugar Research Institute of Fiji to investigate the sugarcane quality in the Labasa mill area in the ten sectors (Daku, Wainikoro, Bucaisau, Labasa, Vunimoli, Waiqele, Wailevu, Natua, Solove and Bucaisau) The results of the preliminary survey showed that the sugarcane quality collated from the field sample were similar to the mill results.
It showed that Bulivou, Solove and Daku had a higher POCS compared to the other sector while Naidiri, Ragnar and Vatu varieties had a higher POCS compared to the other varieties.

Naidiri variety had the highest average number of suckers or bull shoots compared to the other varieties.

It was noted that the climatic conditions favored tillering in the sugar cane plants.
The presence of gaps and the lodging of the sugar cane plant resulted in the profuse tillering of sugar cane stools as they became exposed to sunlight and cool night temperatures.

The effects of tillering (suckers and bull shoots) during the harvesting season may dilute sugar extraction by adding to the extraneous matter and fibre content of the cane that is being milled.
Capacity building for the Field team in terms of cane quality and other best management practices for field activities are usually coordinated by FSC with facilitators from the Institute.

The Institute had a workshop on sugarcane variety identification and leaf sampling for the Field team in the last quarter of 2017.
Figure 1: Variety identification refresher with FSC Field team 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 3.0 Technology Transfer Page 67 2.1.1 Labasa Grower Demonstration Planting of demonstration plots in the ten different sectors are used as capacity building opportunities by the industry stakeholders and an avenue where farmers are updated on issues concerning the industry.
Figure 2: Sugar stakeholders lending a hand in a demonstration trial planting in Seaqaqa SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 68 3.0 Technology Transfer 2.2 LAUTOKA EXTENSION Sustainable production is required to maintain viability of the sugarcane industry but in the last decade cane production has been declining and is now at a critical level.

Major improvement and turn around in production is needed immediately.

The unit cane production has reached an all-time low of less than 40tc/ha in the past few years.
Mono-cropping of sugarcane over long periods has been a trend that is likely to continue in the future.

To mitigate this problem and provide constant improvement in crop productivity, quality and profitability for the sugar industry, research findings have to be disseminated to the growers in order to lift the production.

The research findings can be relayed to the growers through the technology transfer program.
It is expected that the major outputs of the technology transfer program will be providing the growers with sound “hands-on” knowledge that could be adopted and applied in improving their productivity.

Green manuring is a process whereby leguminous plants such as Pulses, Lentils, Peas, Peanuts and Mucuna that are capable of trapping Nitrogen from the atmosphere are incorporated within the soil.

The green manure will convert to organic matter.


During the year a major field day was held in Drasa Lautoka where the following was demonstrated: Incorporation of green manuring crop urd   Results of planting on raised bed that was planted with a green manure urd during fallow period  Application of lime  Mechanical planting of sugarcane  Pre-emergence application of weedicides More than 120 farmers attended this field day.
2.3 RARAWAI EXTENSION Sugar Research Institute of Fiji is actively involved with Technology Transfer initiative which involves visit to growers, attending farmer complaints, planting demonstration plots and seedcane nurseries.

Rarawai sub-station was extensively involved with Technology transfer as discussed below.

The following table summarizes the notes on visits carried out by Rarawai team: 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 3.0 Technology Transfer Page 69 is financial constraints.
The most common problem raised by farmers If authorities can provide alternative commodities to subsidizing income.

Strongly recommend mix cropping.

Table 2.3: Grower visit report Farm survey for Nil producing Farmers Total of 13 farmers were visited and interviewed.

famer through finding Major interview are as follows: 1.

Portable irrigation system could be provided and can be managing by cooperative.

2.
2.

Loose stones lying all over the field which causes damage to farming implements, suggestion given if this stone can be crushed and used for cane access road.

3.

Interested in planting cane but availability of tractor to plough is a major concern.

4.

Due to top soil compaction and cover with shrubs and weeds in few places farmers request if they can be assist with bulldozer to ripper.

5.

The cane farm property under Estate and the beneficiaries most of them in overseas.
The caretaker or cultivator does not get fair share.

The visits were mostly for nil producers who were identified by FSC.

There is an important need to keep visiting these growers and provide morale boost to bring back these lands under cane again.
2.3.1 Rarawai Grower Demonstration The following farms were planted with demonstration plots: Table 2.3.1: Summary of grower demonstration plots Sector Farmer Topic Tagitagi Koronubu Naloto Koronubu Veisaru Rarawai Varietal spread Varietal Spread Inter-cropping Varietal spread Inter-cropping Weed control Vinod Kumar Munsami Surya Sharma Rajesh Gyan Singh Salesh Farm No.
3172 6198 18393 6404 1795 Area 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.56 0.4 Date Planted 19/04/2017 28/04/2017 05/03/2017 Jul-17 Aug, 2017 23/11/2017 Field Day 14/7/2017 21/7/2017 26/7/2017 Abandoned 27/10/2017 Pending The field days were carried out to elaborate on the topics specified in above table.

The adoption of these technologies by the attending farmers need to be monitored since there is no proper mechanism in place to do so.
One way this could be done is to provide the list of farmers attending to FSC extension officers also and then making routine visits to see any of the technologies has been adopted/ not adopted and noting down the reasons and working towards addressing the same.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 70 3.0 Technology Transfer 2.4 CANE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME A collaboration project with the Fiji Sugar Cooperation (FSC) kick-started in October, 2017.
Meetings were conducted between stakeholders to the way-forward for the joint project.

It was discussed that FSC will provide SRIF with 4 nil producers per sector.

Activity started with sector level introductory visits.

Gang and locality meetings were also attended with FSC extension team.

Any issues/queries/questions raised by the grower was solved then-and-there.

These issues were reported.

The main objective was to increase sugarcane production from the present 40 tons/ha to at least 70tons/ha.
These nil producers had other factors that affected the uptake of advice given.

The most common ones were the dispute within the family members, lack of labour and; the diversion of tenants to other industries.

2.4.1 Lautoka District A target was set for bringing five nil producing farms per sector into production.

The sectors allocated included five sectors from Lautoka district; Drasa, Lovu, Lautoka, Saweni and Natova.

A total of 12 farms were visited during the period October to December.
This project was started officially in October.

Farmers were interviewed and survey forms were filled to collect data.

Table 2.4.1: List of farmers visited in Lautoka District Farm no.

9024 18859 18891 8321 18130 18173 18247 18220 702 721 709 856 Farmer names Est Satya Nand Satyia Narayan Kamal Kumar Est Sesaiya Morawa Sauqaqa Morawa Sauqaqa Taniela Bolatama Mohd Kamal Est.

Muniappa Est Ram Sukh Lakeshwari Sundresh Est.


Ishnirankar Location Drasa Dam Lololo Vakabuli Raviravi Lovu Lovu Natabua Wairabetia Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Sabeto Central Sca 4.3 2.8 6.5 2 4 4 4 2 4.9 4.7 3.6 4.8 Gang no.

131 90 568 38 39 39 36 33 211 190 41 216 Discussions were held with farmers on constraints they faced in farming.

The issues were further analyzed and ways to improve their production was discussed.

Information on best farming practices were deliberated.
Nine farmers were keen to improve their production provided assistance is available to them in terms of machinery and labour.

It was noted that farmers could not continue producing sugarcane due to unavailability of farm machinery and labour in their sector.

Each farm will be surveyed further to draw plan on improving individual farm productivity.

2.4.2 Nadi District  A total of 12 nil producer farmers were selected and given by FSC for Nadi district.
Out of 12 farmers only five farmers have showed interest to plant sugarcane.

 From five farmers, two have already planted sugarcane.

A mini demonstration was also carried out on pre-emergent application after planting.

Plan  Revisit all the interested farmers 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 3.0 Technology Transfer Page 71  Conduct post-emergent application on planted field.
Table 2.4.2: List of Farmers visited in Nadi District Farm No Contract name Location Legalega Sector Date visited Comments 18482 Kavekini Navaibaibai Votualevu 16/11/17 21017 Tevita Usa Votualevu Pending Meigunyah Sector 18767 Pauliasi Navau Solovi 16/11/17 23124 Arun Saheb Tovatova Pending Will be meeting this farmer on Monday 20th November.

Visited this farmer and he is interested to do the planting of sugarcane.
On 7th December field measurement was carried out using GPS - Farmer is working for Sofitel resort.

Visited his place but he was not at home.

Need to revisit.

Interested in planting sugarcane.

Requested if we could measure the field and advise the area that he can do the planting.

Issue is that his waiting for the Will paper under his name.

He need support to start with sugarcane farming such as assistant in land preparation, seed cane material, fertilizer & chemical.
On 7th December field measurement was carried out using GPS - On 20/11 visited farmer who have already prepared field of 0.9ha for planting On 22/11 visited the prepared field, it was infested with weeds.

Advise farmer through phone conversation regarding weed control.

Apply Amine and Velpar king after planting and take out deep drills.

On 30/11 did mini demo on pre-emergent application.

The dosage of Velpar K 200g and Amine 250ml per 15L Knapsack.
The farms were visited for confirmation on their interest in planting.

A follow up visit will be conducted from 15/11/17 to 17/11/17 for detailed discussion on the plan to be conducted on the respective farm.

Table 2.4.2: List of Farmers visited in Nadi District CONT’D Farm No Contract name Location Nawaicoba Sector Date visited Comments 10535 Jone Nalabe Navo 15/11/17 Farmer is interested to do sugarcane.

Currently, carried out 1st ploughing more than 2ac.
Requesting if support is provided such fund to start with planting, seed materials & land preparation.

He did not get any grant money for 1st ploughing.

On 7th December field measurement was carried out using GPS – 0.93ha.

Identified the clean seed material for the farmer.

On 13th December visited with FSC T/L and arrange truck, Blend A. farmer stared planting on 18th December.

On 21st December conducted mini demonstration pre-emergent application.

Applied Diuron at a rate of 200g/ 15L knapsack.


SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 72 3.0 Technology Transfer 4419 Est.

of Bishamber Nacovi 15/11/17 10563 Binesh Singh & Ravindra Singh Nacovi 15/11/17 & 16/11/17 Farmer is bed ridden.

Wife is managing the farm.

2017 crop she was not able to harvest.

Farmer complaint that half of the field is swampy which no planting can take place.

Farmer complaint that the salt water is causing trouble.

Sugarcane field is getting field with sea water since hotels are made.
4405 Est.

of Bishamber Nacovi Malolo Sector 2604 Est.of Jai Raji 12673 Tuliana Saukuru Alipate Tora Ravudra 3450 2607 15/11/17 Farmer is interested in sugarcane farming.

But have issues with the trustee.


T/L will replace this farm since he started working with this farmer Farm is developing in residential plot according to Ratu Meli 07/11/2017 07/11/2017 Farmer was not at home, he was driving taxi T/L will replace this farm since he started working with this farmer The farms were visited for confirmation on their interest in planting.

Follow up visits were conducted from 15/11/17 to 17/11/17 for detailed discussion on individual plans for respective farm.
2.4.3 Rarawai The following table summarizes the notes on visits carried out by Rarawai team: is financial constraints.

The most common problem raised by farmers If authorities can provide alternative commodities to subsidizing income.

Strongly recommend mix cropping.

Table 2.4.3: Notes on farms visited in Rarawai district Farm survey for Nil producing Farmers Total of 13 farmers were visited and interviewed.

famer through Major finding interview are as follows: 1.
Portable irrigation system could be provided and can be managing by cooperative.

2.

Loose stones lying all over the field which causes damage to farming implements, suggestion given if this stone can be crushed and used for cane access road.

3.

Interested in planting cane but availability of tractor to plough is a major concern.

4.

Due to top soil compaction and cover with shrubs and weeds in few places farmers request if they can be assist with bulldozer to ripper.

5.
5.

The cane farm property under Estate and the beneficiaries most of them in overseas.

The caretaker or cultivator does not get fair share.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 3.0 Technology Transfer Page 73 The visits were mostly for nil producers who were identified by FSC.

There is an important need to keep visiting these growers and provide morale boost to bring back these lands under cane again.
2.4.4 Labasa The selection of farms in Labasa was made in conjunction with the FSC Field division who knew the farmers in their different sectors.

A weekly meeting with the FSC Field division highlighted the challenges faced and solutions agreed to.

Figure 3: Cane Development Programme discussion with FSC Field staff SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Farm no.
Page 74 3.0 Technology Transfer Table 2.4.4: List of farmers visited in Labasa Sector Wainikoro Daku Bucaisau Labasa Waiqele Vunimoli Wailevu Natua Solove Bulivou Farmer's name Tarusila Delanimati Est Vishnu V Deo Krishna Nand Asvin S Chand Lakshmeer N Sudhakar Tui Balivanua Apolosi Ratu Deo Dutt Salen G. Singh Losena Watisai Ajay Nand Muni Deo Jang B Singh Jagdish Reddy Laisiasa Tuicokoti Rakesh R Prasad Ana Sorovi & Brian Collin Azam M Azim Vinay V Chand Vishal Prasad Jitendra Kumar James H C Ratudoi Est Tomasi Maiwini Taniela Levea Mohd N Khan Rosa Wainoqolo Est of Pooran Amka Prasad Sobhagiam Yellamma Narendra Prasad Moti Lal Nivendran Pillay Nilesh Chand Kiran Wati Jovolisi Katonibau Est Ram Narayan Est David Sahayam Narend Deo Narendra Prasad 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2.4.5 Penang The farms that were selected in the Penang mill area were based on the criteria agreed to between SRIF and FSCs Field division.
The farms were selected by FSC.

3.0 Technology Transfer Page 75 Table 2.4.5: List of farmers visited in Penang Sector Farmer Name Farm No.

Date Visited Area Under Cane Notes Nanuku Samuela Sago 15051 06/11/17 4 acres Malau Matu 5 1 acre Francis Warren 11315 4 hectares Estate of Appal Sami 441 06/11/17 2 acres Estate of Pachappan Goundar 390 16/11/17 8 acres Ellington 2 Joint Venture Joint Venture 13 acres - individual farmer - water source (river) nearby but dry.

Farmer has no irrigation facility also.


- 4 acres’ fallow land.

Farmer plans to plant Mana next year.

- farmer interested intercropping and asking SRIF to provide watermelon seeds.

-undulating land - creek at edge of the field - farmer sprayed weedicide -water tank in middle of field -undulating land -famer applied weedicide - farm ownership – family - lease area is 18 acres but area under cane is 2 acres only while the other 6 acres is ploughed for planting.
- fallow land has been left for 2 years - farmer has irrigation facility and it is in use.

River is nearby.

- individual farmer - farm has no proper drainage system - river source nearby but farmer has no irrigation facility.
- 2 acres of fallow land - weedicide used was amine, diuron and glyphosate - joint venture farming - planted in Dreketi - planted with Naidiri SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 76 4.0 SRIF Estates 4.0 SRIF ESTATES 3.1 DRASA ESTATE Drasa estate has a total area of 34 hectares for cane production.

This report presents all the activities of Drasa Estate during 2017 season.

The total cane produced by Drasa in 2017 was 1565 tonnes from an area of 30 hectares that gave a yield of 52.2 tonnes per hectare.
The cane included commercial varieties and research cane.

Harvesting was carried out mechanically.

Out of 1565 tonnes, all were green cane.

The research trials occupied 2.7 hectares (7.9%) of available area and the cane production was 100.71 hectares that gave 37.3 tonnes per hectare.

The research trials consisted of germplasm and stage 4 trial.

4 hectares of the available area is under fallow condition.

It is important that soil fertility is improved to enhance cane productivity.
Efforts are being undertaken to improve soil fertility in Drasa estate by ploughing out sections of the field and planting cover crops using urd, moong and Mucuna.

Farmers were invited for field days to learn on the importance of planting cover crops, methods of planting and incorporating cover crops into the soil.

3.2 LABASA ESTATE The Labasa Estate was fully utilized under the Seed cane program with a total of 1000 tonnes produced.
Of these, 752 tonnes was sent to the mill because it had gone past the 7 – 9 month old for good seed material.
2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 5.0 Media & Publication Page 77 5.0 MEDIA & PUBLICATION SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 78 5.0 Media & Publication 4.1 MEDIA & PUBLICATION This project involves in shooting videos and taking pictures to help SRIF in marketing, updating SRIF website, providing farmers with relevant information on activities carried out by SRIF on the farmer field day and TT services and also to the stakeholders.
Pictures and footage taking occurs only weekly/daily/ monthly and depending on which projects are ongoing and also depending on staff requests.

To update and Keep the library of footage and all videos/pictures must be copyright protected.

Video which has been produced and also in process are as follows: Smut and cane grubs - smut video shows the symptoms of the disease, how it’s spread and the best method to control it.
Cane grub - video explains what cane grubs look like, the impact of the insect pest on the sugarcane fields and the husbandry practices to keep the insect population minimal.

FLG - what Fiji leaf Gall disease is, its symptoms, how it is spread and management practices involved.

Green Manuring (finalize the final draft) – is the use of leguminous plants (up to 4 months) to improve soil health.

Leaf Sampling (finalize the final draft) – is done for ratoon canes only.
This is carried out for optimum fertilizer application recommendation for next year’s cane.

These SRIF videos listed are under SRIF volume 2 which will contain the contents, this DVD are given to the farmers on the field days with the information package and also in the Technology transfer.

For past years the university and secondary schools has been visiting our institute, so a DVD package is given to school or university and also SRIF video is shown during the introduction.
This way both farmers and young generation will have the fair idea of what problems and issues is faced, challenges and goals achieved by the institute for this many years of services and also method of improving it in future with new better technology.
The videos which are produce and distributed under SRIF volume 1 are as follows:  Best farming practice  Seed cane  Termite  Intercropping  Soil sampling Extra videos done under EU/SRIF funding for visibility:  ACP-SRP projects  ISSCT Promotional video Figure 1: Cane Grubs Figure 2: Fiji Leaf Gall 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 5.0 Media & Publication Page 79 Figure 3: Typical symptom of SMUT (Not in Fiji) Figure 4: Green Manuring Figure 5: farmer interview 4.1.1 DISTRIBUTION OF DVD SRIF VOL 1 DVD is given to farmers in the informative folder together with leaflets, factsheets and bouncers.
This take place in the events such as farmer field day, when visitors from other countries comes to visit the Institute or in any events or function related to the industry and which benefits the farmers.

This helps our institute in many ways such as promoting, visiblity, to be aware of whats happening and most importantly to provide farmer with the best knowledge and resources.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Total registrations (Numbers) Total farm basic allotments (tonnes) Total registered area (hectares) Total area cultivated (hectares) Total area harvested (hectares) Total farm harvest quotas (tonnes) Sugar make actual (tonnes) Tonnes 94 N.T sugar Yield tonnes 94 N.T.sugar per hectare Tonnes cane per tonnes sugar 94 N.T.
Cane purity average for season Tonnes cane harvested Tonnes cane crushed Page 80 6.0 FACP 6.0 FACP Appendix 1: Main features of 2017 season compared with 2016 Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills N/A N/A 139504 174102 Open 40595 52021 25979 57167 76466 67011 N/A 4.0 5.1 2.6 5.6 5.7 4.6 N/A 10.1 8.4 12.4 8.7 8.5 9.3 N/A %POCS 10.8 11.84 9.8 11.4 11.7 11.1 N/A 81.8 83.2 78.5 82.2 84.6 82.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 143040 176,199 3.9 5.1 10.3 8.8 10.8 11.4 81.6 82.5 372288 429570 269800 407861 653353 675731 91806 118231 1387247 1631393 395646 429570 338038 499806 653353 675371 NIL NIL 1387037 1604747 Appendix 2: Monthly rainfall(mm) for 2017 compared with long term average No.
of years Mills Lautoka 2017 actual 108 yrs avg.

to 2017 Rarawai 2017 actual 131 yrs avg.

to 2017 Labasa 2017 actual 128 yrs avg.

to 2017 Penang 2017 actual 119 yrs avg.
to 2017 Jan 166 306 347 356 122 360 171 432 Feb Mar Apr May Jun 31 65 14 38 83 65 11 69 2 72 9 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Appendix 3: Crop production details Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 6.0 FACP Page 81 403 919 648 8044 10014 637 539 817 8120 10113 14298 30791 19765 204946 269800 Areas harvested (hectares) 515 Plant 924 First ratoon 577 2nd ratoon 8105 Other ratoons 10121 Total Cane harvested (tonnes) 34370 25214 Plant 28068 42834 First ratoon 37557 24100 2nd ratoon 329185 280140 Other ratoons Total 429570 372288 Yield tonnes cane per hectare (tch) 49.6 48.9 54.6 Plant 49.8 46.3 52.1 First ratoon 30.5 41.7 46.0 2nd ratoon 25.5 34.6 40.5 Other ratoons Avg.
yield/ha 26.9 42.5 36.8 Varieties crushed (% of total cane harvested) 0.7 0.7 Ragnar 0.3 0.7 Aiwa nil 0.1 Beqa nil 0.2 Galoa 6.1 3.2 Kaba nil Mali 0.6 89.5 90.0 Mana 1.1 2.3 Naidiri nil nil Vatu 0.3 nil Waya 0.9 1.8 LF91-1925 nil 0.9 Kiuva nil nil Viwa nil nil Qamea 0.5 0.3 Expt./Others 100 100 Total 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.2 2.5 nil 91.0 2.4 nil nil nil 6.3 nil 89.5 1.0 Nil 0.1 1.2 nil nil nil 0.3 100 55.1 57.5 49.1 46.1 48.6 23.5 0.3 nil 7.0 0.5 11.1 nil 33.9 14.6 6.4 1.8 0.7 nil nil 0.3 100 48.3 51.0 44.3 47.3 47.4 21.0 0.2 nil 5.9 0.5 9.7 nil 40.7 12.4 6.4 2.2 0.5 nil nil 0.5 100 32.2 27.6 22.3 28.9 28.6 0.1 0.8 nil 0.7 0.8 nil 89.0 8.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 nil nil 0.1 100 37.2 33.0 30.8 35.5 34.1 1.2 0.1 Nil 0.1 0.4 0.1 94.6 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 Nil Nil 0.0 100 46.5 45.3 35.9 33.8 35.2 8.8 0.5 nil 2.6 2.7 4.2 57.2 13.2 6.1 2.8 1.3 0.5 nil nil 0.3 100 48.5 47.1 42.0 41.8 42.7 5.8 0.4 0.0 1.8 2.5 2.5 68.8 11.7 3.1 1.7 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 100 Appendix 4: Rainfall (mm) at mill centres Mill Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang For 12 months ended 31st December For 12 months ended 30th September SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 82 6.0 FACP Oct-16 Sep-16 Dec-16 Nov-16 Aug-16 Appendix 5: Rainfall distribution affecting 2017 crop(mm) Period Month Early Jul-16 Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late
 Early Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Late May-17 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Jun-17 Apr-17 Lautoka 6 ….
220 388.25 190 ….

….

1 ….

272.25 98.34 269.5 137.5 291.5 86 64 318.75 24 311.4 54.43 136 511.8 204.8 126 350.3 165 95 38.34 18 55 8 100 184.67 350 ….

….

Rarawai 5 ….

….

248 210.67 ….

10 ….

96 445 103 67.67 15.34 11 34 14.4 11 34 496.34 182 291.25 567.75 237.23 96.6 383.63 194 140.5 86.67 65 60.6 ….

9 147 13 ….

57.5 Labasa 2 7 34 335.25 165.5 298.75 ….


63.34 25 0568 106.86 111.8 140 284 101.6 231.4 363.4 80.2 102.17 305.4 213.2 314.25 249.5 445.17 233.87 127.5 132.72 27 15.5 35.5 138.5 15.58 251 87.2 8 0276 Penang 1.36 0.5 1 0.6 ….
0.6 26.75 2.5 7.5 1.375 18.5 40.5 0.47 67.163 2.16 15.08 1.837 8.44 37.76 22.53 19 29.53 7.8 8.3 0.867 7.467 1.85 3.88 2.07 32.75 4.2 2 1.2 Early - 1st to 10th of the month Mid - 11th to 20th of the month Late - 21st to end of the month 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 6.0 FACP Page 83 Appendix 6 : hectares harvested Average for period of five seasons Last four seasons individually Mills Crop Lautoka P R Total Rarawai P R Total P R Total Labasa Penang P R Total All mills P R Total 1991/ 1995 3634 20580 24214 2899 17360 20259 3120 19604 22724 1386 4958 6344 11039 62502 73541 1996/ 2000 2944 19701 22645 3164 14613 17777 2597 18348 20945 1120 4674 5794 9825 57336 67161 2001/ 2005 1042 19730 20772 1055 17585 18640 1269 15911 17180 542 4568 5110 3908 57794 61702 2006/ 2010 788 14614 15402 1127 14553 15680 1116 14039 15155 339 3991 4330 3369 47197 50567 2011/ Appendix 7: Tonnes of cane harvested Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills Average for period of five seasons 2006/ 2010 763321 738316 695728 213253 2410619 1996/ 2000 1216597 957507 1017061 309205 3500370 2001/ 2005 971454 878509 840388 239044 2929395 Last four seasons individually 2011/ 1991/ 1995 1283569 1017374 1166055 291206 3758204 Appendix 8 : Tonnes of cane per hectare harvested Average for period of five seasons Last four seasons individually Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All Mills Crop P R Total P R Total P R Total P R Total P R Total
 1991/ 1995 64.7 51.2 52.4 61.2 48.1 50.1 59.3 50.4 51.3 57.2 43.1 46.0 61.2 48.1 50.2 1996/ 2000 64.2 51.4 53.7 62.1 52.9 53.9 56.5 47.4 48.6 62.6 51.2 53.3 61.8 50.0 52.1 2001/ 2005 63.9 45.9 46.8 59.6 46.4 47.1 59.7 47.6 48.9 54.2 46.4 46.8 58.3 46.0 47.5 2006/ 2010 67.2 47.6 49.1 58.8 44.8 46.5 56.7 43.5 45.8 56.3 48.3 49.1 59.5 45.8 47.3 2011/ SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 84 6.0 FACP Appendix 9 : Hectares harvested in relation to registered area and cultivated area (ha) Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang Total Registered (1) 22927 22093 19268 8017 72305 2017 hectares (A) Cultivated (2) 10990 12218 13666 3428 40302 Hectares harvested as % of various categories "A" (1) 44.1 46.5 73.9 42.5 52.6 (2) 92.0 84.1 104.0 99.3 94.4 Harvested 10113 10277 14246 3404 38040 Appendix 10 : Plant cane harvested as percentage of total cane harvested Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills 1991/ 1995 15.0 14.0 14.0 23.0 16.0 Average for period of five seasons 2006/ 2010 5.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.4 1996/ 2000 13.0 18.0 12.0 19.0 15.0 2001/ 2005 5.0 6.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 2011/ 2015 8.5 9.7 13.4 10.7 10.5 Last four seasons individually 2014 2015 2016 2017 7.8 8.3 11.1 9.2 9.1 10.7 11.1 15.6 17.8 13.2 6.8 5.3 8.7 10.6 6.1 6.3 12.7 14.1 14.0 11.8 Appendix 11: Plant, ratoon yields and percentage of total area harvested - 2017 Crop Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All Mills Plant Area ha 637 1309 2008 226 4180 tch 54.6 47.8 48.3 37.2 47.0 % of Area 6.3 12.8 14.1 6.6 10.0 Appendix 12 : Seasonal %POCS in cane First ratoon Area ha 539 475 1286 457 2757 tch 52.1 48.0 51.0 33.0 46.0 Other ratoons All
 cane % of Area 5.3 4.6 9.0 13.4 8.1 tch 43.3 40.5 45.8 33.2 40.7 Area ha 8937 4247 5476 2722 21382 % of Area 44.2 41.3 38.4 40.0 41.0 tch 42.5 39.7 47.4 34.0 40.9 Area ha 10113 6031 8770 405 28319 Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All Mill Avg.
Rough average for period of five seasons 2001/ 2005 11.5 11.9 11.5 11.9 11.7 1996/ 2000 11.4 11.4 11.1 11.1 11.2 2006/ 2010 10.8 10.9 10.7 11.1 11.0 1991/ 1995 12.5 12.9 12.1 12.6 12.5 2011/ 2015 11.4 11.3 11.5 11.1 11.4 Last four seasons individually 2014 2015 2016 2017 12.9 12.0 12.3 11.9 12.3 12.4 12.6 12.1 11.9 12.3 10.7 9.7 11.7 NIL 10.6 11.8 11.4 11.1 NIL 11.6 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Appendix 13: Weekly POCS in cane 2017 season week Lautoka 9.5 10.0 10.6 10.8 10.9 11.4 11.8 11.8 12.1 12.1 11.8 11.9 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.9 12.8 13.2 12.4 13.0 Rarawai 9.4 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.6 11.4 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.0 12.2 12.1 11.8 12.0 11.7 11.7 11.4 11.3 11.2 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.4 Labasa 11.5 9.6 10.5 11.1 10.6 10.5 11.1 11.2 11.1 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.4 6.0 FACP Page 85 Penang NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Week average 10.1 9.9 10.4 10.7 10.7 11.1 11.5 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.8 11.8 12.0 12.0 11.8 12.2 12.0 12.2 11.8 11.9 11.2 11.1 10.6 10.6 11.5 Average 11.1 Note – Penang mill did not operate damaged by Cyclone Winston 11.8 Appendix 14 : Sugar produced (tonnes 94 N.T.
equivalent) Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills 2009 53313 42222 57548 22818 175901 2010 43384 31580 40943 18530 134436 Tonnes sugar 94 N.T equivalent nil 143040 2017 52021 57167 67011 19142 Appendix 15 : Sugar tonnes 94 N.T equivalent per hectare (tsh) Average for period of five seasons Last five seasons individually Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang Average 1991/ 1995 6.2 6.3 6.0 5.5 6.1 1996/ 2000 5.6 5.6 5.0 5.4 5.4 2001/ 2005 4.9 5.4 5.0 4.7 5.1 2006/ 2010 4.4 4.0 4.0 5.4 4.3 2011/ 2015 4.9 4.9 5.1 5.5 5.1 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 3.8 4.7 5.3 5.9 4.9 6.9 5.6 5.6 6.5 6.1 5.9 5.2 6.4 5.2 5.8 4.0 2.6 5.7 NIL 3.9 8.4 8.7 9.3 5.7 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 86 6.0 FACP Appendix 16 : Length of season (weeks) - Start and finish of crushing (date) Average length of season (5 yearly) Last four seasons individually Mills 1991/ 1995 1996/ 2000 2001/ 2005 2006/ 2010 2011/ 2015 2014 2015 2016 2017 Lautoka 28.0 29.7 27.6 27.0 27.9 Rarawai 25.3 26.5 24.2 28.0 22.1 Labasa 29.4 30.7 24.1 25.9 18.7 Penang 21.5 26.2 20.4 22.5 18.1 19 21 01/07/14 To 08/11/14 02/07/15 To 24/11/15 21.5 19.4 19/06/14 To 17/11/14 23/06/15 To 28/10/15 16.5 19.2 17/06/14 To 11/10/14 17/06/15 To 28/10/15 16.9 15.9 27/06/14 To 11/10/14 29/06/15 To 19/10/15 21 20/06/16 To 16/11/16 19 20/07/16 To 31/11/16 20.4 16/06/16 To 06/11/16 19.1 06/06/17 to 17/10/17 20.5 07/06/17 to 28/10/17 24.4 01/06/17 To 19/11/17 No crushing No crushing All mills 26.1 28.2 24.1 25.9 18.5 18.9 20.1 21.3 2017 0.4 0.1 0.3 Rarawai Lautoka 2017 0.6 2016 0.7 2016 0.7 0.4 0.6 Appendix 17 : Varieties Percent of hectares harvested Mills → Varieties ↓ Ragnar Waya Mali Galoa Aiwa Kiuva Mana LF91-1925 Kaba Vatu Beqa Naidiri Qamea Viwa Exp.
Other var.

 Labasa Penang SRIF ANNUAL REPORT All Mills 2016 6.3 1.8 2.9 2.0 0.4 0.5 67.0 1.2 2.7 3.7 11.4 0.1 0.4 2017 5.8 1.7 2.5 1.6 0.4 0.
68.8 1.3 2.4 3.1 0.0 11.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.0 FACP Page 87 Appendix 18: Area planted in hectares as % of registered and cultivated areas Mills Hectares planted Hectares planted as % of registered area Hectares planted as % of cultivated area Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang Total Appendix 19: Percentage of total area planted by different varieties over three years Mali Vatu Aiwa Mana Waya Galoa Ragnar Year Varieties Others 2016 2017 Naidiri Kiuva Kaba Beqa LF91-1925 Experiment Lautoka % 0.7 - 0.2 - - - 80.8 - 93.2 0.3 - 0.0 - - - Area ha 3.8 - 1.7 - - - 464.0 - 831.4 2.0 - 0.4 - - - - - 1.4 - 0.6 - - - 7.1 - 0.8 4.0 - 3.6 - - - 3.8 - 0.8 - - - - 0.5 - - 8.0 - 5.7 - - - 41.0 - 7.4 23.0 - 32.5 - - - 22.0 - 7.2 - - - - 4.1 Rarawai % 2.8 0.3 0.1 0.9 1.1 0.2 60.0 85.5 92.7 - - - - - - - - - 0.5 0.6 0.0 - - - 16.1 8.4 5.2 5.0 1.9 1.1 1.4 - - 11.0 1.3 0.4 2.3 0.9 Area ha 15.3 3.8 1.8 4.8 15.8 4.0 328.0 1240.7 2005.5 - - - - - - - - - 2.8 8.3 1.0 - - - 88.1 121.8 112.2 27.2 28.0 24.3 7.6 - - 60.1 19.0 7.9 12.4 13.0 25.0 - 13.5 5.6 - 1.8 - - - 8.2 - 3.7 7.9 - 12.4 6.2 - 5.2 0.1 - 0.4 -- - 0.0 0.4 - 0.3 37.4 - 62.3 0.5 - 0.2 6.9 - 6.3 1.8 - 0.0 - 0.3 - 6.5 - 1.1 Labasa % Area ha 313.9 - 291 70.9 - 38.7 - - - 102.5 - 79.8 98.7 - 77.9 - 112.7 1.4 - 0.0 - - 0.0 4.7 - 6.4 470.1 - 1347 6.9 - 5.3 86.8 - 136 22.1 - 0.0 - 23.2 Penang % Area ha 0.4 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - 221.2 62.3 - - 370.0 88.5 10.4 2.9 - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 0.1 - - - - 2.4 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - 8.8 2.5 - - - - 103.1 29.1 - - 36.8 8.8 0.4 0.1 - - - - 7.6 2.1 - - 1.8 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - All
 mills % 12.2 - Area ha 333.1 - 2.8 - 75.7 - 37.1 1013.2 4.2 - 3.6 - 2.9 - 0.5 114.9 - 98.7 - 78.3 - 14.6 5.2 142.6 22.8 623.4 0.5 14.9 6.5 176.5 1.3 34.5 - - SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 88 6.0 FACP Appendix 20 : Cane transport in Fiji (tonnes of cane harvested and actual method of delivery) Mills Delivered portable line Winch trailer or lorry to mainline Lorry direct to mill carrier Total Year Tonnes % of Total Tonnes % of Total Tonnes % of Total Tonnes Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills nil 50 168 23827 25106 23586 14772 22054 14006 12032 8189 5577 nil 840 nil nil nil nil 12012 11145 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 47436 29070 33077 17677 8630 15442 12032 8239 1775.7 2.0 1.0 1.5 0.4 1.7 0.3 nil .01 0.0 4.0 5.0 3.6 3.6 6.3 2.2 2.5 3.0 1.4 nil 0.2 nil nil nil nil 1.8 6.0 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 71.0
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT % of Total Appendix 21: Percentage burnt cane of total tonnes crushed Year Lautoka % Total Rarawai % Total Labasa % 19.4 13.6 18.0 12.9 22.4 15.1 20.9 16.0 12.7 13.7 32.0 44.4 29.2 27.0 37.6
Total Penang % FACP Page 89 Average % Total Total SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 90 7.0 APPROVED VARIETIES 7.0 APPROVED VARIETIES The list of sugarcane varieties approved for planting during 2016 has been revised to include maturity trend.
Varieties that are no longer planted have been removed from the approved varieties list.

The varieties are recommended to growers on their soil type.

The growers have a choice of at least three varieties to plant on their farms as laid down in the Master Award.
Mill/Sectors Soil types Lautoka/Olosara Lautoka/Cuvu Lautoka/Lomawai Lautoka/Yako Rich alluvial soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Sandy soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Sandy soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Sandy soils Lautoka/Nawaicoba Flat Fertile soils Lautoka/Malolo Lautoka/Qeleloa Medium soils Poor soils Sandy soils Flat Fertile soil Medium soils Poor soils Rich alluvial soils Medium soils Poor soils Lautoka/Meigunyah Flat Fertile soils Lautoka/Legalega Lautoka/Natova Lautoka/Lautoka Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Sandy soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Varieties recommended on maturity trends Early – mid maturing Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Mid – late maturing Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva,
 Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Mill/Sectors Soil types Lautoka/Saweni Lautoka/Saweni Lautoka/Lovu Lautoka/Drasa Rarawai/Varoko Rarawai/Mota Rarawai/Naloto Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Sandy soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Sandy soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Rarawai/Koronubu Flat Fertile soils Rarawai/Veisaru Rarawai/Rarawai Rarawai/Varavu Rarawai/Tagitagi Rarawai/Yaladro Rarawai/Drumasi Labasa/Waiqele Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Saline areas Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Saline areas Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils 7.0 APPROVED VARIETIES Page 91 Mid – late maturing Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba,
 Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Varieties recommended on maturity trends Early – mid maturing Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Mana, Kaba, Vatu, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Mana, Kaba, Vatu, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mali, Viwa SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 92 7.0 APPROVED VARIETIES Mill/Sectors Soil types Labasa/Wailevu Labasa/Vunimoli
 Labasa/Labasa Labasa/Bucaisau Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Saline soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Saline soils Flat Fertile soils Varieties recommended on maturity trends Early – mid maturing Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Labasa/Wainikoro Labasa/Daku Medium soils Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Poor soils Saline soils Flat Fertile soils Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Medium soils Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Poor soils Saline soils Flat Fertile soils Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Medium soils Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Mid – late maturing Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mali, Viwa Galoa, Vatu Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mali, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mali, Viwa Galoa, Vatu, Mali Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Waya, Viwa Kaba, Waya, Mali, Viwa Galoa, Vatu, Mali Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Waya, Viwa Kaba, Waya, Mali, Viwa Galoa, Vatu, Mali Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Waya, Viwa Poor soils Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Kaba, Waya, Mali, Viwa Labasa/Natua Poor soils Aiwa, Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Ragnar, Kaba, Mali, Viwa Labasa/Solove Poor soils Aiwa, Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Ragnar, Kaba, Mali, Viwa Labasa/Bulivou Poor soils Aiwa, Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Ragnar, Kaba, Mali, Viwa Penang/Nanuku Penang/Malau Penang/Ellington Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Salt affected areas Viti Vanua area Rich alluvial soils Aiwa,
 Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Medium soils Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Poor soils Salt affected areas Flat Fertile soils LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Medium soils Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Poor soils Salt affected areas LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Galoa Mana, Kaba, Kiuva, Mali, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Mali, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Galoa Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Mali, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Galoa 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 8.0 GLOSSARY Clones / Varieties Series Germplasm Fuzz Ratoon Breeding Plots / Flowering Beds Gene Pool Standards Brix G X E trials Supply Phytotoxic Farmorganix/Stand Up SummaGrow Spectra-Cane %brix Polarisation (or Pol) %pol Fiber %fiber Purity 8.0 GLOSSARY Page 93 The distinct individual sugarcane type that can be identified by numerous attributes or a combination of it, such as stalk color, stalk shape, leaf type, etc.
When used in the context of plant breeding, it refers to a set of clones or varieties distinguished by the year in which those clones or varieties were initially planted from fuzz (seed) stage.

A collection of clones that has recorded desirable traits such as high fiber, disease tolerant, etc.

Sugarcane seeds, not to be confused with seeds commonly referred to in the sugar industry as the stalks of sugarcane used for planting.
Seeds in this case are all different varieties, much like seeds of beans, cucumbers or chilies.

Commonly referred to the sugarcane crop that established or grew after the initial plant crop was harvested.

Small areas planted with sugarcane for the purpose of harvesting flowers from.

Basically referring to the Germplasm from a genetics point of view.

Sugarcane varieties that have already been released to growers to plant for commercial use.
Measure of dissolved solids in sugar juice, liquor or syrup using a refractometer.

Genetic by Environment trials to test the interaction of the genetic attributes of varieties against environmental conditions.

The term is normally used when “supplying” seedcane referring to sugarcane field that have Poisonous to plants.

Brand names of new organic fertilisers being tested at SRIF.
High-speed fully automated sugarcane analyser that uses Near- Infrared (NIR) to monitor the sugar content upon analyzing disintegrated cane.

The instrument requires minimal intervention from the operator once the sample has been fed into the disintegrator at the start of the process.

Total soluble solutes in cane juice The apparent sucrose content expressed as a mass percent measured by the optical rotation of polarized light passing through a sugar solution.
Percent total sucrose in cane juice The dry fibrous insoluble structure of the cane plant.

Generally taken to mean all insoluble material in the cane delivered to a mill, and therefore includes soil or other extraneous insoluble matter in cane.

Percent of fiber present in sugarcane The true purity is the sucrose content as a percent of the dry substances or dissolved solids content.

The solids consist of sugar plus non-sucrose components such as invert, ash and colorants.
Apparent purity is expressed as polarization dived by refractometer Brix multiplied by 100.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Page 94 8.0 GLOSSARY POCS LBC RMSECV CQD IMG UV-VIS spectrophotometer Nematology Pathology Pure Obtainable Cane Sugar.

A measure of total recoverable sugar in the cane.

A formula based on assumption that sugarcane contains pure sugar, impurities, water and fiber only.
It assumes that only pure sugar is made, and that for every kilogram of impurities which goes to the factory, half a kilogram of sugar accompanies it.

Lime Buffering Capacity.

It is modified from the original method which is used for the purpose of agricultural crops.

It is a potentiometric method used for determining the amount of lime required for the soil to raise the pH based on the buffering capacity of the soil.
LBC is a more efficient routine determination as compared to pH buffering capacity method in regards to result throughput.

RMSECV: errors are calculated on test/train splits using a cross validation scheme for the splitting.

If the splitting of the data is done correctly, this gives a good estimate on how the model built on the data set at hand performs for unknown cases.
However, due to the resampling nature of the approach, it actually measures performance for unknown cases that were obtained among the calibration cases.

In simple, it is a formula used to build a model from a data set, as a validation of two data set.

Thus confirms data set from a new approach against the data set of the original method validating the performance of the origin of the new data set as similar to the existing method.
The body within the Fiji Sugar Industry Tribunal charged with implementing the QBPS procedures.

A group set up within each mill area, comprising representatives of the mill owner, the cane growers and the Tribunal to act as a point of contact between the CQD and the local industry.

Ultra violet visible light spectrum instrument.

Is used to determine analyte concentrations by the absorption of light across the ultraviolet and visible light wavelengths through sugar cane juice, sugar and sugar by-products.
The scientific study of nematode worms.
The science of the causes and effects of diseases 2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 9.0 FINANCIAL REPORT Page 95 9.0 FINANCIAL REPORT SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 Sugar Research institute of Fiji Contents Directors' report Independent Auditor's Report Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income Statement of financial position Statement of cash flows Notes to the Financial Statements 1 - 2 3 - - 26 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Directors' Report Board report In accordance with a resolution of the Board of Directors, the Directors herewith submit the statement of financial position of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji (the “Institute”) as at 31 December 2017 and the related statement of profit or loss and comprehensive income and statement of cash flows for the year ended on that date and report as follows: Board members The Board members in office during the year end at the date of this report are: Professor Rajesh Chandra - Chairman (re-appointed 2 March 2018) Dr K.S Shanmugha Sundaram (term expired on 1 March 2018) Professor Paras Nath (resigned on 7 December 2017) Mr Daniel Elisha (term expired on 1 March 2018) Mr Abdul Khan (resigned on 18 July 2017) Mr Sundresh Chetty (term expired on 1 March 2018) Mr Manasa Tagicakibau (resigned on 18 July 2017) Mr Graham Clark (appointed 18 July 2017) Ms Reshmi Kumari (appointed 18 July 2017) Dr Sanjay Anand (appointed on 7 December 2017) Mr Raj Sharma (appointed on 12 June 2018) Mr Ashween Nischal Ram (appointed on 18 June 2018) Professor Ravendra Naidu (appointed on 13 March 2018) State of affairs In the opinion of the Board the accompanying statement of financial position gives a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Institute as at 31 December 2017 and the accompanying statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income and statement of cash flows give a true and fair view of the results and cash flows of the Institute for the year then ended.
Principal activity The functions of the Institute are outlined under the Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Act No 14 of 2005, which includes promoting by means of research and investigation, the technical advancement, efficiency and productivity of the sugar industry, and to provide its functions, powers, administration and finance and for related matters.
Current assets The Directors took reasonable steps before the Institute’s financial statements were made out to ascertain that the current assets of the Institute were shown in the accounting records at a value equal to or below the value that would be expected to be realised in the ordinary course of business.

At the date of this report, the Directors are not aware of any circumstances which would render the values attributable to the current assets in the financial statements to be misleading.
Receivables The Directors took reasonable steps before the Institute’s financial statements were made out to ascertain that all known bad debts were written off and adequate allowance was made for impairment losses.

At the date of this report, the Directors are not aware of any circumstances which would render the above assessment inadequate to any substantial extent.
1 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Directors' Report (continued) Related party transactions All related party transactions have been adequately recorded in the financial statements.

Other circumstances At the date of this report, the Directors are not aware of any circumstances not otherwise dealt with in this report or financial statements which would render any amounts stated in the accounts to be misleading.
Unusual circumstances The results of the Institute's operations during the financial year have not in the opinion of the Directors been substantially affected by any item, transaction or event of a material and unusual nature other than those disclosed in the financial statements.

Going concern The Institute's ability to continue to operate on a going concern basis is dependent on it receiving ongoing financial support from the Government, Stakeholders in the Sugar Industry and other Doner Agencies.
The Board Members consider the application of the going concern principle to be appropriate in the preparation of these financial statements as the Institute will continue to receive ongoing support from the Government and the Stakeholders in the Sugar Industry, which will enable the Institute to meet its funding requirements for operations and to meet its obligations as and when they fall due.
The Institute receives funds from the Government, Fiji Sugar Corporation, and Growers through Fiji Sugar Corporation.

Further, the Institute has a positive working capital of $7,114,808 after excluding deferred income of $11,144,379 (2016: $6,400,748 after excluding deferred income of$10,393,323).
Accordingly, these financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis and do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or to the amounts and classification of liabilities that may be necessary should the Institute be unable to continue as a going concern.
Events subsequent to balance date There is a draft Sugar Industry Bill before the Parliament that is proposing major changes in the functioning of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji and until this bill is passed, the Board cannot give assurance about the future of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji in its present form.
Apart from the above, there has not arisen in the interval between the end of the year and the date of this report any item, transaction or event of a material and unusual nature likely, in the opinion of the Board Members, to affect significantly the operations of the Institute, the results of those operations or the state of affairs of the Institute in subsequent financial years.

Dated at Lautoka this _____ day of __ _ ___ __ __ 2019 .

11th March ance with a resolution of the Board.
Chairman Board member 2 Independent Auditors' Report To the Board Members of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji lkpm·t on the Audit of the Financial Stakments Opinion We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Sugar Research Institute ofFiji ("the Institute"), which comprise the statement of financial position as at 31 December 2017, the statements of profit or loss and other comprehensive income and cash flows for the year then ended, and notes, comprising significant accounting policies and other explanatory information as set out in notes 1 to 21.
In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Institute as at 31 December 2017, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

Basis for Opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (IS As).
Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditors ' Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report.
We are independent of the Institute in accordance with International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (IE SBA Code) and the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements and the IESBA Code.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
Emphasis of Matter - comparathe information We draw attention to Note 20 to the financial statements which indicates that the comparative information presented as at and for the year ended 31December2016 has been restated.

Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter.
Responsibilities of Management and Those Charged \\ ith GO\ em a nee for the Financial Statements I Management is responsible for the preparation of financial statements that give a true and fair view in accordance with IFRS, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, management is responsible for assessing the Institute's ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless management either intends to liquidate the institute or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so.

Those charged with governance are responsible for overseeing the Institute's financial reporting process.
KPMG , a Fiji partnership, is part of the KPMG International network.

KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss entity.
Document classification: KPMG Confidential 3 Independent Auditors' Report To the Board Members of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji (continued) Report on the Audit of the Financial Statl'ments (continued) Auditors' Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditors' report that includes our opinion.
Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists.

Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.
As part of an audit in accordance with ISAs, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.

We also: Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Institute's internal control.
Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by management.

Conclude on the appropriateness of management's use of the going concern basis of accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Institute' s ability to continue as a going concern.
If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in our auditors' report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify our opinion.

Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of our auditors' report.

However, future events or conditions may cause the Institute to cease to continue as a going concern.
Evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation.

We communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify during our audit.
KPMG, a Fiji partnership, is part of the KPMG International networl<.

KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss entity.

Document classification: KPMG Confidential 4 Independent Auditors' Report To the Board Members of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji (continued) Report on Other Legal and Regulator~ lkt1uircments We have obtained all the information and explanations which, to the best of our knowledge and belief, were necessary for the purposes of our audit.

In our opinion: i).
In our opinion: i).

proper books of account have been kept by the Institute, sufficient to enable financial statements to be prepared, so far as it appears from our examination of those books; and ii).

to the best of our knowledge and according to the information and explanations given to us the financial statements give the information required by the Sugar Research institute of Fiji Act, 2005, in the manner so required.
KPMG 11 March 2019 Nadi, Fiji Sharvek Naidu Partner KPMG, a Fiji partnership, is part of the KPMG International network.

KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss entity.
Document classification: KPMG Confidential 5 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income For the year ended 31 December 2017 Contributions and grants Estate income Other income Total income Cost of operations Note 2017 $ ** Restated 2016 $ 5 6 7 2,347,161 3,586,226 245,496 6,709 111,705 5,794 2,599,366 3,703,725 (1,394,434) (1,375,798) Administrative expenses 8 (a) (1,244,297) (2,365,264) Deficit from operations (39,365) Finance income Deficit before tax Income tax benefit Balance at the beginning of the year Deficit for the year 9 39,365 - - - - (37,337) 37,337 - - - - ** Refer Note 20 The notes on pages 9 to 26 are an integral part of these financial statements.
6 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Statement of cash flows For the year ended 31 December 2017 Operating activities Receipts from stakeholders and donors Payment to suppliers and employees Interest received Net cash used in operating activities Investing activities Acquisition of property, plant and equipment Payment for intangible assets Received from related parties Net cash (used in) / from investing activities Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the year Note 2017 $ 2016 $ 1,566,514 (2,342,888) 32,756 (743,618) (359,845) (2,480) 350,887 (11,438) (755,056) 2,995,486 2,240,430 1,252,535 (2,416,834) 37,337 (1,126,962) (278,447) - 400,000 121,553 (1,005,409) 4,000,895 2,995,486 11 12 13 The notes on pages 9 to 26 are an integral part of these financial statements.
8 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 1.

Reporting entity Sugar Research Institute of Fiji (the "Institute") is a body corporate domiciled in Fiji, established under the Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Act 2005.

The address of the Institute's registered office is Drasa, Lautoka, Fiji.
The functions of the Institute are outlined under Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Act No 14 of 2005, which the technical advancement, efficiency and includes promoting by means of research and investigation, productivity of the sugar industry, and to provide its functions, powers, administration and finance and for related matters.

2.
2.

Basis of preparation (a) Statement of compliance The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adopted by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

The financial statements were authorised for issue by the Board on ___________________.
11 March 2019 (b) Going Concern The Institute's ability to continue to operate on a going concern basis is dependent on it receiving ongoing financial support from the Government, Stakeholders in the Sugar Industry and other Doner Agencies.
The Board Members consider the application of the going concern principle to be appropriate in the preparation of these financial statements as the Institute will continue to receive ongoing support from the Government and the Stakeholders in the Sugar Industry, which will enable the Institute to meet its funding requirements for operations and to meet its obligations as and when they fall due.
The Institute receives funds from the Government, Fiji Sugar Corporation, and Growers through Fiji Sugar Corporation.

Further, the Institute has a positive working capital of $7,114,808 after excluding deferred income of $11,144,379 (2016: $6,400,748 after excluding deferred income of $10,393,323).
Accordingly, these financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis and do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or to the amounts and classification of liabilities that may be necessary should the Institute be unable to continue as a going concern.

(c) Basis of measurement The financial statements have been prepared on the historical cost basis.
(d) Functional and presentation currency The financial statements are presented in Fiji dollars, rounded to the nearest dollar, which is the Institute's functional currency.

9 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 2.
Basis of preparation (continued) (e) Use of estimates and judgments The preparation of financial statements in conformity with IFRS requires management to make judgments, estimates and assumptions that affect the application of accounting policies and the reported amount of assets, liabilities, income and expenses.

Actual results may differ from these estimates.

Estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis.
Revisions to accounting estimates are recognised in the period in which the estimate is revised and in any future period affected.

3.

Significant accounting policies The accounting policies set out below have been applied consistently to all periods presented in these financial statement.

(a) Foreign currency transactions Transactions in foreign currencies are translated to Fiji dollars at exchange rates at the dates of the transactions.
Monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies at the reporting date are retranslated to Fiji dollars at the exchange rate at that date.

The foreign currency gains or losses on translation are recognised in profit or loss.

(b) Property, plant and equipment Recognition and measurement Items of property, plant and equipment are measured at cost less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses.

Cost includes expenditure that is directly attributable to the acquisition of the asset.
Any gain and loss on disposal of an item of plant and equipment (calculated as a difference between net proceeds from disposal and carrying amount of the item) is recognised in profit or loss.

Subsequent costs The cost of replacing part of an item of property, plant and equipment is recognised in the carrying amount of the item if it is probable that the future economic benefit embodied within the part will flow to the Institute and its cost can be measured reliably.
The cost of the day-to-day servicing of property, plant and equipment are recognised in profit or loss as incurred.

Depreciation Depreciation is calculated to write off the costs of items of property, plant and equipment less their estimated residual values using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives, and is recognised in profit or loss.
The estimated useful lives of property, plant and equipment for current and comparative periods are as follows: 10 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 3.
Significant accounting policies (continued) (b) Property, plant and equipment (continued) Depreciation (continued) Land and building Computers Fixtures and fittings Motor vehicles Plant and equipment 80 years 5 years 10 years 6.67 years 6.67 - 10 years Depreciation methods, useful lives and residual values are reassessed at reporting date and adjusted if appropriate.
(c) Intangible assets Recognition and measurement Intangible assets that are acquired by the Institute have a finite useful life and are measured at cost less accumulated amortisation and impairment losses.

Amortisation Intangible assets are amortised on a straight-line basis in profit or loss over their estimated useful lives, from the date that they are available for use.
The estimated useful life for the current and comparative years is as follows: Software 5 years (d) Financial instruments (i) Non-derivative financial assets The Institute initially recognises receivables on the date that they are originated.

All other financial assets are recognised initially on the trade date at which the Institute becomes a party to the contractual provisions of the instrument.
The Institute derecognises a financial asset when the contractual rights to the cash flows from the asset expire, or it transfers the rights to receive the contractual cash flows on the financial asset in a transaction in which substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the financial asset are transferred.

Any interest in transferred financial assets that is created or retained by the Institute is recognised as a separate asset or liability.
Financial assets and liabilities are offset and the net amount presented in the statement of financial position when, and only when, the Institute has a legal right to offset the amounts and intends either to settle on a net basis or to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously.

11 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 3.
Significant accounting policies (continued) (d) Financial instruments (continued) The Institute classifies non-derivative financial assets into loans and receivables.

Receivables Receivables are financial assets with fixed or determinable payments that are not quoted in an active market.

Such assets are recognised initially at fair value plus any directly attributable transaction costs.
Subsequent to initial recognition loans and receivables are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method, less any impairment losses.

Receivables comprise receivables from related party, staff advances and deposits.

Cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents comprises cash at bank and cash on hand.
(ii) Non-derivative financial liabilities Financial liabilities are initially recognised on the trade date when the Institute becomes a party to the contractual provisions of the instrument.

The Institute derecognises a financial liability when its contractual obligations are discharged or cancelled or expire.

Financial liabilities are initially measured at fair value less any directly attributable transaction costs.
Subsequent to initial recognition these liabilities are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method.

The Institute has the following non-derivate financial liabilities: trade and other payables and payable to related parties.

(e) Impairment (i) Non-derivative financial assets A financial asset not carried at fair value through profit or loss is assessed at each reporting date to determine whether there is objective evidence that it is impaired.
A financial asset is impaired if objective evidence indicates that a loss event has occurred after the initial recognition of the asset, and that the loss event had a negative effect on the estimated future cash flows of that asset that can be estimated reliably.
Objective evidence that financial assets are impaired includes default or delinquency by a debtor, restricting of an amount due to the Institute on terms that the Institute would not consider otherwise, indications that a debtor or issuer will entre bankruptcy or the disappearance of an active market for a security because of financial difficulties.

12 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 3.
Significant accounting policies (continued) (e) Impairment (continued) (ii) Non-financial assets At each reporting date non financial assets are reviewed to determine whether there is any indication of impairment.

If any such indication exists, then the asset's recoverable amount is estimated.

If estimated recoverable amount is lower, the carrying amount is reduced to its estimated recoverable amount, and an impairment loss is recognised immediately in profit or loss.
(f) Contributions and grants Grants are recognised in the statement of financial position initially as deferred income when there is reasonable assurance that it will be received and that the Institute will comply with the conditions associated with the grant.

It is then recognised in the profit or loss as grant income on a systematic basis as the Institute recognises expenses by achieving the relevant conditions of the grant.
Grants that relate to the acquisition of an asset are recognised in profit or loss as the asset is depreciated or amortised.

The Institute chooses to present grant income on a gross method that is, recognising entire grant income and than offsetting against expenses.

(g) Employee benefits Superannuation Obligations for contributions to a defined contribution plan are recognised as an expense in profit or loss when they are due.
Employee entitlements Liability for annual leave is recognised and measured as the amount unpaid at the reporting date at current pay rates in respect of employee services up to that date.

Short-term benefits Short-term employee benefit obligations are measured on an undiscounted basis and are expensed in the profit or loss as the related service is provided.
A liability is recognised for the amount to be paid under short-term benefit if the Institute has a present or constructive obligation to pay this amount as a result of past services provided by the employee and the obligations can be measured reliably.

(h) Receivable from related parties The amounts receivable from related parties are recognised when there is a contractual receivable or a right to receive.
13 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 3.

Significant accounting policies (continued) (i) Standards issued but not yet effective A number of new standards and amendments to standards are effective for annual periods beginning after 1 January 2016 and earlier application is permitted, however, the Institute has not early adopted the following new standards in preparing these financial statements.
IFRS 9 Financial Instruments IFRS 9 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018, with early adoption permitted.

The standard partly replaces IAS 39 and introduces requirements for classifying and measuring financial assets and liabilities; it also includes an expected credit losses model that replaces the current incurred loss impaired model.
IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers IFRS 15 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2018, with early adoption permitted.

The standard will provide a single source of requirements for accounting for all contracts with customers (expect for some specific exceptions, such as lease contracts, insurance contracts and financial instruments) and will replace all current accounting pronouncements on revenue.

New revenue disclosures are also introduced.


IFRS 16 Leases IFRS 16 is effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2019.

Early adoption is permitted if IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers is applied at or before the date of initial application of IFRS 16.

The standard removes the classification of leases as either operating leases or finance leases - for the leasee - effectively treating all leases as finance leases.
Short term leases (less than 12 months) and leases of low-value assets are exempt from the lease accounting requirements.

There are also changes in accounting over the life of the lease.

In particular, companies will now recognise a front-loaded pattern of expenses for most leases, even when they pay constant annual rentals.

Lessor accounting remains similar to current practice i.e.

lessors continue to classify leases as finance and operating lease.
The Institute has not performed a preliminary assessment of the potential impact of adoption of the above standards on these financial statements.

4.

Financial risk management Overview The Institute has exposure to the following financial risks: (i) (ii) (iii) Market risk Credit risk Liquidity risk 14 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 4.
Financial risk management (continued) This note presents information about the Institute's exposure to each of the above risks, the Institute’s objectives, policies and processes for measuring and managing risk.

Further quantitative disclosures are included throughout these financial statements.

The Institute's overall risk management programme focuses on having sufficient liquidity to achieve the Institute's objectives.

Risk management is carried out by the Directors.


Directors identify, evaluate and monitor financial risks in close cooperation with management.

The Institute operates in the Sugar Industry for the research and development of the Sugar Industry.

Consequently, regardless of the impact of the risks below, the risks are largely managed by the Ministry of Sugar.

However, Directors exercise due care in dealing with these risks so as to minimise their impact on the Institute.
(i) Credit risk Credit risk is the risk of financial loss to the Institute if a customer or counterparty to a financial instrument fails to meet its contractual obligations, and arises principally from the Institute's cash at bank, trade and other receivables, and receivable from related parties.

Exposure to credit risk The carrying amount of financial assets represents the maximum credit exposure.
The maximum exposure to credit risk at the reporting date was: Cash at bank Staff advance and deposits VAT receivable Interest receivable Receivable from related parties (see Note 18 (b)) 2017 $ 2,240,420 27,208 43,281 6,609 7,167,499 9,485,017 2016 $ 2,995,476 24,858 53,912 - 5,724,999 8,799,245 The aging of receivable from related parties at the reporting date that were not impaired was as follows: Current - within 1 year Between 1 and 4 years Between 4 and 5 years Greater than 5 years 2017 $ 1,442,500 3,600,000 - 2,124,999 7,167,499 2016 $ 900,000 2,700,000 900,000 1,224,999 5,724,999 15 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 4.
Financial risk management (continued) (i) Credit risk (continued) Cash at bank The cash at bank is held with Westpac Corporation Limited which is a reputable bank and has a strong credit rating.

Staff advance and deposits Management believes that the amounts from staff advance and deposits are collectable.

Interest receivable Interest receivable is from Westpac Corporation Limited which is a reputable bank and has a strong credit rating.
Receivable from related parties Management believes that the amounts past due by more than 1 year is still collectable in full as in the case of default the Institute would be able to call upon the Ministry of Sugar to provide directive to FSC and Growers to pay the outstanding balance.

(ii) Liquidity risk Liquidity risk is the risk that the Institute will not be able to meet its financial obligations as they fall due.
The Institute's approach to managing liquidity is to ensure, as far as possible, that it will always have sufficient liquidity to meet its liabilities when due, under both normal and stressed conditions.
The following are the contractual maturities of financial liabilities of the Institute: Payable to related parties Trade and other payables 2017 $ 2,265,685 85,818 2,351,503 2016 $ 2,265,685 121,660 2,387,345 The above are payable within a year and largely dependent on cash inflows and donor agencies in meeting the financial commitments.

(iii) Market risk The Institute's exposure to market risk is not material .
16 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 5.

Contributions and grants Contributions from stakeholders and grants that compensate the Institute for revenue and capital expenditure are recognised from deferred income as follows: Contribution from the Fiji Government European Union Fiji Sugar Corporation (FSC) Sugar Cane Growers 6.

Other income Sundry income 7.


Cost of operations Advertising Amortisation Bank charges Consultancy fees Depreciation Electricity EU Cost Communication expenses Material costs Motor vehicle running expenses Repairs and maintenances Subcontract expenses Travel Wages and salaries Total cost of operations 8.
Expenses (a) Administrative expenses Auditors remuneration Accounting fees Accommodation and meals ACP cost Balance carried forward 17 2017 $ 544,795 712,776 544,795 544,795 2,347,161 ** Restated 2016 $ 1,033,888 484,562 1,033,888 1,033,888 3,586,226 2017 $ 6,709 6,709 2016 $ 5,794 5,794 1,468 27 5,205 - 306,026 39,777 454,146 31,607 24,422 156,357 8,729 75,822 400 290,448 1,394,434 2017 $ 9,500 40,627 2,163 - 52,290 4,168 - 3,039 13,419 305,188 44,150 232,200 27,297 129,551 198,100 18,531 48,972 27,782 323,401 1,375,798 ** Restated 2016 $ 9,000 10,675 12,101 26,234 58,010 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 8.
Expenses (continued) (a) Administrative expenses (continued) Balance brought forward Annual leave expense Board allowance Office security Director's fees Doubtful debts Fiji National Provident Fund contributions Freight Fringe benefit tax General expenses Hire of services ICT consumables Insurance Legal fees Loss on disposal Medical expense Media and publication Other expenses Postage Repair and maintenance Rent expense Staff expenses Stationery Training and Productivity Authority of Fiji Travel Tuition fees Uniforms Utilities Value added tax receivable written off Wages and salaries (refer note 7(b)) ** Refer Note 20 18 2017 $ ** Restated 2016 $ 52,290 7,554 10,926 48,526 79,109 - 96,437 35,648 13,174 142,141 4,503 4,561 60,241 750 19,276 546 2,335 4,579 897 2,119 63,241 - 998 8,821 - - - 4,641 580,984 1,244,297 58,010 - - 8,210 - 825,688 116,546 32,212 10,989 225,416 79,957 16,335 42,940 10,000 - - - 71,297 - 1,220 - 9,200 2,797 9,136 18,343 10,325 7,166 3,213 159,462 646,802 2,365,264 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 8.
Expenses (continued) (b) Personnel expenses Fiji National Provident Fund contributions Training and Productivity Authority of Fiji Key management compensation - short term benefits Wages and salaries Other staff related costs 9.

Finance income Interest received 10.

Income tax benefit 2017 $ 96,437 8,821 99,687 771,745 - 976,690 2016 $ 116,546 9,136 87,432 882,771 16,366 1,112,251 39,365 37,337 In 2012 the Fiji Revenue and Customs Authority confirmed that the entity is not subject to income tax.
19 $ l a t o T - - - 7 4 4 , 8 7 2 1 0 8 , 4 9 2 , 6 8 4 2 , 3 7 5 , 6 ) 5 3 8 , 0 2 ( 5 4 8 , 9 5 3 8 5 2 , 2 1 9 , 6 5 8 4 , 5 7 2 , 2 8 8 1 , 5 0 3 3 7 6 , 0 8 5 , 2 6 2 0 , 6 0 3 ) 9 5 5 , 1 ( 0 4 1 , 5 8 8 , 2 $ $ n i k r o W s s e r g o r P s r e t u p m o C ) 2 2 7 , 2 2 ( - 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 5 9 , 6 2 5 7 6 , 0 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - 3 2 2 , 7 4 3 6 , 7 5 3 - 7 5 8 , 4 6 3 7 0 4 , 9 1 3 7 9 , 5 6 2 0 8 3 , 5 8 2 6 8 1 , 2 2 - 6 6 5 , 7 0 3 $ r o t o M s e l c i h e v 9 0 9 , 3 0 2 , 1 - - - 2 5 7 , 6 1 1 9 0 9 , 3 0 2 , 1 1 6 6 , 0 2 3 , 1 3 3 6 , 9 2 2 , 2 0 2 1 , 0 4 1 - 2 8 3 , 9 6 0 , 1 0 7 7 , 4 4 2 5 1 , 4 1 1 , 1 0 1 3 , 8 2 - 4 1 8 , 8 7 7 9 1 4 , 6 9 1 3 3 2 , 5 7 9 5 5 8 , 1 1 2 - 1 6 1 , 8 2 9 6 3 , 2 1 0 3 5 , 0 4 2 5 4 , 1 1 2 6 4 , 2 4 1 , 1 8 8 0 , 7 8 1 , 1 2 8 9 , 1 5 - 3 1 5 , 8 1 1 1 3 4 , 4 8 8 , 1 - 9 8 6 , 6 2 2 4 4 9 , 2 0 0 , 2 - - 2 3 9 , 3 4 7 0 0 , 7 8 1 8 1 , 9 9 3 9 , 0 3 1 - 8 6 9 , 5 4 2 2 7 , 2 2 2 3 1 , 9 0 8 , 2 2 2 8 , 7 7 8 , 2 ) 5 3 8 , 0 2 ( 7 8 9 , 6 5 8 , 2 5 5 1 , 3 3 1 3 2 2 , 2 3 8 7 3 , 5 6 1 ) 9 5 5 , 1 ( 3 2 2 , 2 3 2 4 0 , 6 9 1 $ $ $ , 9 1 0 , 4 2 2 7 , 2 2 2 0 7 , 4 6 7 2 5 , 4 3 1 7 1 6 , 5 0 1 , 1 1 7 7 , 5 1 7 7 9 , 5 7 6 , 2 5 7 5 , 2 9 9 , 3 8 1 1 , 7 2 0 , 4 - - 4 5 2 , 2 7 7 5 7 , 9 8 1 1 7 , 7 2 0 , 1 9 0 4 , 0 9 9 0 6 , 1 9 6 , 2 1 9 2 , 7 5 9 9 1 , 8 7 1 5 4 5 , 2 4 0 , 1 8 3 1 , 8 8 5 4 9 , 0 6 6 , , y t r e p o r P .
Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 12.
Intangibles Cost Balance at 1 January 2016 Acquisition Balance at 1 January 2017 Acquisition Balance at 31 December 2017 Accumulated amortisation Balance at 1 January 2016 Amortisation Balance at 1 January 2017 Amortisation Balance at 31 December 2017 Carrying amounts At 1 January 2016 At 31 December 2016 At 31 December 2017 13.

Cash and cash equivalents Cash at bank Cash on hand Cash and cash equivalents in the statement of cash flows 14.
Receivables and prepayments Staff advances Deposits VAT receivable Interest receivable Staff advances are recovered through payroll deductions.
** Refer Note 20 21 Software $ - - - 2,480 2,480 - - - 27 27 - - Total $ - - - 2,480 2,480 - - - 27 27 - - 2,453 2,453 2017 $ 2,240,420 10 2,240,430 2017 $ 24,458 2,750 43,281 6,609 77,098 2016 $ 2,995,476 10 2,995,486 ** Restated 2016 $ 22,108 2,750 53,912 - 78,770 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 15.

Deferred income The Institute's deferred income comprises of cash received or receivable from the stakeholders and donor agencies.
Each grant received or receivable has its specific conditions that the Institute needs to comply with.

The movement in deferred income is as follows: Balance at the beginning of the year Funds received or receivable during the period Utilised during the period Balance at 31 December This is comprised as follows: Fiji Government Fiji Sugar Corporation (FSC) Sugar Cane Growers European Union grant Estate income Insurance income 16.
Employee benefits Balance at 1 January Provision created / utilised during the year Balance at 31 December 17.

Trade and other payables Trade payables Other payables 18.
Related parties 2017 $ 10,393,323 3,400,418 (2,649,362) 11,144,379 145,471 6,297,062 2,700,000 1,869,154 130,834 1,858 11,144,379 2017 $ 11,162 7,554 18,716 25,200 60,618 85,818 ** Restated 2016 $ 10,448,540 2,903,911 (2,959,128) 10,393,323 122,991 5,940,830 1,800,000 2,388,832 140,670 - 10,393,323 2016 $ 45,933 (34,771) 11,162 39,293 82,367 121,660 Related parties of the Institute include key stakeholders in the Fiji Sugar Industry, namely, the Government of Fiji, Fiji Sugar Corporation, South Pacific Fertilizers Limited, Sugar Cane Growers Fund and Sugar Cane Growers Council.
Transactions with these parties and outstanding balances at year end are disclosed below.

** Refer Note 20 22 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 18.
Related parties (continued) (a) Board members The following are the Board members of the Institute during the financial year: Professor Rajesh Chandra - Chairman (re-appointed 2 March 2018) Dr K.S Shanmugha Sundaram (term expired on 1 March 2018) Professor Paras Nath (resigned on 7 December 2017) Mr Daniel Elisha (term expired on 1 March 2018) Mr Abdul Khan (resigned on 18 July 2017) Mr Sundresh Chetty (term expired on 1 March 2018) Mr Manasa Tagicakibau (resigned on 18 July 2017) Mr Graham Clark (appointed 18 July 2017) Ms Reshmi Kumari (appointed 18 July 2017) Dr Sanjay Anand (appointed on 7 December 2017) Mr Raj Sharma (appointed on 12 June 2018) Mr Ashween Nischal Ram (appointed on 18 June 2018) Professor Ravendra Naidu (appointed on 13 March 2018) (b) Amounts receivable from related parties Fiji Sugar Corporation Sugar Cane Growers Allowance for uncollectability - Sugar Cane Growers Reconciliation of Allowance for Uncollectability Balance at the beginning of the month Provision created during the year Balance at the end of the year 2017 $ 6,267,499 2,700,000 (1,800,000) 7,167,499 2016 $ 5,724,999 1,800,000 (1,800,000) 5,724,999 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 900,000 900,000 1,800,000 Receivables from related parties are interest free and receivable as and when required.
(c) Amounts payable to related parties Fiji Sugar Corporation 2017 $ 2016 $ 2,265,685 2,265,685 2,265,685 2,265,685 (d) Outstanding debts owed from Fiji Sugar Corporation Limited Net receivable from Fiji Sugar Corporation Limited ("FSC") amounts to $4,001,814 as at 31 December 2017.

Subsequent to year end on 26 February 2019, a Deed of Payment was signed between the Institute and FSC.
FSC agreed and acknowledged that it owed a sum amounting to $4,009,314 to the Institute which was FSC's contribution towards SRIF's operations as per Section 11(2) of the Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Act 2005.

23 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 18.
Related parties (continued) (d) Outstanding debts owed from Fiji Sugar Corporation Limited (continued) The amount stipulated in the agreement is $4,009,314 which is the amount as at 31 October 2018 and is reconciled as follow: Balance at 31 December 2017 Contributions during the year till October 2018 Payments made in 2018 Balance at 31 October 2018 The payment terms were agreed as follow: $ 4,001,814 750,000 (742,500) 4,009,314 (i) (ii) The amount of $250,000 will be paid by FSC in 2019, with 2 equal instalments of $125,000 each payable on 30 August and 31 December respectively; The remaining balance of $3,759,314 will be payable by FSC over the next 4 years (2020 - 2023) in 8 equal instalments of $469,914 each payable half yearly on 30 August and 31 December each year; and (iii) the repayments will be at zero interest.
(e) Transactions with related parties Deferred income Grant income - Fiji Sugar Corporation Grant income - Fiji Government Grant income - Sugar Cane Growers Estate income - Fiji Sugar Corporation Impairment Loss Sugar Cane Growers (f) Key management personnel 2017 $ 825,688 1,238,532 825,688 225,993 3,115,901 2016 $ 825,688 825,688 825,688 252,375 2,729,439 - 825,688 Key management personnel include the Chief Executive Officer and Finance and Administration Manager of the Institute.
Transactions with key management personnel are no favourable than those available, or which might be reasonably be expected to be available, on similar transactions to third parties on an arm's length.

Key management compensation is disclosed under Note 8(b).

24 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 19.

Capital commitments and contingencies Capital commitments and contingent liabilities as at 31 December 2017 amounted to $Nil (2016: $Nil).
20.

Correction of errors During the year, the Company discovered that VAT receivable had been erroneously overstated in its financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2016.

As a consequence, VAT receivable balance and deferred income balances were overstated by $159,462.

The error has been corrected by restating each of the financial statement line items for prior periods.
The following tables summarise the impacts on the financial statements: Statement of financial position 31 December 2016 Current assets Receivables and prepayments Others Impact of correction of error As previously reported $ Adjustments $ As restated $ 238,232 8,720,485 8,958,717 (159,462) - (159,462) 78,770 8,720,485 8,799,255 Non-current assets 3,992,575 - 3,992,575 Total assets 12,951,292 (159,462) 12,791,830 Current liabilities Deferred income Others 10,552,785 2,398,507 12,951,292 (159,462) - (159,462) 10,393,323 2,398,507 12,791,830 Total Liabilities 12,951,292 (159,462) 12,791,830 25 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2017 20.
Correction of errors (continued) Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income 31 December 2016 Contributions and grants Administrative expenses Impact of correction of error As previously reported $ Adjustments $ As restated $ 3,426,764 (2,205,802) 1,220,962 159,462 (159,462) - 3,586,226 (2,365,264) 1,220,962 Note: There are no adjustments made to statement of cash flows for the year ended 31 December 2016.

21.
21.

Events subsequent to balance date There is a draft Sugar Industry Bill before the Parliament that is proposing major changes in the functioning of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji and until this bill is passed, the Board cannot give assurance about the future of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji in its present form.
Apart from the above, there has not arisen in the interval between the end of the year and the date of this report any item, transaction or event of a material and unusual nature likely, in the opinion of the Board Members, to affect significantly the operations of the Institute, the results of those operations or the state of affairs of the Institute in subsequent financial years.

26 Page 96 9.0 FINANCIAL REPORT © Sugar Research Institute of Fiji, 2016.

P. O.

Box 3560, Lautoka.

Ph: +679 8921839 Ph.


: +679 8921840 Email: info@srif.org.fj Website: www.srif.net.fj Rarawai (Ba) Office: +679 8907343.

Wairuku (Rakiraki) Office: +679 8907344.

Batinikama (Labasa) Office: +679 8907345.

2017 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT