Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694824725947.pdf (Fiji)
FOREWORD Page 1 2015 Annual Report CLEAN SEEDCANE PARLIAMENT OF FIJI PARLIAMENTARY PAPER NO.

52 OF 2018 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 2 FOREWORD FOREWORD The weather conditions in 2015 was similar to previous year with lower than average rainfall received in the cane belt that contributed to below expected cane production.
The government has been providing continual support to the industry to improve productivity and the use of science and technology at the farm level could be the two most important parameters to mitigate declining cane and sugar yields.

The Institute continues to focus on its key strategic areas of cane improvement, crop protection and management through various research projects.

Supplementing these projects is the technology transfer drive that is considered as an integral part of crop production.
The Institute aspires to provide the industry with high performing varieties that are well adapted to the conditions in Fiji.

Breeding of sugarcane varieties is a complex lengthy process involving many intricate and difficult procedures that is spread over a 12-15 year cycle.

Each step and different stage of the breeding program plays an important role and, during the year a number of varieties from various stages of selection were progressed to the next stage of selection.
The release of varieties for commercial planting is based mainly on high sugar yield per unit area, longer ratoon ability and resistance to diseases.

Sugarcane seeds (fuzz) from 13 crosses was imported from West Indies and this will be evaluated to identify breeding material that will help in broadening the genetic base for the future breeding.

The protection of the industry against diseases and pest incursions is a high priority task for the Institute and warrants a proactive approach.
The Institute has so far managed to keep the industry reasonably free of most of the major pests and diseases that are in Fiji.

However, to continue to enjoy the same protection will require advances in biotechnology and manpower resources for which financial support is necessary.
Routine screening of Fiji leaf gall (FLG) disease continued during the year and some preliminary survey works was done on plant parasitic nematodes where soil samples were analysed from Penang mill area to determine the occurrence of the nematodes.

A survey was also carried out to ascertain the presence of cane grubs in the cane belt and initial findings indicate the presence of this emerging pest in the cane farms that has been sent abroad for identification.
The rouging unit inspected 4587 hectares and eradicated 482 diseased FLG stools.

The Institute needs to remain focused to become a centre of excellence and disseminate information through the technology transfer program.

Under this program on field demonstrations on key issues that will improve production are conducted.

In 2015 18 grower demonstration trials were visited by 670 growers who had the opportunity to see the advancements in mechanization.
The EU support for the research activities is available through the Accompanying Measures for the Sugar Protocol Programme (AMSP Programme).

The Sugar Research Institute of Fiji has benefitted significantly from the support of European Union through the Annual Action Programs (AAP) 2011-2013.

The total of € 3.5M has been made available to SRIF through the Annual Action Programs AAP2011, AAP2012 and AAP2013.
This year I would like to put on record thanks and appreciation to staff from all categories in our substations and the head office for their support and commitment to the Institute.

The SRIF staff work collectively by providing technical guidance to protect and advance the sugar industry on issues affecting its ability to be sustainable and profitable.

I would also like to thank the new Chairman and other board members for their useful contribution and guidance.
Chief Executive Officer 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Page 3 MISSION STATEMENT To advance the industry by excellence in technology transfer emanating from research results through science that supports innovative activities in sugar related industries and to make the Fiji Sugar Industry productive and sustainable.
Board Members Prof. Rajesh Chandra Dr. Shanmugha Sundram Prof. Paras Nath Mr. Daniel Elisha Mr. Abdul Khan Mr. Sundresh Chetty Mr. Manasa Tagicakibau Mr. Sanjay Prakash - - - - - - - - Chairman Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Science Audit Committee Members Dr. Shanmugha Sundram Prof. Paras Nath Mr. Abdul Khan Mr. Sundresh Chetty Mr. Sanjay Prakash - - - - - Chairman Member Member Member Member PARLIAMENT OF FIJI PARLIAMENTARY PAPER NO.
52 OF 2018 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 4 MISSION STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ................................................................................................................. 2 MISSION STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 3 PLANT BREEDING ......................................................................................................... 6 Germplasm....................................................................................................................... 6 Drasa Collection – in Drasa Estate ................................................................................. 6 Dobuilevu Collection – at SRIF crossing facility ............................................................ 6 Overseas varieties .......................................................................................................... 6 Sugarcane crossing .......................................................................................................... 7 Stage 1 .............................................................................................................................. 7 LF2014 series ................................................................................................................ 8 LF2015 series ................................................................................................................ 8 Stage 2 .............................................................................................................................. 9 LF2014 series ................................................................................................................ 9 LF2013 series ................................................................................................................ 9 Stage 3 .............................................................................................................................. 9 LF2012 series .............................................................................................................. 10 LF2013 series .............................................................................................................. 11 Stage 4 ............................................................................................................................ 11 LF2011 series .............................................................................................................. 11 LF2010 series .............................................................................................................. 11 LF2009 series .............................................................................................................. 11 LF2008 series .............................................................................................................. 11 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 11 AGRONOMY ................................................................................................................ 13 ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES ........................................................................... 29 METEOROLOGY ........................................................................................................... 37 CROP PROTECTION ..................................................................................................... 45 CROP PRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 54 EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI ................... 63 FACP APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 70 APPROVED VARIETIES ................................................................................................. 80 ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 83 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 84 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Page 5 PLANT BREEDING SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 6 PLANT BREEDING PLANT BREEDING Plant Breeding consisted of 6 projects that were under study in 2015 namely:  Germplasm,  Sugarcane Crossing,  Stage 1,  Stage 2,  Stage 3 and  Stage 4.
Germplasm The sugarcane germplasm is a collection of clones that has recorded desirable traits and will be utilized for further genetic combinations.

One of the key characteristics of the germplasm is to be genetically diverse through the inclusion of clones with diverse genetic background.

This can be accomplished by importing varieties as well as sourcing varieties from the selection phase and parental development phase of the current breeding programs.
Sugar Research Institute of Fiji (SRIF) has got its germplasm located at Drasa in Lautoka, at Wairuku in Penang and at Dobuilevu in the Ra Province.

The Drasa collection is undergoing verification and re-planting while Wairuku and Dobuilevu collections are being maintained through timely harvest and cultivation.

Portions of the Dobuilevu collection is still in a farmer’s field which is being shifted to the new crossing site.
Along with the germplasm currently being maintained, SRIF has consistently been importing varieties to expand its current collection as well as inducing diversification.

In 2012, 9 varieties from Vietnam and 8 varieties from BSES were imported, the details of which will be discussed under respective headings below.

The varieties imported in 2010-2011 have already been incorporated in the breeding plots (flowering beds).
Overall, the SRIF germplasm is being maintained well with consistent assessments being carried out.

Drasa Collection – in Drasa Estate Core collection in Field 11 which was planted in the 1990’s (exact date unknown) was abandoned and attention was placed on the restored clones that was planted in Field 24 in 2011.

It has a mix of local and overseas hybrids as well as pure species of noble and wild canes.

Routine maintenance of the collection and upkeep was carried out this year.
Dobuilevu Collection – at SRIF crossing facility Dobuilevu collection consists of clones for immediate use in sugarcane crossing.

This is reviewed every year as to prevent use of same set of genetic materials over and over again.

Clones from the Drasa germplasm, Plant breeding Selection trials are considered for inclusion as well as the overseas varieties and clones from the parental line development crosses such as Erianthus crosses.
The collections were shifted into nearby Farmer’s field to accommodate planned landscaping of the SRIF farms.

No new varieties were planted this year.

Overseas varieties The inclusion of the overseas varieties promotes diversity to the present collection as new genetic materials are being added into the existing gene pool.

Historically, this had been a normal practice and this has been pursued again after a lapse of 2 decades during which no such initiatives were undertaken.
In 2015, 13 crosses from West Indies were imported and 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT PLANT BREEDING Page 7 sown in Rarawai whereas a MoU was signed with Visacane Quarantine facility at CIRAD in France to import new sugarcane varieties for the next 3 years.

Sugarcane crossing Sugarcane crossing is carried out every year to bring in the genetic diversity into the selection systems.
The flowers from various sugarcane clones are classed as male and female which then are inter-crossed based on sugar, fibre and parentage.

The products of these genetic combinations are then taken through rigorous selection methods to achieve near commercial clones which are then taken for release or reverted back to germplasm for use as parent material.

The following table summarizes the total crosses carried out in 2015.
Table 1: Summary of all crosses for 2015 TYPE L A I C R E M M O C COMMERCIAL HYBRIDS POLY BI-PARENTAL FIELD HAND POLLINATED - FIELD LANTERN HAND POLLINATED - LANTERN HAND POLLINATED - LANTERN ERIANTHUS L A T N E M I R E P X E OFFICINARUM BI-PARENTAL FIELD HAND POLLINATED - FIELD LANTERN BI-PARENTAL HAND POLLINATED - LANTERN IJ/IK HYBRIDS POLY TOTAL FIELD FIELD S E S S O R C # 136 61 258 143 24 8 10 10 3 3 % 29% 60% 6% 2% 16 2% 672 Poor seed sett from crosses was addressed by the consultant Dr. Nils Berding and it was found that the crossing solution did not have the right mix to sustain flowered stalks for 21 days.
Steps are being undertaken to correct this for the 2016 season.

Stage 1 Stage 1 is the progeny testing stage whereby the seedlings established from current and past year crosses are established for new trial and the seedlings that had been transplanted in the field in the previous year are evaluated.

The assessment is based on sucrose (brix) of the clones with the ones having brix higher than the average of standards (commercial varieties) are selected for stage 2.
In some cases, clones with good vigour/ appeal are also considered although they may have less brix.

Both the LF2014 and LF2015 series were in Stage 1 this year.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 8 PLANT BREEDING LF2014 series The cane stalks were still in semi internode stage due to late planting in March.

There are high chances this trial may not be evaluated in 2016 as prevailing dry weather conditions post transplanting also contributed to the slow growth of the varieties.
LF2015 series A total of 1076 fuzz packets was sown in 2015, details of which are shown in the table below.

All the seedlings were potted and transplanted to the field in December.
Table 2: LF2015 series fuzz sowing summary Commercial Crosses Experimental Crosses n w o n k n U - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m u t s u b o R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 11 s u h t n a i r E K I / J I s d i r b y h - - - - - - - - - - - - 23 1 4% - - - 4 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 99 78 m u r a n i c i f f O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 3 Total 50 5 10% 117 5 4% 242 48 20% 23 0 0% 23 1 4% 74 31 42% 326 211 50% 75% 79% 75% 65% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 94 86 91% 54 26 48% Year *Details 2004 Sown Germ % Sown 2005 Germ % Sown 2006 Germ % Sown 2007 Germ % Sown 2008 Germ % Sown 2009 Germ % Sown 2010 Germ % Sown 2011 Germ % Sown 2012 Germ l a t n e r a p - i B 49 5 10% 113 5 4% 242 48 20% 23 - - - - - 44 22 y l o P 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30 9 30% 50% 186 111 11 5 60% 45% 78 76 97% 16 4 16 10 6% 37 22 % 25% 59% 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT PLANT BREEDING Page 9 Table 2: Cont’d Year *Details Sown 2013 Germ % Sown 2014 Germ WEST INDIES % Sown Germ % Sown Germ % Commercial Crosses Experimental Crosses l a t n e r a p - i B 33 2 6% 17 - - 17 - - y l o P 9 - - 2 - - 2 - - 322 200 585 119 n w o n k n U - - - - - - - - 4 0 m u t s u b o R - - - - - - - - - s u h t n a i r E 2 - - 1 - - 1 - - K I / J I s d i r b y h 9 1 11% - - - - - - m u r a n i c i f f O - - - - - - - - - Total 53 3 6% 20 0 0% 20 0 0% 22 11 30 4 109 79 4 3 1076 416 62% 20% 0% 50% 13% 72% 75% 39% Totals All Commercials All Experimental Sown Germ % 911 319 35% 165 97 59% 1076 416 39% *Sown – Number of fuzz packets sown, Germ – Number germinated, % - Percent germination Stage 2 Stage 2 is the first clonal stage whereby the selections from the seedling stage are planted and evaluated.
Stalk samples are taken from the trial and sent for small mill laboratory analysis.

The field notes on variety are also taken into consideration before making the final set of selections for advancement to Stage 3.

In 2015, the LF2014 and LF2013 series were in Stage 2.

LF2014 series This series could not be planted due to delay in Stage 1 selection that could not be carried out due to late planting of seedlings in the same year followed by drought that led to poor establishment of stalks.
LF2013 series A total of 565 clones were sampled and the field notes on all varieties were taken.

Out of the 565 clones sampled, 71 varieties were selected for advancement to Stage 3.

Stage 3 Stage 3 is the second clonal stage whereby the clones from Stage 2 are planted and evaluated.

Stalk samples are taken from the trial and sent for small mill laboratory analysis.
The field notes on varieties are also taken into consideration before making the final set of selected SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 10 PLANT BREEDING clones to progress to Stage 4.

The clones are also sent for disease resistance screening at this stage.

In 2015 the LF2012 and LF2013 series were in Stage 3.

LF2012 series A total of 80 clones were sampled and field assessment completed.

The final selection was conducted and a total of 17 clones were selected for advancement to Stage 4.
Table 3: LF2012 Stage 3 – Selection for stage 4 clones Variety Female Male LF12-276 LF12-63 LF12-2 LF12-22 LF00-584 LF02-721 LF05-746 LF02-887 POLY 11 POLY 61 POLY 89 POLY 60 LF12-40 LF12-114 LF05-1025 POLY 23 LF05-200 POLY 3 LF12-34 LF12-31 LF12-282 LF12-255 LF12-154 LF12-112 LF12-76 LF12-253 LF12-74 LF12-153 LF12-233 NAIDIRI MANA POLY 20 LF03-163 POLY 2 LF00-584 POLY 62 LF03-24 POLY 29 LF03-24 POLY 53 LF02-864 LF00-1082 POLY 18 LF00-1082 POLY 9 LF03-24 LF05-302 LF99-2430 POLY 142 POLY 139 POLY 29 POLY 23 NAIDIRI k l a t S T.M M TH T-M T-M M l a e p p A C C+ C+ C C C e r b i F % s c o P % d n a t S d e g d o L h s a r T r e w o l F 9.3 18.4 A S S.C 10.9 17.2 A S S.C S S h t w o r G M G 9.6 16.6 A F 12.8 16.4 A S S.C - S M F M M t h g i e H M T M M 13.4 16.4 G S S.C 11.9 16.3 G S C NO M G M-T 12.5 16.3 P S S.C F 10.8 16.1 A S 12.2 16.1 A S F 14.0 16.1 A S S.C F 11.1 15.9 A L 10.8 15.9 A S S.C F 11.2 15.7 A S 13.9 15.7 A S F F 14.2 13.4 A S 10.8 14.2 A S S.C F 11.9 14.5 A S 9.4 16.1 11.1 15.9 F F F M M M OK M T-M F OK M TH M M-T M-TH S C+ C C+ C S-M M-T/H C- M M-TH C+ TH-M C+ M-TH C+ C M M-TH C+ M-TH C+ T S G OK M M T M M-T M-TH M F G KEY: Stand G/ A/ P – good/ average/ poor Lodged S/L/H – slightly/ lodged/ heavy Trash SC/C/F – slightly clinging/ clinging/ free trashing Flower F/ P – flowered/ profuse SS (SIDE SHOOTS) F/ M/ E – few/ moderate/ extreme Growth S/ M/ V – stunted/ moderate/ vigorous Height S/ M/ T – short/ moderate/ tall Stalk T/ M/ TH – thin/ moderate/ thick.
Appeal A/C+/C/ C- - advance/ consider advance/ consider/ consider or discard.

A total of 12 varieties were selected on having %pocs better than the standards Naidiri and Mana whereas LF12-76, LF12-153 and LF12-233 selected based on having good physical attributes matching that of commercial cane and its sugar yield will be monitored in Stage 4.

LF12-74 and LF12-253 have been selected for high fibre as well as good physical attributes.
The seed cane for selected clones were sent to Labasa for propagation however the seed bed could not be established for Penang, Lautoka and Rarawai Stage 4 since Stage 3 trial got 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT PLANT BREEDING Page 11 burnt together with the seed cane harvested for planting.

The seed bed is re-scheduled to be planted in April 2016 whereas stage 4 planting will be delayed to October-November 2016.

LF2013 series A total of 69 varieties was selected and planted for this trial on 29.10.15.
All the cultivation work in this trial has been done and would be evaluated in 2016.

Stage 4 Stage 4 is the final stage whereby the selections from Stage 3 are planted at all mill areas (multi-location G X E trials) and evaluated for 3 crop cycles – Plant, 1st Ratoon and 2nd Ratoon.

Stalk samples are taken from the trial and sent for small mill laboratory analysis.
The field notes on varieties are also taken into consideration and varieties are identified (if having desired commercial attributes) in the first ratoon for Farmer Feel Effect (FFE) programme whereby seed cane of these varieties are propagated and given out to identified growers (at least 1 per sector) to plant for feedback purposes.

In 2015, the LF2011, LF2010, LF2009 and LF2008 series were in Stage 4.
LF2011 series A total of 10 varieties in 4 replicates were planted in all mills and will be evaluated in 2016.

LF2010 series This trial was in Plant crop in Drasa, Rarawai and Labasa.

The Drasa trial was abandoned later due to excessive gaps and lack of seed material for ‘supply’.

Labasa trial was also affected by drought but evaluation was done.

Rarawai trials established well and were sampled, harvested and weighed.
The trials will be maintained and proper husbandry practices carried out for evaluation in 2016.

LF2009 series This trial was in 1st ratoon and also present in all mills and has been sampled, harvested and weighed.

The data was compiled and recommendation for varieties for FFE will be done by 2016 after observing the propagation plots.

The trials are maintained and proper husbandry practices carried out for evaluation in 2016.
LF2008 series This trial was in 2nd ratoon and was present at all mills and has been harvested and weighed.

The data was compiled for analysis and recommendation for varieties for FFE Program in 2016.

This trial has officially been completed and will not be pursued in 2016.

Recommendations The Plant Breeding program needs at least 4 full time staff to oversee all the projects.

There was only 1 full time staff at the beginning and 2 more staff joining in August who were under study.
At least 3-4 full-time support staff is also needed for all project field work.

This is to upkeep consistency and proper monitoring and implementation of all the activities in a timely manner and to avoid repetition of training and mistakes SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 12 AGRONOMY 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT AGRONOMY Page 13 AGRONOMY Summary Organic fertilizer promotes rich, fertile soil and supplies the nutrients to the plants when needed by the plant.
Cane yield obtained from Farmorganix (SumaGrow) trial conducted at Drasa, showed that by applying organic fertilizer (SumaGrow) in combination with commercial fertilizers can increase cane and sugar yield significantly.

Organic fertilizer produced 90 – 97 tonnes per hectare when used alone.

However, the effect is enhanced when used in combination with commercial fertilizer producing 121 tonnes per hectare of cane.
The effects of organic fertilizer (SumaGrow) need to be studied on plant and ratoon stages of sugarcane on different soil types and different sugarcane varieties to be able to recommend organic fertilizer (SumaGrow) for sugarcane.

The potassium trial that was planted in 2012 was evaluated for second ratoon in 2015.

The results of this study indicated that there was no adverse effect of Muriate of potash on pocs, cane yield and sugar yield for plant crop.
The trial will be evaluated once more in the third ratoon stage.

The variety trial was evaluated for second ratoon.

The result of this study indicated that late harvesting had an impact on cane pocs.

Early maturing variety such as Naidiri should be planted and harvested early in the harvesting season.

The other three trials (Nitrogen, Lime & Legume) which were planted in 2013 season in Labasa were evaluated for the first ratoon crop in 2015.
For the nitrogen trial, it was observed that 120kg N/ha gave an economical yield which is desired by the farmers.

Therefore, it is recommended that farmers can apply nitrogen from 120kg N/ha but this is yet to be confirmed after analyzing the second ratoon data next season.

The value is a general recommendation but farmers should adhere to lab recommendation where possible.

As for the Lime trial, its application did not give any significant difference between the treatments in first ratoon crop.
This can be due to Lime being a slow reacting component therefore, it is expected that a significance between the treatments can be visually observed after second ratoon evaluation.

Based on the first set of data, it shows that Diuron if applied at the rate of 6 kg per hectare gives phytotoxic effect to the sugar cane plant.

The growth is affected and scotching occurs on the leaf of the plant when sprayed.
Similar trend was observed in the first ratoon crop whereas the result will be confirmed after the second ratoon crop is evaluated in 2016.

Planting legume has beneficial effects on the soil health and fixes nitrogen in the soil.

This reduces the N fertiliser use which will eventually reduce the cost for farmers.

It was observed that cowpea sprayed during flowering stage gave higher yield to cane planted in that treatment.
TRIAL 1: Effect of Farm Organic on Cane and Sugar Yields in Comparison with Recommended rates of chemical fertilization Trial code: Location: Variety: Trial Design: Replications/Treatment: Plot size: Date Planted: Date harvested: LA1301P9 F/24 Drasa, Lautoka Naidiri Randomized Complete Block Design 6/4 6 rows x 10m x 1.37m 26 November 2013 26 August 2014 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 14 AGRONOMY Details of treatments applied Treatment 1: NPK Blend A at planting: 2 bags/ha = 0.82 kg/plot = 0.137 kg/row of 10m Blend B: 6-8 weeks after planting-Blend B=14 bags/ha Treatment 2: NPK 50% + Farmorganix 50% Chemical Fertilsers-50% Blend A at planting: 1 bag/ha = 0.41 kg/plot = 0.07kg/row of 10m Blend B (50% of recommended rate): 7 bags/ha ; 6-8 weeks after planting Farmorganix-50% Application 1: Farmorganix at 2.5 L/ha = 20.55ml/plot = 3.43ml/row of 10m Application 2: 6-8 weeks after planting;Farmorganix at 2.5 L/ha =20.55ml/plot =3.43ml/row of 10m Treatment 3: Farmorganix 100% Application 1 = 50% at planting = 5L/ha = 41.1ml/plot = 6.85ml/row of 10m Application 2 = 50% 6-8 weeks after planting = 5L/ha = 41.1ml/plot = 6.85ml/row of 10m Treatment 4: Dip in 2.5% solution for 5-8 minutes.
Application 1 = 50% at planting = 5L/ha = 41.1ml/plot = 6.85ml/row of 10m Application 2 = 50% 6-8 weeks after planting = 5L/ha = 41.1ml/plot = 6.85ml/row of 10m The purpose of this trial was to study the effect of Farmorganix/Stand Up on cane and sugar yields in comparison with recommended rates of chemical fertilizer.

The trial was planted manually with 3 eye bud setts and covered with soil using a hoe.

Pre-emergent herbicide (diuron 80 @ a rate of 5kg/ha) was applied.
Germination of seed cane was counted and recorded.

The young plants of Naidiri were affected by leaf scald.

Percent infection ranged from 4 – 13 percent.

Growth measurements were taken at 4 and 6 months after planting.

The trial was harvested in August.

The cane and sugar yield per hectare in each treatment is given below.

The trial data were collated and analyzed statistically.

Table 1: Cane production in different rates of fertilizer – Organomix (tc/ha) Trt.
1 2 3 4 1 118.4 119.7 84.5 75.9 2 106.0 106.8 96.7 105.1 Reps 3 126.3 143.4 111.3 111.7 4 140.5 123.7 104.6 76.1 5 135.2 121.5 79.9 88.3 6 130.7 115.9 106.8 86.9 Total Avg.

757.1 731.0 583.8 544.0 126.2 121.8 97.3 90.7 Table 2: Sugar production in different rates of fertilizer – Organomix (ts/ha) Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 15.5 16.4 11.3 10.2 2 14.5 14.8 12.5 13.2 Reps 3 17.2 18.7 15.2 14.7 4 19.2 16.5 14.3 9.9 5 18.2 17.0 10.6 11.8 6 18.9 15.6 14.0 11.5 Total Avg.
103.5 98.8 77.8 71.2 17.3 16.5 13.0 11.9 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT AGRONOMY Page 15 Cane yield for different treatments ) a h / c t ( 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 i l d e Y e n a C 1 2 3 4 Treatments Graph 1: Cane yield (tc/ha) for different treatment Sugar yield for different treatments l d e i y r a g u S ) a h / s t ( 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 Treatments Graph 2: Sugar yield (ts/ha) for different treatment.
Table 3: Analysis of variance for tc/ha Source Replication Treatment Error Total DF 5 3 15 23 SS 1323.3 5601.0 2092.7 Table 4: Analysis of variance for ts/ha Source Replication Treatment Error Total DF 5 3 15 23 SS 24.0 124.0 35.4 MS 264.7 1867.0 139.5 MS 4.8 41.3 2.4 F P 13.4 0.0002 F P 17.5 0.0000 It is evident from the data (graph 1) that the yield of cane is significantly different at 1% significance level (p=0.0002) (Table 3) within treatments.
The data shows that SumaGrow is capable of producing good tonnage, producing 90 - 97 tonnes per hectare (treatment 3 and treatment 4) of cane when used alone.

However, the effect is enhanced when used in SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 16 AGRONOMY combination with commercial fertilizer producing 121 tonnes per hectare of cane (treatment 2).

Likewise, the tonnes sugar produced is significantly different within each treatment at 1% significance level (p= 0.0000) (table 4).
However, the plots that had only commercial fertilizer Treatment 1 (100% NPK) produced better yield compared to Treatment 3 (100% SumaGrow).

Based on the calculated yield this trial showed that by applying SumaGrow in combination with commercial fertilizers, cane yield and subsequently sugar yield can be increased.
However, the effects of SumaGrow needs to be studied on plant and ratoon stages of sugarcane on different soil types and different sugarcane varieties to be able to recommend SumaGrow for sugarcane.

TRIAL 2: The effects of potassium fertilization on plant cane and successive ratoons.
Trial code: Location: Variety: Trial Design: Replications: Plot size: Date Planted: Date harvested: LA1101R9 Drasa, Lautoka Kiuva Randomized Complete Block Design 4 9rows x 8m x 1.37m 24 June 2011 10 September 2012 Table 5: Treatments for the trial Treatments Muriate of Potash ( kg/ha) 80 125 200 40 40 40 40 85 160 (Split Application) (Split Application) (Split Application) This trial was planted in 2011 with the aim of acquiring more information on response of different rates of potassium fertilization when adequate nitrogen and phosphorus are added.
The treatment fertilizer used was Muriate of Potash (50%) at three different rates; 80, 125, and 200 K kg/ha.

The trial has six treatments as shown in table 5 above.

Treatment 4, 5 and 6 are split application.

The cane was supplied with top dressing of ammonium sulphate at 120 kg/ha 6 weeks after harvesting.

Amine 2, 4 D and Velpar were applied as post emergence at 4 kg/ha after emergence of weeds.
A pre-harvest sampling of cane was carried out from each treatment to determine %brix, %pol, %pocs %fiber.

The cane from each plot was weighed to determine cane and sugar yields obtained from each treatment.

The results obtained from the trial are tabulated below.

Table 6: %brix in juice Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 19.9 21.1 21.6 20.7 2 20.5 21.8 21.2 20.7 Reps 3 20.2 20.4 21.5 21.5 4 21.5 21.4 20.7 21.4 5 18.8 20.7 21.6 21.6 6 21.0 21.7 20.2 21.5 Total Avg.
121.8 127.0 126.7 127.4 20.3 21.2 21.1 21.2 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Table 7: %pol in juice Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 17.3 18.6 19.2 17.6 Table 8: %fiber Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 13.0 11.8 13.5 12.5 Table 9: % pocs Trt.

1 2 3 4 Table 10: tc/ha Trt.


 Reps 3 17.4 17.6 18.9 19.0 4 18.5 19.0 18.2 19.0 Reps 3 12.2 12.9 13.4 12.1 4 13.2 12.7 13.0 12.9 Reps 3 13.1 13.1 14.1 14.5 4 13.7 14.5 13.6 14.4 Reps 3 25.6 14.3 33.5 45.9 4 24.3 38.3 26.5 40.5 Table 11: ts/ha Trt.
1 2 3 4 1 4.1 3.4 4.0 2.6 2 3.4 5.1 4.6 1.4 Reps 3 3.4 1.9 4.7 6.7 4 3.3 5.5 3.6 5.8 Table 12: Analysis of Variance for tc/ha Source Replication Treatment Error Total DF 3 5 15 23 SS 84.4 329.4 1418.1 AGRONOMY Page 17 6 18.3 18.8 17.6 19.0 6 12.9 12.9 12.4 12.2 6 13.7 14.0 13.2 14.5 6 33.8 31.3 25.2 38.9 6 4.6 4.4 3.3 5.7 Total Avg.

105.4 111.8 111.1 111.6 17.6 18.6 18.5 18.6 Total Avg.

76.2 76.4 77.8 74.9 12.7 12.7 13.0 12.5 Total Avg.

78.8 84.5 83.4 84.3 13.1 14.1 13.9 14.1 Total Avg.


161.5 153.6 178.2 180.4 26.9 25.6 29.7 30.1 Total Avg.
21.3 21.9 24.8 25.7 3.6 3.6 4.1 4.3 P 0.6341 F 0.7 5 16.0 18.4 18.9 19.0 5 12.1 12.8 12.9 12.7 5 11.9 13.9 14.2 14.3 5 21.0 11.6 32.2 24.9 5 2.5 1.6 4.6 3.6 MS 28.1 62.9 94.5 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 18 AGRONOMY Table 13: Analysis of variance for ts/ha Source Replication Treatment Error Total DF 3 5 15 23 SS 2.34 7.23 32.38 MS 0.8 1.4 2.2 F 0.7 P 0.6521 From the data obtained for the trial, it is evident there is no significant effect of potassium on cane (p=0.6341) and sugar (p=0.6521) yield.
The cane yield is much lower than expected and this could be attributed to non-conducive weather conditions in 2014.

TRIAL 3: The effects of time of harvest on sugarcane yield in Fiji.

Trial No.
: Location: Varieties: Trial Design: Replications: Plot size: Date Planted: Date harvested: LA1102R9 Drasa, Lautoka Kiuva, Naidiri and Mana Split-plot design 4 4rows x 7m x 1.37m 24 June 2011  Early harvested : 07.07.14  Mid harvested: 12.08.14  Late harvested: 26.09.14 Table 14: Treatments for the trial Replication 1 P1T2A P2T1A P3T3A P4T2B P5T1B P6T3B P7T2C P8T1C P9T3C Replication 2 P1T2B P2T3B P3T1B P4T2A P5T3A P6T1A P7T2C P8T3C P9T1C Table 15: Definition of acronyms Treatment 1 2 3 A B C P[#] Replication 3 P1T1C P2T2C P3T3C P4T1B P5T2B P6T3B P7T1A P8T2A P9T3A Replication 4 P1T1B P2T3B P3T2B P4T1A P5T3A P6T2A P7T1C P8T3C P9T2C Harvest Season/ Variety Early season[July 2014] Mid-season[Aug 2014] Late season[Sept 2014] Mana Naidiri Kiuva Plot [Number] Three commercial varieties of sugarcane Kiuva, Naidiri and Mana were planted to evaluate optimum harvesting time for different varieties.
The trial was harvested thrice in the harvesting season, early harvesting (July), mid harvesting (August) and late harvesting (September) and weighed manually.

Six stalks were randomly selected from each treatment to determine %brix, %pol and %fibre and %pocs.

2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT The tables below shows analysis of variances for selected parameters.
AGRONOMY Page 19 Table 16: Analysis of variance for %pocs Source Rep Variety Error Rep*Variety Treatment Variety*Treatment Error Rep*Variety*Treatment Total DF 3 2 6 2 4 18 35 Table 17: Analysis of variance for %brix Source Rep Variety Error Rep*Variety Treatment Variety*Treatment Error Rep*Variety*Treatment Total DF 3 2 6 2 4 18 35 Table 18: Analysis of variance for %fiber Source Rep Variety Error Rep*Variety Treatment Variety*Treatment Error Rep*Variety*Treatment Total DF 3 2 6 2 4 18 35 Table 19: Analysis of variance for tc/ha Source Rep Variety Error Rep*Variety Treatment Variety*Treatment Error Rep*Variety*Treatment Total DF 3 2 6 2 4 18 35 Table 20: Analysis of variance for ts/ha Source Rep Variety Error Rep*Variety Treatment Variety*Treatment Error Rep*Variety*Treatment Total DF 3 2 6 2 4 18 35 SS 4.5 4.7 11.1 19.1 1.0 6.5 SS 8.5 20.3 7.1 0.8 0.3 3.9 SS 2.9 57.1 2.9 0.1 1.1 0.8 SS 420.6 245.8 665.5 377.4 57.6 760.9 SS 8.4 1.8 14.0 23.8 0.8 15.6 MS 1.5 2.4 1.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 MS 2.8 10.1 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 MS 1.0 28.5 0.5 0.04 0.3 0.04 MS 140.2 122.9 110.9 188.7 14.4 42.3 MS 2.8 0.9 2.3 11.9 0.2 0.9 F P 1.3 0.3466 26.5 0.7 0.0000 0.6015 F 8.5 1.9 0.3 P 0.0178 0.1837 0.8650 F P 59.4 0.0001 1.1 6.4 0.3677 0.0022 F 1.1 4.5 0.3 P 0.3895 0.0266 0.8470 F P 0.4 0.6973 13.7 0.2 0.0002 0.9199 The sugar and cane yield obtained was very low.
The first ratoon was lost to accidental fire and the fertilizer application for ratoon was applied which attributed to low yields.

However, the tonnes of sugar obtained per hectare were found to be significantly different (p= 0.0002) SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 20 AGRONOMY within all three harvesting seasons.

Yield of sugar was found to be higher in late harvesting season.
The percent brix for Kiuva and Naidiri are higher than more commonly planted variety Mana in all harvesting season including early harvesting season.
TRIAL 4: Effect of lime on soil properties and sugarcane yield in Fiji Location: Varieties: Trial Design: Replications: Plot size: Date Planted: Drasa, Lautoka Aiwa Randomized Complete Block Design 4 6 rows x 10 m x 1.37 m 16 April 2014 Table 21: Details of Treatments Treatments 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 The trial was planted manually with the aim of identifying effects of lime on soil properties and yield of sugarcane.
Trial was laid out in April afterwhich the dry weather conditions setted in.

Thus poor germination was noticed as per following table; Table 22: Germination percentage Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 29.7 45.7 36.1 38.6 Reps 2 43.3 41.0 37.6 48.7 3 26.9 27.6 38.9 34.8 4 36.5 25.8 31.6 24.2 Total Avg.

137 140 144 146 34 35 36 37 Growth measurements were taken at 3, 5 and 8 months after planting.

The data for each measurement is tabulated below.

Table 23: Growth Measurement (Height of cane at 3 months) Trt.
1 2 3 4 1 30.5 28.3 33.5 30.8 Reps 2 37.0 37.3 28.8 37.3 3 24.8 26.3 33.8 31.8 4 38.5 29.3 33.3 34.0 Total Avg.

131 121 130 134 33 31 33 34 Table 24: Growth Measurement (No.

of tillers at 3 months) Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.5 Reps 2 4.5 6.0 2.8 4.0 3 1.3 2.8 3.3 4.5 4 4.5 3.0 4.0 6.3 Total Avg.

15 15 14 19 4 4 4 5 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT AGRONOMY Page 21 Table 25: Growth Measurement (Population count at 3 months) Trt.
1 2 3 4 1 65.0 47.0 69.0 90.0 Reps 2 104.0 133.5 74.5 102.0 3 51.5 38.0 63.5 82.5 4 87.0 68.0 77.0 79.5 Total Avg.

308 287 284 354 77 72 71 89 Table 26: Growth Measurement (Height of cane at 5 months) Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 45.0 35.5 46.8 52.5 Reps 2 69.5 75.0 47.5 65.0 3 37.0 41.8 45.5 48.3 4 62.0 51.3 68.8 69.8 Total Avg.

214 204 209 236 54 51 52 59 Table 27: Growth Measurement (No.

of tillers at 5 months) Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 4.0 3.8 4.8 5.3 Reps 2 7.8 8.0 4.0 7.5 3 2.5 3.5 3.8 6.0 4 5.8 8.5 8.0 8.8 Total Avg.
20 24 21 28 5 6 5 7 Table 28: Growth Measurement (Population count at 5 months) Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 68.5 37.0 66.0 97.5 Reps 2 116.5 125.5 81.5 90.5 3 59.0 45.0 57.5 75.0 4 96.0 102.0 100.0 106.5 Total Avg.

340 310 305 370 85 78 77 93 Table 29: Growth Measurement (Height of cane at 8 months) Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 117.8 75.0 83.8 112.3 Reps 2 150.0 156.3 122.5 130.0 3 81.3 95.0 109.8 117.3 4 128.8 120.0 127.0 127.5 Total Avg.

478 447 443 487 120 112 111 122 Table 30: Growth Measurement (No.
of tillers at 8 months) Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 8.3 5.0 3.8 5.3 Reps 2 10.0 6.5 7.0 8.5 3 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.8 4 7.5 7.0 11.0 9.8 Total Avg.

31 24 27 30 8 6 7 8 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 22 AGRONOMY Table 31: Growth Measurement (Population count at 8 months) Trt.

1 2 3 4 1 92.0 73.5 83.0 106.5 Reps 2 117.5 122.0 95.0 113.5 3 66.0 80.0 77.0 107.5 4 107.5 99.0 103.0 115.5 Total Avg.

383 375 358 443 96 94 90 111 Samples will be selected randomly to be analyzed for biochemical analysis (%brix, %fibre, %pol and %pocs).
The trial will be harvested manually in 2016.

Each plot will be weighed and the data will be utilized to determine tons of cane and sugar produced.

TRIAL 5: Nitrogen trial - Labasa Nitrogen is one of the main building blocks of protein.

It is responsible for growth and expansion of green leaves and is essential for photosynthesis and sugar production.

Table 32: Nitrogen trial summary - Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on sugarcane yield Trial code Location Variety Trial Design Reps/Trt.
Plot size Date planted BA1301P9 Seaqaqa (Bulivou sector) Waiqele Kiuva RCBD 4/4 6rows x 10m x 1.37m 24 April 2013 BA1303P9 Waiqele Kiuva RCBD 4/4 6rows x 10m x 1.37m 08th May 2013 Naidiri RCBD 4/4 6rows x 10m x 1.37m 29th April 2013 BA1302P9 Application rates of nitrogen in the field are determined by leaf and soil analysis done in the lab.

Three nitrogen trials have been established in Seaqaqa to study the effect of different rates of nitrogen fertiliser on cane growth and yield in the field.
The treatments and data collected on growth attributes are shown in the tables below: Table 33: Details of treatments Trt.
1 2 3 4 Nitrogen rates 60 Kg N per hectare 90 Kg N per hectare 120 Kg N per hectare 150 Kg N per hectare Time of Application 8 weeks after planting 8 weeks after planting 8 weeks after planting 8 weeks after planting Note: Blend A was applied at the rate of 3 bags per hectare as per laboratory recommendation The 1st ratoon data from these trials shows that 150Kg N per hectare gave higher plant population with tallest plants, which was followed by 120Kg N per hectare.
Even though T4 recorded higher plant growth and population, T3 gave economic growth which is desirable for profit in the field.

The data in each table below shows the difference of each treatment: Table 34: Growth attributes – Kiuva variety (BA1301P9) Trt.
1 2 3 4 Tillers per stool Months 3 7 10 12 12 5 5 7 10 11 7 4 6 7 7 9 Population (103) Months 3 80 100 137 140 5 72 90 130 134 7 60 81 122 127 Stalk 9 Length (cm) Months 5 48 63 82 94 7 86 97 157 164 3 27 35 44 52 9 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT AGRONOMY Page 23 Table 35: Yield attributes – Kiuva variety (BA1301P9) Trt.

1 2 3 4 tch 98 102 126 130 Fibre % 10 11 12 12 % Pocs 16.4 16.1 16.3 16.1 Table 36: Growth attributes – Kiuva variety (BA1303P9) Trt.
1 2 3 4 Tillers per stool Months 3 6 7 9 12 5 5 5 8 10 7 5 5 7 8 9 Population (103) Months 3 88 100 146 155 5 72 91 132 142 7 58 70 120 128 Stalk 9 Length (cm) Months 5 60 72 98 101 7 77 89 143 155 3 20 26 33 38 Table 37: Yield attributes – Kiuva variety (BA1303P9) Trt.

1 2 3 4 tch 90 95 126 129 Fibre % 12.6 12.0 12.5 12.7 % Pocs 16.1 16.8 16.7 16.7 Table 38: Growth attributes – Naidiri variety (BA1302P9) Trt.
1 2 3 4 Tillers per stool Months 3 5 6 8 8 5 4 5 7 7 7 4 5 5 6 9 Population (103) Months 5 49 58 77 80 7 45 51 73 78 3 55 66 84 88 Table 39: Yield attributes – Naidiri variety (BA1302P9) Trt.
1 2 3 4 Fibre % 12.5 12.4 11.8 11.8 tch 121 133 161 173 Stalk 9 Length (cm) Months 5 32 41 54 59 7 67 72 109 119 3 18 28 36 39 % Pocs 15.9 16.4 17.0 16.9 tsh 16.0 16.4 20.5 20.9 9 tsh 14.5 15.9 21.0 21.5 9 tsh 19.2 21.8 27.4 29.2 The yield data from all three trial shows that adding 120kg N/ha gave economical yield for the farmers.

Adding 150kg N/ha also gave similar yield compared to 120kg N/ha, but was not economical.

Also this rate is excess and will prove harmful for the soil and environment.
TRIAL 6: Lime trial - Labasa Fiji soils are acidic in nature which may be one of the reasons attributed to the declining productivity of sugarcane.
There are various reasons of increased pH such as:  Continuous cropping of sugarcane on Fiji soils  Soil erosion  Continuous use of ammonia based fertilisers on sugarcane cultivated soils SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 24 AGRONOMY To verify this problem, two lime trials have been established in Seaqaqa to study the effect of lime on soil pH and cane sugar yield.

Lime addition in the soil reduces soil pH which is desirable for cane growth.
Table 40: Lime trial summary – Effect of lime on sugarcane yield (Labasa Trials) Trial code Location Variety Trial Design Replications/treatments Plot size Date planted BA1304P9 Seaqaqa (Solove sector) Naidiri RCBD 4/4 6 rows x 10m x 1.37m 10th May 2013 BA1305P9 Seaqaqa (Bulivou sector) LF91-1925 RCBD 4/4 6 rows x 10m x 1.37m 14th May, 2013 The treatments and data collected on growth attributes are shown in the table below: Table 41: Details of treatments Trt.
1 2 3 4 Lime rates 0 tonnes of lime per hectare 1.3 tonnes of lime per hectare 2.6 tonnes of lime per hectare 3.9 tonnes of lime per hectare Time of Application At the time of planting in the furrows At the time of planting in the furrows At the time of planting in the furrows At the time of planting in the furrows Note: Blend A and B fertilizers were added according to laboratory recommendation after soil analysis There was no significant difference in plant growth, stalk population and the tiller production between the treatments.
Lime is a slow reacting component and the effect of it will take time, therefor the result of significance can be noticed in the ratoon.

The yield of both trials showed similar trends as with growth attributes.

Lime is a soil amendment and only should be recommended to the soils with high pH.

Those farms should be resampled to see the changes in soil pH.

If the pH comes to its optimum level then lime is no longer required.
The farmers should practice thrash blanketing and legume planting so that the nutrients are replenished back into the soil with less chance of increased soil pH.

One of the main reasons of increased pH of the soil is the use of chemical fertilizer and continuous mono-culturing.

The land should be fallowed for a while to avoid the buildup of H+ ions in the soil.
The data are shown in the tables below: Table 42: Growth attributes – LF91-1925 variety Tillers per stool Months 3 6 6 7 7 5 5 6 6 6 7 4 5 5 6 9 Population (103) Months 3 131 138 129 140 5 101 105 102 109 7 85 88 86 91 Stalk 9 Length (cm) Months 5 72 70 86 83 7 142 148 145 138 3 19 22 23 21 Trt.

1 2 3 4 Table 43: Yield attributes – LF91-1925 variety Trt.
1 2 3 4 tch 119 120 118 124 Fibre % 11.2 11.8 11.5 12.1 % Pocs 16.9 16.3 16.7 16.4 9 tsh 20.1 19.5 19.7 20.3 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT AGRONOMY Page 25 Table 44: Growth Attributes – Naidiri variety Tillers per stool Months Population (103) Months Stalk 9 Length (cm) Months 5 88 92 95 94 7 171 168 174 176 3 31 34 36 30 Trt.

1 2 3 4 Table 45: Yield attributes Trt.


1 2 3 4 tch 114 109 113 116 Fibre % 12.1 11.3 11.8 12.0 % Pocs 16.2 15.5 14.8 15.2 TRIAL 7: Legume trial 9 tsh 18.4 16.9 16.8 17.6 Planting of legume crops with sugarcane tends to fix nitrogen in the soil and also becomes a source of cash income for the farmers.

The 1st ratoon data showed that cowpea and peanut at after flowering stage gave better plant growth and yield.
Table 46: Legume trial summary – Effect of Legumes on sugarcane yield Trial code Location Variety Trial Design Rep/Trt.

Plot size Date planted BA1306P9 Labasa Ragnar, Mali, LF91-1925 & Naidiri Split –plot 3/4/4 6 rows x 10m x 1.37m 17th Sept 2013 BA1307P9 Wailevu Ragnar, Mali, LF91-1925 & Naidiri Split - plot 3/4/4 6 rows x 10m x 1.37m 25th Sept 2013 Growth assessment was carried out at 3, 5 and 7 months.

The trials were sampled and harvested in September, 2015.
The treatments, growth and yield attribute data are shown in the next set of tables.

Table 47: Treatments Trt.

M1 M2 M3 S1 S2 S3 Main treatment - Diuron Spraying of legumes before flowering Spraying of legumes after flowering Spraying of legumes after fruiting Sub Plot treatment - Varieties Cowpea Urd Peanut Table 48: Growth attributes Trt.

S1 S2 S3 Total Avg.
S1 S2 S3 Total Avg.

3 M2 128 143 145 416 139 M1 146 165 168 479 160 Population (000/ha) 5 M1 121 118 128 367 122 M2 106 107 118 331 110 M3 96 97 104 297 99 M3 109 132 138 379 126 7 M2 70 80 76 226 75 M1 87 90 82 259 86 M3 64 77 74 215 72 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 26 AGRONOMY Table 49: Growth attributes Trt.

S1 S2 S3 Total Avg.

3 M2 24 20 20 73 24 M1 33 28 24 95 32 Table 50: Growth attributes Trt.

S1 S2 S3 Total Avg.
S1 S2 S3 Total Avg.

3 M2 7 7 5 19 6 M1 7 7 5 19 6 M3 20 18 19 76 25 M3 7 6 5 18 6 Stalk Length (cm) 5 M2 88 80 78 260 87 M1 95 92 90 291 97 M3 85 73 77 253 84 Tillers Per Stool 5 M1 6 5 6 17 6 M2 6 5 5 16 5 M3 5 5 6 16 5 M1 175 178 178 541 180 M1 5 4 4 13 4 7 M2 165 160 158 459 165 7 M2 5 4 4 13 4 M3 168 160 160 500 167 M3 5 4 4 13 4 Table 51: Yield attributes Trt.

S1 S2 S3 Total Avg.
tch M1 M2 133 128.2 121 118.6 128 125.3 382 372.1 127 124.0 % Fibre %pocs tsh M3 M1 129.0 11.1 119.2 10.9 122.0 9.7 370.2 31.7 123.4 10.6 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 Recommendations  More trials need to be established to evaluate the effects of potassium fertilizer application on cane and successive ratoons of Kiuva.
 Early maturing varieties such as Naidiri should be planted and harvested early to boost sugar production.

Farmers should be encouraged to plant early maturing varieties.

 More lime trials should be conducted to collect data for recommendation of lime in farmers’ field.

 Legume crop should be intercropped with sugar cane to reduce the usage of chemical fertilizer since it fixes nitrogen from the atmosphere into the soil.

Also it gives additional income to the farmer as a cash crop.
 Diuron rate should not exceed 5kg per hectare as it gives phytotoxic effect to sugar cane plants.

It may also become detrimental to the environment and increase cost of production.

There is a rising concern surrounding the use of Diuron in Fiji.

Farmers tend to continuously use it in the field and the weeds are beginning to show symptoms of resistance to this herbicide.

A trial should be carried out with all necessary treatment to ascertain the resistance level of weeds to Diuron.
 120kg per hectare of N is optimum for cane production in Vanua Levu soils as concluded from the Nitrogen trial.

This rate supplies adequate nitrogen for optimum yield per hectare and farmers should apply this rate as a general recommendation and also follow lab recommendation from soil and leaf analysis where applicable.

2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT AGRONOMY Page 27  Lime application is beneficial to soil.
Accurate amount of lime application should be determined in the lab and recommendation should be given to the farmers so that appropriate amount is applied by the farmers.

Since the effect of Lime is not always immediately observed after one crop season since last applied, more intense field trials are needed on application rates, methods and type of lime to determine the best application rates, methods and which lime source is beneficial and profitable for the farmers.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 28 ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Page 29 ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Summary A total of 1503 soil samples were received in 2015 for analysis, comprising of advisory and research samples.

A total of twenty leaf samples were received for analysis comprising only of advisory leaf samples.
As a requirement to increase turnaround time for soil analysis, an alternative method for quantifying the amount of lime to be added as per soil pH has been trialed.

The sugar mill was able to crush 1404 samples in the year 2015 and the sugar laboratory successfully validated the 140 saved samples.

As a continuous effort to fine tune the Spectra- Cane since its introduction in 2013, the successful analysis of 86% of the total samples received in 2015 has been hailed a success for the Spectra-Cane.
This success was achieved with validations averaging 0.80 unit difference.

In light of the Quality Based Payment Scheme (QBPS) being proposed to be introduced in the Fijian Sugar Industry (FSI), there has been emphasis on sample validation and also adopting new instruments and procedures to increase efficiency and throughput.

The introduction of QBPS created exposure for the laboratory staff to trainings hosted by SIT and FSC which was related to QBPS.
The laboratory staff has also attended work attachment at the Fiji Sugar Mills to gain insight on the operations of the sugar process.

Recommendations  Improve turnaround time for soil and leaf samples through alternative methods of determining lime requirement.

 Improve data quality in small mill by conducting parallel analysis with different equipment.
Introduction The analytical laboratory acts as a link between the growers and the industry by providing analytical services for advisory and research programmes.

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

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

The sugar laboratory also carries out all sugarcane related analysis required in the Institute.

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.
The Lautoka sugar laboratory analyses sugarcane samples from the respective mill areas as per requirements for research and breeding programs.

With the introduction of the Spectra-Cane in 2013 several activities have been adopted to better monitor the performance of the instrument over time.

Several incidents required the presence of the Spectra-Cane consultant that made various modifications which later resulted in a successful 2015 small mill operation.
With regards to the introduction of the QBPS in the FSI, the sugar laboratory now embarks on enduring into adopting new methods and instruments to attain optimum efficiency and throughput.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 30 ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Soil Analysis A total of 1503 soil samples were analyzed, of which 167 were research soil samples and 1336 were advisory soil samples.
Reports are released by email as soon as it’s available from the laboratory to the Fiji Sugar Corporation Ltd Extension staffs.

The laboratory is equipped and staffed to process samples quickly and efficiently that the sample requests are completed within two weeks from the date samples are received at laboratory.
Table 1: Summary of soil samples for 2015 Mill Lautoka Rarawai Penang Labasa Total Advisory 549 562 10 215 1336 Leaf Analysis Research 137 - 30 - 167 Total 686 562 40 215 1503 The analytical laboratory received a total of 20 leaf samples for advisory services but due to equipment malfunction, the sample analysis is currently pending.

Table 2: Summary of plant samples for 2015.


Mill Lautoka Rarawai Penang Labasa Total Quality Assurance Advisory 20 - - - 20 Research - - - - - Total 20 20 The analytical laboratory took part in ASPAC proficiency programs.

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

A new quality control sample will be made in 2016 which will be used for quality checks in 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 this range is investigated and corrective measures are undertaken to ensure the criteria set for quality assurance is followed.

The laboratory also carries out its internal quality assurance on calibration of laboratory equipment and instruments, training and documentation.
Research Trials Lime Buffering Capacity Trial – A modified approach.

It has been observed that the amount of soil having low pH has been increasing over the years.

With the interest of the Fijian sugar industry to increase the mill efficiency it is important to ensure that sugarcane are planted in the right conditions where applicable.
Hence the analytical laboratory has been involved in trialing a method of determining the amount of lime to be added to growers’ field in order to buffer the soil conditions where pH is extremely low.

This modified method has been considered to be used as a routine method of analysis.

As a small scale trial the soil samples received in 2014 were used to validate the modified method.
2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Page 31 All soil samples with low pH were treated using the modified method and compared to the current SRIF Lime Recommendation method.

According to the study it was observed that the results obtained from the modified method is similar to that of the current SRIF method as illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: A summary of analysis result on LBC-modified method Total no of soils Total no of soils with low pH Total no.
of soil types Average (difference between LBC & pHBC) Max Difference Min Difference Correlation Trainings 834 405 18 0.4 0.98 0.02 0.98 Two sessions of training was provided by Fiji Sugar Industry Tribunal on the “Procedures for the operation of the Cane Quality Payment Scheme” on the 17th and 18th of August.

Staff who took part in this training were;  Mr. Prema Naidu  Ms. Doreen Pillay  Ms. Nazeea Bano  Ms.
Mere Tauvoli  Ms. Milika Vaniqi  Mrs. Merlyn Goundar  Mr. Suresh Mani The training highlighted how the Fiji Sugar Industry has resolved SRIF to undertake professional reviews of the operation of the Cane Quality Department (CQD) thus SRIF has to undertake regular visits to the mills next year.

Biochemical Analysis The small mill aims to provide necessary information on cane such as %pol, brix, %fiber and %POCS to respective personnel in the institute regarding various ongoing trials.
Moreover, it is a vital aspect for determination of variety selection from the initial stages till the final selection of breeding trials.

A total of 1404 cane samples were crushed for the year.

This consisted of samples for Stage 4 (LF2009, LF2008 and LF2010) trials, Stage 3 (LF2012) trials, Stage 2 (LF2013) trials and Agronomy trials (lime, potassium and time of harvest), Pest & Disease and Variety trials.
Majority of the samples crushed were received from the variety selection program as displayed in figure 1.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 32 ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Small mill analysis 2015 ACP Family selection 14% Disease 1% agronomy 5% variety selection 80% Figure 1: Percentage of samples received from respective departments.

During the season majority of the samples were analysed by NIR while the remaining were analysed by the classic method (Jeffco Grinder).
The interchange of method of analysis was due to occurrence of power disruption.

This year may be marked as an achievement as the percentage usage of the NIR peaked at 86% as compared to the previous years as displayed in the table below.

Table 4: Three-Year Summary of Spectra-Cane success Year 2013 2014 2015 Frequency of instrument use (%) 75 54 85 No.
of samples crushed (%) 85 64 86 Table 5: Summary of cane samples for 2015 Trial name Variety LF 2010 – Stg 4 LF2009 – Stg 4 LF 2008 – Stg 4 LF 2012- Stg 3 LF 2013 – Stg 2 ACP Family selection Lime trial Potassium trial Time of Harvest Pest & Disease Agronomy Disease Grand Total No of samples 147 143 91 98 520 200 16 24 36 9 Total 1319 76 9 1404 All the data has been processed and returned to respective personnel.
Parallel analysis for validation of the spectra-cane has continued accordingly, whereby the validation data has been sent to the consultant (Mr. David Marston) for analysis.

As the matrix had been serviced by the consultant earlier in the year, an improvement on the parallel analysis has been observed.

The validation difference in fiber values was at 5 units in 2014; now down to approximately 2 units in 2015 as illustrated in table 6 below.
2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Page 33 Table 6: A summary of sugarcane juice analysis validation (2015) Brix in Juice Pol in Juice Fiber in Cane Purity POCS Av.

Diff 0.9 1.3 0.8 4.2 1.4 Max Diff 3.2 4.2 2.1 12.3 3.8 Min.

Diff 0.1 0.3 0.1 -1.6 0.2 Corr.

0.5 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 Frontier Transform Infra-Red (FTIR) trial.

The analytical laboratory has been selected to trial the use of the Alpha FT-IR spectrometer (figure 2) to analyse cane juice.
The instrument was supplied by Bruker Optics of New Zealand for a 3 months trial.

As this was an initial trial on sugarcane juice the development of a database was required.

Thus the sugar laboratory was able to analyse 218 samples in conjunction with the use of the classical methods as validation of the developed spectra.

All developed spectra along with wet laboratory readings were returned to the consultants for evaluation.
As per evaluation reports the commercial variety samples have demonstrated that the sugarcane juice starter calibration with good R2 and relatively low errors (RMSECV) can be achieved as illustrated in table 7 below.

The analysis on FTIR is conducted in parallel with the conventional method (polatronic, refractometer, pH meter, UV-Vis spectrophotometer) for validation purpose.
The trial intended to include sugarcane juice analysis for the major constituents (starch, gums, dextran, reducing sugars, pol, brix, phenolic acids) per sample and to determine the amounts of constituents in response to deterioration.

Figure 2: The portable Alpha-FT-IR spectrometer.


Table 7: Sugarcane Juice starter calibration performance (Alpha-FTIR) Parameters Brix Pol Sugar Purity pH RMSECV 0.3 0.4 1.5 1.0 0.2 Rank Range 17-25 13-23 55-96 77-95 3.6-5.5 RPD 4.9 5.1 5.9 3.2 3.0 R2 95.7 96.2 97.2 90.1 88.9 n 93 93 89 90 97 3 4 3 8 6 Performance QC QC QC Screening Screening The small mill intends to improve its service in the coming crushing season by:  Increasing the amount of samples analysed by NIR.
 Conducting parallel runs for validation.

 Adopt other sugar methods, hence a wider range of analysis per sample.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 34 ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Quality Based Payment Scheme (QBPS) – Audit As the Fiji Sugar Industry embarks on adopting the QBPS, SRIF has been appointed to act as an external auditor.

Hence the analytical laboratory staff has been assigned by SRIF to participate in this imperative task.

A staff (Ms.
A staff (Ms.

Mere Tauvoli) has been actively involved in this activity while the other laboratory staff has been involved as support staff in ensuring the success of the program.

All the laboratory staff had attended Phase I and Phase II training on the requirements of QBPS and carrying our auditing of the task carried out by the CQD (SIT).

Both the training was conducted by Mr. Bernard Milford.
After the second training a trial audit was conducted at Lautoka and Rarawai mill respectively to verify the applicability of the developed procedures for Operation of the Cane Quality Payment scheme and to practice the developed scope of work for audit.

The program is proposed to officially commence in 2016.

Trainings Phase I: Analysis of Audit of Cane for the Fijian Cane Quality Scheme.
The analytical laboratory staff and agronomy staff attended training on the 12th of February, 2015 which was conducted by Mr. Bernard Milford.

The training was conducted at the Lautoka Mill.

The training also included representatives from all Industry stakeholders that were directly involved with the QBPS (FSC (millers), SIT (CQD) and SCGC).

The training emphasized on the responsibilities of each parties involved and the importance of compliance with the agreed QBPS operation procedures.
A checklist was introduced whereby all the attendees evaluated and agreed on the activities that were vital and applicable for the scheme.

FTIR operations training.

Two analytical staff (Mere and Milika) were trained on the use of the Fourier Transformer Infrared (FTIR) by Mr. David Marston.
Phase II: Fiji Sugar Industry Tribunal Procedures for the Operation of the Cane Quality Payment Scheme (the Procedures) The analytical laboratory and agronomy staff attended Phase II training of QBPS at the Lautoka Mill Training center on the 17th of August, 2015.

The training was conducted to review the proposed QBPS auditing procedure and amend as discussed and agreed amongst the partners, to best suit all aspects of the sugar industry.
The workshop was conducted as an interactive meeting whereby the representatives of the various stakeholders were to raise their views and issues as the program progressed.
The Progress of discussion was as follows:  View of the millers & growers on the subject of QBPS implementation in the Fiji Sugar Industry (FSI)  Review of documented procedures  Review of checklists  Trial run with procedures & checklists  View of IMG’s & growers on provision of feedback to growers  Role of SRIF in the QBPS  Alternative methods to be adopted if necessary  The Future of Cane Quality Department Fiji Sugar Mill Attachment As a requirement of the institute one of the laboratory staff (Mere) has been assigned for mill attachment for familiarization of milling processes.
As all the four Fiji sugar mills differ in processing arrangement it has be required that the staff attends work attachment at all the mills respectively.

During the year 2015 the staff was able to attend work attachment at 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Page 35 Lautoka and Rarawai mill.

During the attachment the staff has gained knowledge in the different setups of the two mills and how sugarcane is processed respectively to obtain similar required raw sugar at the end of the day.
Recommendation  Purchase of UV-VIS spectrophotometer to develop the range of Biochemical analysis for sugarcane samples.

 Adopting latest analytical methods and instruments for increased efficiency and    throughput and to develop new paths in sugarcane biochemical research.

Improve Occupational Health and Safety Conditions in the Laboratory and Small Mill.
Installation of a power stabilizer to safeguard instruments against power failure or fluctuations Improve the functionality of the Spectra-Cane (NIR), by reducing the amount of outliers obtained per batch.

Updating the current manuals in the laboratory (MSDS, Quality Assurance System, and Equipment and Work procedures).

 Training in QBPS auditing at a sugar mill with existing practice.

The laboratory aims to provide resourceful and reliable data to growers, research staffs and other non-stakeholders.
The decline in soil samples received by the laboratory is an issue of concern.

The farmers are advised and leader farmers’ trained to take samples by themselves to make maximum benefit from the free service available for them.

The sugar laboratory will continue to carry out its routine activity and provide reliable data to research staff for the betterment of the sugar industry.
The sugar laboratory will continue to endeavor into new inclusions of methods or instruments that is applicable to increase the efficiency and throughput of the Institute and in turn the Fiji Sugar Industry SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 36 METEOROLOGY 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT METEOROLOGY Page 37 METEOROLOGY Summary  Daily meteorological readings were recorded at 9am and maximum temperature readings were recorded at 3pm.
 Drier than normal conditions were experienced across the sugarcane belt over the past several months.

 Majority of the sugarcane growing areas were currently in meteorological drought.

Highlights  Pacific island climate outlook forum (PICOF-1) was held from October 12-16, 2015 in Suva with the special focus on the water resources management sectors of the Pacific Island region.

 El Nino emerged in March and matured to moderate strength by June and reached strong El Niño category in August.
In November, it reached its peak intensity but weakened some of its indicators in December.

 Current conditions are still indicative of a strong El Niño and are expected to continue  for at least the next three months.

In December, warm sea surface temperatures anomalies extended across nearly the entire equatorial Pacific.
 Trade winds have been consistently weaker than average  Cloudiness has been above the long term average  The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has dropped to -16.3 and the atmospheric and oceanic anomalies reflect the presence of a strong El Niño in the Pacific.
Introduction The Meteorological Station at Sugar Research Institute of Fiji is equipped with a range of meteorological instruments and maintained with the help of the Fiji Meteorological Service (FMS) at its head office in Drasa, Lautoka and three other daily Climatological recording centers.
Climatological station is 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 in a designated F211 form and forwarded to 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, cultivation, fertilizer application, weedicide application and harvesting from sugarcane belt areas.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 38 METEOROLOGY 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 reductions 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.

Considering the current ENSO conditions, Fiji experienced severe rainfall deficiency during the season.
In other words, the total annual rainfall was below average across the country.

The annual rainfall for all the 4 mills was below average when compared to the 46 years long term mean.

The most-to-least driest mill, in order was Lautoka, Rarawai, Labasa and Penang respectively.
Lautoka had an average of 150mm of rainfall compared to 46 year mean of 306mm, Rarawai had an average of 169mm of rainfall compared to 46 year mean of 342mm, Labasa had an average of 180mm of rainfall compared to 46 year mean of 353mm and Penang had an average of 202mm of rainfall compared to 46 year mean of 306mm.

Lautoka Mill The least rain was recorded at Olosara sector of 68.2mm and the most rain was recorded for Malolo, which had 139mm of rainfall.
Rarawai Mill The least rain was recorded at Yaladro sector of 64.3mm and the most rain was recorded for Koronubu, which had 142mm of rainfall.

Penang Mill The least rain was recorded at Ellington 1 sector of 37mm and the most rain was recorded for Malau, which had 109mm of rainfall.

Labasa Mill The least rain was recorded at Labasa estate of 80mm and the most rain was recorded for Seaqaqa estate, which had 135mm of rainfall.
2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT METEOROLOGY Page 39 Table 1: Rainfall (mm) for all mills - 2015 Mills Monthly rainfall No.

of rain days 46 yrs avg.

(1970-2015) Monthly rainfall No.

of rain days 46 yrs avg.

(1970-2015) Monthly rainfall No.

of rain days 46 yrs avg.

(1970-2015) Monthly rainfall No.

of rain days 46 yrs avg.
(1970-2015) Lautoka Mill - Rarawai Mill - Penang Mill - Labasa Mill - 2015 185 404 175 105 59 2 Nil 82 36 11 21 13 9 4 1 Nil 6 10 7 3 27 86 1167 97 11 7 96 8 401 354 368 239 110 76 53 50 75 122 187 259 2294 191 Table 2: Rainfall data (mm) for Lautoka, Nadi and Sigatoka Districts - 2015 Sector Drasa No.
of rain days Lautoka No.

of rain days Saweni No.

of rain days Natova No.

of rain days Legalega No.
of rain days Nil 10 18 81 62 25 Nil 117 1539 128 12 17 14 5 0 2 1 8 6 4 0 12 81 7 183 328 184 125 Nil 14 25 69 57 27 2 138 1152 96 13 23 14 5 0 3 1 8 8 4 1 15 95 8 187 420 214 99 Nil 16 26 54 75 34 44 215 1384 115 14 19 15 4 0 2 1 7 6 3 1 13 85 7 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 y a M 1 1 Page 40 METEOROLOGY Table 2: Cont’d Sector Meigunyah No.
of rain days Yako No.

of rain days Malolo No.

of rain days Nawaicoba No.

of rain days Lomawai No.

of rain days Cuvu No.

of rain days Olosara No.
of rain days 223 366 133 74 Nil 12 24 49 76 17 33 161 1166 97 13 20 17 4 0 2 1 7 6 259 277 165 118 Nil Nil 8 35 64 103 18 21 288 1668 139 11 20 19 4 0 3 1 7 6 3 1 12 87 7 195 215 123 84 Nil Nil 226 1076 90 0 9 68 6 121 342 121 44 32 65 30 66 114 10 Nil 146 1092 91 8 17 11 4 4 10 1 89 343 136 Nil Nil Nil Nil 5 14 6 0 0 0 0 11 51 10 8 94 5 7 3 2 0 11 92 8 Nil 101 818 68 0 10 52 4 Table 3: Rainfall data (mm) for Rarawai and Tavua Districts - 2015 Sector Varoko No.
of rain days Mota No.

of rain days Koronubu No.

of rain days Rarawai No.

of rain days Veisaru No.

of rain days Varavu No.

of rain days Naloto No.
of rain days 107 224 154 90 5 9 12 1 9 1 359 334 201 101 10 Nil Nil Nil 156 1239 103 5 4 0 0 13 66 6 1 22 31 76 16 Nil Nil Nil Nil 18 11 11 4 1 0 1 5 1 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT METEOROLOGY Page 41 Table 3: Cont’d Sector Tagitagi No.
of rain days Drumasi No.

of rain days Yaladro No.


of rain days 190 379 151 33 9 Nil 16 29 82 27 Nil 101 1017 85 8 11 7 2 2 0 1 4 7 2 0 7 51 4 312 311 231 57 2 Nil 11 34 77 25 16 53 1129 94 10 10 7 2 1 0 1 4 7 2 179 242 145 17 17 Nil 13 24 59 19 9 11 8 2 2 0 1 4 7 2 1 6 1 5 50 4 50 771 64 6 53 4 Table 4: Rainfall data (mm) for Penang District - 2015 Sector 30 99 48 70 22 15 14 14 21 30 72 24 28 20 NR 102 364 150 107 143 27 19 13 10 Ellington 1 *NR No.
of rain days Malau No.

of rain days Nanuku No.

of rain days Ellington 2 211.4 212.3 No.
of rain days *NR – Not Recorded Table 5: Rainfall data (mm) for Labasa and Seaqaqa District - Nil c e D l a t o T NR 443 NR 123 e g a r e v A 37 10 196 1310 109 14 24 3 157 823 49 13 69 4 v o N 6 2 28 11 0 35 132 1247 104 9 18 137 11 Sector Waiqele No.
of rain days Wailevu No.

of rain days Vunimoli No.

of rain days Labasa No.

of rain days Bucaisau No.
of rain days 259 712 216 116 67 0.1 Nil Nil 1 0 2 Nil SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 42 METEOROLOGY Table 5: Cont’d Sector n a J b e F r a M r p A y a M n u J l u J g u A p e S 210 438 248 140 108 27 Nil 100 78 9 18 6 3 26 6 2 8 3 0 26 10 8 7 3 6 11 5 65 68 1 Nil 6 32 v o N c e D l a t o T e g a r e v A 44 21 1444 120 6 5 86 7 t c O 30 4 Rain gauge and stand damaged NA 980 89 7 9 2 6 NA 93 8 105 506 277 112 *NA Nil NA NA 175 117 NA 1291 184 2 0 NA NA 24 346 150 168 58 50 Nil NA 10 2 3 0 NA 1 52 3 2 NA 32 5 73 NA 924 92 2 NA Wainikoro No.
of rain days Daku No.

of rain days Labasa Estate No.

of rain days Natua No.

of rain days Solove No.

of rain days Bulivou No.

of rain days Seaqaqa Estate No.

of rain days *NA - Information Not Available 18 16 19 23 12 23 17 12 14 98 6 2 3 Table 6: Meteorological data for Sugar Research Institute of Fiji, Lautoka 2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg.

Relative Humidity (%) 46 yrs avg.

Mean Maximum 46 yrs avg.

Mean minimum 46 yrs avg.
Mean Highest maximum Lowest minimum Air Temperature 31 31 22 24 26 33 19 30 30 21 22 26 33 17 29 28 20 20 25 33 15 29 28 19 20 24 32 15 Evaporation Raised pan 190 143 170 143 141 119 153 138 133 205 216 177 161 Earth thermometers - - 24 24 - - - - 27 - - - - - 26 - - - - - 25 - - - - - 24 24 - - - - 25 26 - - - - 27 - - - - - 30 29 - - - - 29 29 - - - - 27 26 - - 5cm 46 yrs avg.
10cm 46 yrs avg.

50cm 46 yrs avg.

- - 28 - - - - - 29 - - - - - 28 - - - 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Temperature The highest monthly average maximum temperature was recorded for the month of February and November, with temperatures more than 32°C.

The lowest monthly average minimum temperature was recorded for the month of July, with temperature less than 20°C.
METEOROLOGY Page 43 ) C ° ( e r u t a r e p m e T C ° ) m m ( l l a f n a R i Figure 1: Temperature and Rainfall Records for the last 13 months (Dec 2014 – Dec 2015) for Western Division - Ref: FIJI METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE - Fiji Climate Summary, December, 2015.

Earth Thermometers The earth thermometers at SRIF are at depths of 5cm, 10cm and 50cm.

The annual average for 10cm earth thermometer was above normal (27°C) than the long term average of (26°C).
8 out of the 12 months recorded temperatures more than the long term average.

Evaporation The annual evaporation average of the raised pan was 6mm less compared to last year.

This year, evaporation value was 161mm while for year 2014, the value was 167mm.

Relative Humidity The average humidity recorded for 2015 was 68% whereas the long term average was 72%.

The first quarter of the year recorded values higher than the long term average, i.e.
more than 72% whereas the rest of the months recorded relative humidity less than the 46 years mean.

Sunshine There is no sunshine recorder installed at the Drasa meteorological station (Station No: V77555) SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 44 METEOROLOGY CROP PROTECTION 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT CROP PROTECTION Page 45 CROP PROTECTION Summary Plant Parasitic Nematodes Survey Forty soil samples were collected from 30th September to 12th October.
The soil samples were taken from the Penang mill regions of Malau, Nanuku, Ellington 1 and Ellington 2 Sectors.

Plant parasitic nematodes were detected from soil extraction, the % incidence of Helicotylenchus and Rotylenchulus was high.

Fiji Leaf Gall Screening of Stage 3 Clones A trial was conducted during the year 2015 from February to November, on screening of clones of the 2012 series.

The results were highly significant (P<0.000).


There were negative linear relationships between standards and days (R²=0.874).

The study has showed that 79% clones were resistant, 13% clones were moderately susceptible and 8% clones were susceptible.

Cane Grubs Active survey of cane grubs was carried out by digging out the roots and soil in Malau, Lovu, Drasa and Lautoka sector.

Samples were sent abroad (Mauritius) for identification.
A preliminary survey for the grubs started on the 4th of August, 2015 and to date it has been found that Lovu sector is the most affected.

Roots of plants showing symptoms were dug out and grubs were collected and put in containers.

Recommendation Plant Parasitic Nematodes  Further training in nematodes  Establishment of nematodes lab with work bench.

 There is a need for a refrigerator for samples collected.
 Certain equipment are required such as blender, multichannel counter, tray rack, and tray, basket for nematodes extraction for soil and roots samples Fiji Leaf Gall Disease  Adopt an improved method for testing resistance to Fiji leaf gall disease through molecular technology.

Cane Grubs  Compare the number of larvae and beetles caught during the months and confirm its life cycle.

 Deep ploughing of the soil to expose the larvae to their predators such as birds.
 Avoid having too many ratoons where fields are highly infested.

 More research to be done on biological control of Cane grubs.

 Flooding of the fields.

This would lead to killing of the eggs as well as the larvae.

 While carrying out agronomy practices such as tillage as a control, if population of grubs are less, hand picking and elimination can be done immediately.

 Light trapping to become a part of the cane grub program.
 Develop sex pheromone to disrupt and prevent mating and breeding of cane grubs.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 46 CROP PROTECTION Project details Nematology - Plant parasitic nematodes A survey was conducted in Penang mill districts on 4 sectors (Nanuku, Malau, Ellington1 and Ellington2) to determine the occurrence and population density of plant-parasitic nematodes on sugarcane in October 2015.
A total of 40 soil samples were collected and analyzed, ten samples from each sectors (from ten different active cane growing farms).

Ten samples from each sector were taken out.

Ten nematode genera were identified and counted.

The most common plant parasitic nematodes found in Fiji’s sugarcane fields are; Lesion, Reniform, Spiral, Ring, Dagger, Stubby, Stunt, Root knot, Lance and Pin.

The table 1 shows the level of nematode occurrence in 40 farms in Penang mill regions.
Table 1: Nematodes found in 40 sugarcane fields in Penang district (Survey Area 1) Common name Lesion Spiral Ring Dagger Stubby root Root knot Stunt Reniform Lance Pin Nematodes Species Pratylenchus spp Helicotylenchuc spp Criconemella spp Xiphinema spp Trichodorus spp Meloidogyne spp Tylenchorhynchus spp Rotylenchulus spp Hoplolaimus spp Paratylenchus spp Nematodes/200ml of soil Incidence (%) 11.7 55.6 4.4 0.3 2.0 12.5 2.0 42.1 2.0 0.1 Mean 50.9 248.8 19.1 0.6 1.4 54.6 1.6 19.1 10.4 0.2 Maximum 2035 9705 764 15 35 2185 40 764 355 5 Pathology - Screening of stage 3 clones Fiji leaf gall is widespread in Fiji in the dominant commercial variety, Mana and in the garden cane, Duruka.
Significant resources are devoted to managing the disease through rouging team and screening new varieties for resistance.

FLG is caused by the virus and it is spread by infected planting material and by plant hoppers of the genus, Perkinsiella.

In Fiji, the vector is Perkinsiella vitiensis.

Leaf hopper (Perkinsiella vitiensis) survey is carried out every year in Fiji, in Lautoka mill area in Viti Levu.
This survey is done to observe that the population of hoppers can be found in each sector, so that hoppers can be collected and breed for Fiji Leaf Gall Screen.

The resistance screening of the new clones were commenced in March with hopper survey and hopper collection from the commercial cane field.

The insect that were collected from the field was bred on infected Fiji 10 (Erianthus maximus) for the nymphs.

The 89 tested clones and 10 standards were inoculated with the Fiji disease virus and assessed.
Before taking out the plant from the insectary, the insecticide (Permethrin/ Improthrin) was used to kill all the infected nymphs.

The assessment was done in a hundred days.

The results in Table 2 and 3 shows the susceptibility of the 89 clones screened for Fiji Leaf gall disease of which 79% were resistant, 13% intermediate and 18%.
2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Table 2: Showing the disease rating of LF2012 series CROP PROTECTION Page 47 Clones LF12-1 LF12-2 LF12-3 LF12-4 LF12-6 LF12-7 LF12-11 LF12-14 LF12-15 LF12-22 LF12-28 LF12-31 LF12-33 LF12-34 LF12-35 LF12-36 LF12-39 LF12-40 LF12-49 LF12-58 LF12-60 LF12-63 LF12-793 Clones LF12-65 LF12-67 LF12-73 LF12-74 LF12-76 LF12-79 LF12-85 LF12-87 LF12-88 LF12-90 LF12-94 LF12-97 LF12-103 LF12-109 LF12-112 LF12-114 LF12-117 LF12-119 LF12-120 LF12-124 LF12-134 LF12-138 Clones LF12-140 LF12-141 LF12-143 LF12-148 LF12-153 LF12-154 LF12-156 LF12-168 LF12-169 LF12-171 LF12-173 LF12-185 LF12-189 LF12-195 LF12-205 LF12-207 LF12-211 LF12-212 LF12-219 LF12-233 LF12-253 LF12-255 Clones LF12-257 LF12-266 LF12-267 LF12-274 LF12-276 LF12-278 LF12-280 LF12-282 LF12-286 LF12-289 LF12-521 LF12-596 LF12-618 LF12-629 LF12-682 LF12-692 LF12-700 LF12-729 LF12-732 LF12-733 LF12-766 LF12-768 Table 3: Number of varieties of the LF2012 series at Series LF 2012 Resistant 79 Moderate 13 Susceptible 8 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 was continued this year.

However the disease remains endemic in wild canes and Saccharum edule (Duruka) in the neighboring commercial farms and transmitted to the cultivated crop by the Fijian sugarcane leaf hopper, Perkensiella vitiensis.
A total area of 4,581.50 ha was inspected in 2015 0f which 906.39 ha plant crop and 3675.11ha were ratoon cane.
Table 4: Monthly roguing figures from January-December 2015 Lautoka Nadi Labasa Sigatoka Ba/Tavua Penang Jan 14.7 Feb 12.1 Mar 56.6 13.7 74.5 82.3 85.9 102.5 1.5 66.0 5.2 160.6 155.0 82.7 171.3 10.2 225.3 13.0 156.0 10.8 40.4 55.4 61.2 2.9 67.3 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 48 CROP PROTECTION Table 4: Cont’d Lautoka Nadi Labasa Sigatoka Ba/Tavua Penang 93.5 197.5 3.6 0.3 6.1 10.0 18.0 99.8 117.5 88.2 54.4 58.9 136.1 130.2 2.8 120.4 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 31.4 803.1 24.3 563.3 689.31 1568.71 129.1 118.6 255.5 35.5 117.5 18.4 7.1 132.5 34.0 7.3 11.0 47.2 10.8 316.3 5.5 53.1 1.7 t n a P l n o o t a R t n a P l n o o t a R 12.1 59.1 17.3 58.2 n o o t a R 77.0 51.5 49.1 37.9 62.8 35.5 470.5 32.3 85.0 269.6 The trend on which Fiji Leaf Gall Disease is increasing in the sugarcane farms is an indication that the disease can flare up at any time given the availability of the pathogen, the transmission agent, Perkensiella vitiensis, weather conditions and planting of only one major variety, Mana.
Mana was the only variety that was infected with FLG in all the cane districts except for Labasa and Penang.

Also the planting of Saccharum edule (Duruka), an alternate host of Fiji Leaf Gall Disease planted along and near cane fields contributes to the increasing number of the disease found in some Districts.

Table 5: Summarized Rouging Report from January-December 2015 Mill District Area Rouged (Ha) No.
of Farms Inspected 354 185 612 224 139 0 1490 Plant 31.4 24.3 689.3 129.1 32.3 1.23 892.94 Ratoon 803.1 563.3 1568.7 470.5 269.6 4.0 3622.58 No.

of FLGD stools Rouged 29 32 0 376 45 0 482 Lautoka Nadi Labasa Sigatoka Ba/Tavua Penang Total Cane Grub Cane grub in Fiji is an emerging pest in sugarcane crop.

It has been generally identified as Rhophea sp.

It has a life cycle of one to two years.

It is “C” shaped, white with a greyish black abdomen.

It has a sclerotized head and three pairs of legs.


Cane grubs have three instars out of which the third one causes the most problems.

The cane grub feeds and clings on the roots of the sugarcane crop.

The infested fields display dry cane patches as well as yellowing of leaves.

The affected plant roots turn black, the spindle wilts.

The affected clumps are easily pulled out.

A survey is still currently being carried out to find out the number of infested fields.
Drasa sector seemed to be the most infected.

The cane grubs were collected from the fields by using active method.

According to the symptoms, the fields were diagnosed for the presence of cane grubs.

Fields were searched for all developmental stages of cane grubs in soils, around cane roots and soils removed from the pit.

Numbers of larvae, pupae and adults collected per pit were recorded.

Larvae and pupae were transferred, singly, into labeled rearing vials containing moistened peat.
Cane grub samples were sent to MSIRI for identification whereas the rest of it was being reared in the lab for multiplication.

Rearing of the grub larvae was done by placing them with few stools with roots in a container with soil from the field where the grub was found with moistened peat moss.

Rearing of the grubs was 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT CROP PROTECTION Page 49 done for further studies such as that of entomopathogen.Light trapping during the swarming period of Rhophea sp.
would enable to precise the life cycle and to capture the adult grub beetles as these beetles are attracted to light.

Light trapping will act as a control method for the adults and the collected grub beetles would be sent abroad for identification to confirm its species and this once more will be reared for additional studies.

Figure 2: Third instar of cane grub in the field Figure 3: Close view of third instar larvae of cane grub.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 50 CROP PROTECTION Figure 4: Damage caused by cane grub infestation Figure 5: “Patchy” effects of cane grub infestation 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT List of sectors visited Table 7: Saweni Sector n o i t a c o L Vuda Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Saweni Saweni Saweni Saweni Saweni Saweni .
o N m r a F Name 613 Harun Ali Shah 711 Estate of Abram 708 Minakshi 707 Ganga Reddy 9410 Mukesh Chand 566 Mohammad Yasuf 18340 Est of Vijay Nand/ Krishnan Niraj Sharma 579 Est of Kapil Prasad 1320 Est of Jamilan Bi 18358 Est of Daventi Table 8: Lovu Sector n o i t a c o L Buabua Qalitu Rd Qalitu Rd Qalitu Rd Qalitu Rd Qalitu Rd Naikabula Buabua Qalitu Rd .
o N m r a F Name 199 Raj Pal 169 Karna Karan 19062 Jiten Singh 22020 Ratesh 1199 Est of Vidya Wati 22086 Bhiren Wati 1188 Est of Ram Narayan 22039 Ravin Kumar 22086 Beran Wati Table 9: Lautoka Sector n o i t a c o L Vaivai Vaivai Vaivai Vaivai Vaivai Bandrama .
o N m r a F Name 24029 Anil Chand 49 Est of Atish Chand 24075 Zakar Ali 13036 Ami Chand 24056 Aren Kumar 24043 Rajendra Prasad CROP PROTECTION Page 51 n o i t a t s e f n I y t e i r a V No Mana No Mana No mana No Mana No Mana No Mana No Mana No Mana No Mana No Mana n o i t a t s e f n I Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes y t e i r a V Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana e p y T p o r C Ratoon Plant Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon e p y T p o r C Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon No Mana Ratoon/Plant No Mana No Mana No Mana No Mana No Mana Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon 0 0 0 0 0 0 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 52 CROP PROTECTION Table 10: Drasa Sector n o i t a c o L Cuvu Tavarau Tavarau Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Drasa Sector Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo Lomolomo .
o N m r a F Name n o i t a t s e f n I y t e i r a V e p y T p o r C 18069 Vishwa Nand 8524 Suriya deep Singh 8280 Est of Deo Narayan Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon 106 Manjula Devi 14094 Mognam Bal 14070 Bal Bir Singh 14064 Est of Subarmani 14063 Rayesh Chand 14124 Bal Ram No No No No No No No No No No 110 Sumintra Devi No 18888 Venu Gopal Naidu No 14126 Est of Suruj Narayan No Mana, Qamea, Kuiva Ratoon/Plant 11902 SRIF No 14103 Uday Singh No 14098 Subhash Chand No 14000 Est of Ram Nand No 14093 Ronald Rohit Singh No 14092 Wardha Reddy Yes 14061 Anil 14057 Est of Hari Ram Daven Yes Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Table 11: Malau Sector n o i t a c o L Malau Malau Malau Malau Malau Malau .
o N m r a F Name 1 Ram Kumar 1353 Est of Dhanbhagyam 1349 Ragwal Naidu 233 Est of Ram Dass 11196 Bisun Lal 275 Poona Balam n o i t a t s e f n I No No No No No No y t e i r a V Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Kiuva e p y T p o r C Ratoon Ratoon/ Plant Ratoon/ Plant Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon t n u o C e a v r a L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 4 t n u o C e a v r a L 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 12: Natova Sector Location Farm No.
Name Infestation Variety Crop Type Masimasi Nadele Nadele 14617 Est Ram Daiyal 9608 Vishnu Deo 14613 Yad Ram Singh No No No Mana Mana Mana Ratoon Ratoon Ratoon Larvae Count 0 0 0 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT CROP PROTECTION Page 53 CROP PRODUCTION SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 54 CROP PRODUCTION CROP PRODUCTION The Sugar Industry Strategic Action Plan highlighted the need to get more support out to growers through the designation of five different groups and one of the groups is the Crop production and Grower Advisory that was mandated to set-up demonstration plots in each mill area.
The demonstration plots focus on the technology transfer program that incorporates Weed Control, Use of Clean Seed, Adoption of Sugar Cane Varieties, Recommended rates of Fertiliser usage and Intercropping and provides the opportunity to the farmers to adopt practices that will help in improving their production, acquire additional revenue and provide food security.
Technology Transfer Field days were held in the demonstration plots that highlighted the objective of the technology transfer program which is to disseminate information to the farmers that will be useful in improving their productivity.

All the stakeholder representatives were invited to address the growers and emphasized that field days are one of the initiatives through which a larger number of growers can be reached and the collective message of all industry stakeholders can be conveyed to the growers.
Grower Demonstration Trials Demonstration on the following topics were covered during the field days 1.

Land preparation 2.

Quality seed cane 3.

Promote varietal spread 4.

Mechanical planting with single row cutter planter that could also apply blend A (basal phosphorous) and lime simultaneously.

5.
5.

Spraying of pre-emergence weedicide with a knapsack using different nozzles that is designed for different modes of spraying - band application to just cover the width of the furrow and broadcast application that covers the width of the furrow and inter row.

6.

Mechanical spraying using a boom sprayer 7.
Timeliness of operations Figure 1: Broadcast application of lime 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT CROP PRODUCTION Page 55 Figure 2: Lautoka Mill General Manager addressing growers Figure 3: Growers listen to deliberations SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 56 CROP PRODUCTION Figure 4: Cleaning seedcane for mechanical planting Blend A Lim e Figure 5: Mechanical planting with Blend A and Lime application 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT CROP PRODUCTION Page 57 Figure 6: Pre-emergence application.
Grower Demonstration Trials The table below summaries the grower demonstration trials that were carried out in 2015.
In summary:  18 Trials Conducted  670 growers attended the demonstration trial field days Table 1: Summary of GD trials in 2015 and relevant activities No Location/Sector District topics 1 2 Estate of Mahmood Khan’s farm at Waiqaliqali, Cuvu Sector Estate of Sundressan’s farm at Raviravi 3 Anand’s Farm - 4 Suresh Chandras farm (16156) at Vunicuicui Labasa/ Vunimoli 30/04/2015 Sigatoka/ Cuvu sector 24/04/2015 Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Lautoka/ Drasa sector 22/04/2015 Rarawai/Veis aru 02/04/2015 Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Theme/attendance launching of planting & varietal spread 15 growers attended launching of planting & varietal spread 25 growers attended launching of planting & varietal spread 26 growers attended launching of planting & varietal spread 56 growers attended SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 58 CROP PRODUCTION Table 1: Cont’d No Location/Sector District topics Anand’s Farm Tuva Point  Demonstration plot of QAMEA Sigatoka/ Lomawai 01/04/2015 Biren Gosai’s Farm  Launching of planting Gopal Krishna’s Nadi/ Qeleloa 27/04/2015 Nurul Hak Farm No.
6722 Rarawai/ Naloto Mukesh Chands farm 17/04/2015 Rarawai/Mota 05/05/2015 Anil Kumar & Rohit Kumar Farm No.

6120 & 6123 Rarawai/ Koronubu 04/05/2015 10 Legalega Research Station Farm no.

2097 Legalega 14/05/2015 11 Amir Ali’s farm Farm no.

8730 Varoko 25/05/2015 12 Yenktaiyas farm Farm no 914 Nanuku 11/06/2015 13 Nemani Soli Farm no.

1606 Malau 10/06/2015 14 Gaj Raj Farm no.
14107 Ellington 2 9/06/2015 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Inter-cropping Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Inter-cropping Theme/attendance launching of planting & varietal spread 25 growers attended launching of planting & varietal spread 34 growers attended Result demonstration 38 growers attended launching of planting & varietal spread 23 growers attended launching of planting & varietal spread result demonstration 21 growers attended Mechanical planting and spraying 37 growers attended Result demonstration 24 growers attended Result demonstration 19 growers attended Varietal established 31 growers attended Good establishment 33 growers attended CROP PRODUCTION Page 59 Land preparation, seedcane quality, Blend A application, Pre-emergence application, Varietal spread Inter-cropping Mechanical planting of pulses as an inter-crop Intercropping results Mechanical planting of pulses as an inter–crop Good land preparation Planting Pre emergence application Intercropping in the ratoon cane an opportunity to improve total farm productivity Result demonstration 27 growers attended Mechanical planting of pulses 40 growers attended Result demonstration of intercrops 110 growers attended Result demonstration of intercrops 86 growers attended 15 Rohit Kumar Farm no.
4202 Yaladro 3/06/2015 16 17 Legalega Research Station Farm no.

2097 Legalega Research Station Farm no.

2097 Legalega 06/07/2015 Legalega 29/09/2015 18 Nawaicoba Farm no.

10659 Nawaicoba 29/10/2015 Seed Cane Production Introduction Profitable crop production partly depends on the quality of the seed planted.

This principle applies to sugarcane as much as to any other crop.

The potential cane yield that should be obtained will not be achieved if seed cane of poor quality is planted.
Ratoon stunting disease (Leifsonia xyli subsp.

xyli) is prevalent in Fiji (Johnson et al, 2006) and can cause loss up to 27% in cane yield annually (Johnson and Tyagi, 2010).

This major disease can be cured by hot water treatment.

Other minor diseases are also cured by heat treatment.

Good germination that is quick and even gives rise to increased production.
With a well maintained seed cane nursery, the grower is certain that the seed cane quality received from such a program is free from disease, varietal purity and has a good germination capacity.

Adoption of heat treated seed cane nurseries by growers will promote the efficient and sustainable agricultural practices that protect, sustain, and enhance water and soil resources and ultimately achieve greater harmony between agriculture and environment.
The seed cane produced from these nurseries should increase sugar yield by 5 to 10 %.

Coupled with new varieties developed at SRIF, this would assist in achieving the required sugar yield.

Since 2010, the uptake of seed cane by farmers from SRIF administered seed beds has been increasing slowly but surely and this is an opportunity to probe further with more marketing to be done to farmers through the use of Technology Transfer.
In Labasa the prolonged drought experienced affected the adoption the planting of sugarcane in both the Labasa and Seqaqa districts.

The seed cane which was propagated for 2015 planting seasons exceeded the maturity age and had to be sent to the mill for crushing.

Similar case was experienced in the October planting season.

For early window planting of 2016, about 200 tonnes of seed cane will be available.

This is due to the drought and lack of irrigation which hindered the seed cane planting in 2015.
Adoption rate for new variety Qamea was promising in 2015 compared to Viwa.

An estimate of 30 to 40 hectares was planted with this new variety.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 60 CROP PRODUCTION As the weather was not favorable for the (March – April) planting season in 2015, the available seed cane at SRIF Labasa estate was harvested and sent to the mill.

Total of 751 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 35 tonnes of Qamea/ Viwa was sold to farmers during Oct – Nov planting window.

Farmers took around 10 tonnes of Ragnar seed cane.

Thirty five tonnes of seed cane (Viwa/ Qamea) was used for planting.

About 6 tonnes of seed cane (Qamea) was used to plant demonstration plots at 4 different locations.

Also 30 tonnes of seed cane (Qamea and Viwa) was given to the farmers for free from Oct – Nov (2014) to Mar – April (2015) planting window for variety promotion.
For, (March – April) planting window in 2016, about 4 ha of seed cane will be ready for distribution to the farmers.

Five ha of hot water treated seed nursery was established as Mother Plot in Drasa.

The plot was irrigated due to the meteorological drought experienced.

The germination was more than 90% because these seedlings were raised in the greenhouse then transferred to the field in the Drasa Estate.
The varieties planted in the Mother plot were selected on the demand of these variety types from farmers.

Seed cane from this nursery would be ready for planting in the 2016 planting season.

Figure 7: Irrigation in the greenhouse on seedlings 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT CROP PRODUCTION Page 61 Figure 8: New variety, Viwa in the greenhouse Challenges identified in Seed cane production are:  Availability of land on the Estates.
A minimum of 15ha is required for Labasa and Rarawai Estate each to cater for seed cane production  Lack of farmer uptake of clean seed cane.

Uptake of seed cane this year has been low due to the drought conditions faced and also the lack of awareness on the advantage of using quality seed cane by farmers.

Recommendation It is recommended that demonstration plots are planted on farmer’s field using heat treated or clean seed material.
SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 62 CROP PRODUCTION EU SUPPORT 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI Page 63 EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI The support for the research activities is available through the Accompanying Measures for the Sugar Protocol Programme (AMSP Programme).
The Sugar Protocol was the agreement that sets the guaranteed import prices and import levels for sugar between ACP countries that signed up to it and the European Union.

Following a ruling of the WTO, which put an end to guaranteed prices for the EU's own producers, the EU could not justify paying guaranteed prices for ACP producers when we no longer guarantee prices for its own producers.
The decision was taken in 2009 to terminate the Sugar Protocol after a transition period that will come to an end in October 2017.

The AMSP programme was designed to help ACP countries adapting to the foreseen EU market access conditions over the Protocol phasing out period (2009-2017).

In this framework, Fiji has received nearly 50 million euros to help the sugar producers improve competitiveness and diversify their sources of income, through the implementation of 14 projects.
The duration of these projects varies; the longest ones will end in 2018.

The Sugar Research Institute of Fiji has benefitted significantly from the support of European Union through the Annual Action Programs (AAP) 2011-2013.

The total of € 3.5M has been made available to SRIF from 2012 to 2018 in the form of AAP2011, AAP2012 and AAP2013.
Annual Action Program 2011 Title: ‘Cane variety research is improved and good quality seed cane is available to growers’ Budget: € 1 Million Implementation Period: August 2012- December 2015 AAP2011 focused on two key result areas: (a) Strengthening Research and (b) Capacity Building.
Strengthening research concentrated on targeted inputs in various areas of sugarcane research, production of seed cane and improved estate and infrastructure to assist in the production of new varieties and multiplication of seed cane.

Capacity building focused on staff training and education to increase their research capabilities.
Most activities planned in the original Grant contract were completed except purchase and installation of an eco- friendly hot water treatment unit and set-up of irrigation and reticulation system for Drasa estate.

An addendum was sought to change the eco-friendly hot water treatment unit into two biogas operated HWT units and two greenhouses to be located at Rakiraki and Labasa.

The unspent budget lines were diverted to include the purchase of lowboy truck and equipment’s for bio-compost.
The initial implementation period of AAP2011 was 24 months from 13th August 2012 but due the delays in completing project activities, this was extended twice with the final implementation period being 40 months to end of December 2015.

Despite the extensions, the activities which were identified in the second addendum were not completed at the end of the project.

This was due to lack of justification and utilisation plan for the proposed investments.
As a result of this failure, SRIF lost a total of €345,000.

Notwithstanding the above, most of the activities were completed as planned and the desired outcome was achieved for most of them.

The specific objective of the action was ‘Cane variety research is strengthened and good quality seed cane is available to growers’.
Improving and introducing new varieties with increased yield and sucrose content is the ultimate aim of any sugarcane research programme and requires long term vision, resource input and dedicated personnel.

The sugarcane breeding programme at SRIF has been in existence for decades and had its basis in making large number of random combinations to increase the chances of producing a superior cultivar.
Although effective, this method has long been set aside in favour of modern methods of using available molecular tools and statistical programs to identify superior parents more likely to pass on their favourable attributes to their offspring to make limited but highly productive crosses.

The transition from a conventional to more modern approach to breeding requires appropriate adjustments in terms of infrastructure, germplasm material and staff training.
The investments under the AAP2011 Grant helped to SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 64 EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI fast-track these changes, with the introduction of new varieties, staff training and purchase of necessary equipment.

This has resulted in an improved sugarcane breeding programme capable of producing cultivars which are superior to the existing ones in all aspects.
The AAP2011 funding enabled SRIF staff to access formal education at local and overseas universities, with training and attachments undertaken at sugarcane research institutes in Australia, Mauritius and Thailand.

SRIF staff have benefitted though upgrading their qualifications and further developing their research capacities and improved skills.
Attendance at conferences and workshops has helped staff to build professional networks with other scientists in their fields, get research ideas and increase confidence.
Table 1 : List of staff who enrolled for formal studies under AAP2011 Staff Mumta Gounder Nalini Prasad Natasha Nair Saimone Johnson Sanjay Prakash Jyotika Prasad Nazeea Bano Pedro Rounds Ilisoni Vorelevu Mere Tauvoli Doreen Pillay Qualification before project Diploma in Laboratory Technology Diploma in Agriculture Diploma in Business Management Masters in Biology Diploma in Accounting Bachelor of science in Biotech, Chemistry and Genetics Bachelor of Science in Chemistry and Biology Bachelor of Science in Biology and Computer Science Qualification after project Status Anticipated Finish Date Bachelor in Chemistry 10/24 units 2017 Bachelor in Agriculture Bachelors in Management Master’s in Business Administration Master’s in Business Administration Postgrad Diploma in Biology Completed 8/10 units 2016 Completed Completed Completed Unclassified 3/6 units Unclassified 1/4 units Bachelors in Agriculture Masters in Botany Completed Bachelor of Science in Chemistry and Biology Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science (Chemistry) Masters in Chemistry Completed Masters in Chemistry Completed Table 2: Staff attendance to workshop and seminars Conference/Workshop ASPAC Workshop, New Zealand ASSCT Workshop, Townsville ISSCT, Brazil Step Up conference.
Gold Coast Staff Milika Vaniqi Mumta Gounder Jyotika Prasad Doreen Pillay Amit Singh Sanjay Prakash Saimone Johnson Nazeea Bano Sanmogam Gounder SRIF benefitted through an upgrade in its equipment and infrastructure.
Training activities and interactions with other research institutes resulted in the development new project ideas and collaboration at an institutional level in fields such as breeding, molecular biology and 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI Page 65 agronomy.

This has also resulted in access to resources such as primer sequences and laboratory protocols which otherwise would not be available to SRIF.
The ultimate beneficiaries of this project are the sugar cane farmers.

The short-term benefit to these farmers has been ensuring that their crops remain free from pest and diseases.

The use of pheromone traps in the cane belt have kept the spread of cane weevil borer in check and the use of molecular diagnostics has helped in rapid identification and elimination of any bacterial and viral diseases.
One of the long-term benefits anticipated was the availability of sufficient amounts of clean seed cane for farmers.

This could not be realised on a large scale due to the absence of distribution plots and only a small number of farmers benefitted from SRIFs primary nursery.

The longer-term impact of the AAP2011 Grant will be the availability of new sugarcane varieties which have high yield and sucrose content.
Figure 1: Greenhouse constructed at Drasa for production of disease free sugarcane seedlings Figure 2: Seedling production at the Drasa greenhouse SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 66 EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI Annual Action Program 2012 Title: Sugar research capacity building and improvement of cane production Budget: €1 Million Implementation Period: December 2013-December 2016 The AAP2012 centers on increasing the overall cane production and improving the self- financing and research capacities of the Institute.
Building on the achievements of AAP2011, the infrastructure and disease testing facilities will be used to produce quality seed cane for distribution to the growers.

There has been a rapid decline in production in the past decade and some of the contributing factors are the reluctance of growers to plant new cane after a ratooning period of 5-8 years and their dependence on a single cultivar.
The approach to increasing the cane production is ensuring that there is sufficient quality of seed material available for the new and early maturing cultivars.

The project also looks at setting up demonstration trials in every sector to show the benefits of quality seed material, planting legumes, and adopting new varieties of sugarcane.

A total of 30 demonstrations trials have been conducted since 2015.
The success of the above approach has been visible in terms of increase in number of growers interested in planting new varieties.

Figure 3: Participants at the stakeholder workshop conducted at the Tanoa Waterfront Hotel in October Annual Action Program 2013 Title: Improvement of management and operation capacities of SRIF Budget: €1.5 Million Implementation Period: December 2014-December 2018 AAP2013 will continue to focus on increasing the production through adoption of new varieties.
The interim seed cane production programme under the AAP2012 will link seamlessly with the long-term seed cane production plan for the industry.

The objective will be to reduce the total area covered by the current dominant variety ‘Mana’ and increase the area planted using new and early maturing varieties.
In addition to this, research projects are being conducted to recommend alternative sources of fertilizer which will decrease the input for the growers; pest and disease management studies that will provide cost 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI Page 67 recommendations on the cost-effective methods of producing a healthy crop and mechanization techniques which will help growers plant and maintain their farms.
The project also focuses on inclusion of services and activities which will generate income for the Institute.

Changing political scenarios constantly affect the flow of funds available for research and this becomes an inhibitory factor in achieving the desired results.
Starting income generating activities such as providing farm contracting services to the growers, providing soil and water testing services at a cost will ensure that SRIF does not have to be dependent on the funding by the industry stakeholders and there are funds available for research once the Grant Contract ends.

The project is on hold pending approval of the inception report.
ASIAN CARIBBEAN PACIFIC- SUGAR RESEARCH PROGRAMME (ACP-SRP) Title: A comparative study of family and individual mass selection methods as early selection criteria and Nobilisation of Erianthus species.
Budget: €799,765.00 Implementation Period: December 2010-December 2015 The goal of this project was to increase sugar productivity per unit area by testing the efficiency of the family selection comparison with mass individual selection system and to undertake a nobilisation programme involving E. arundinaceous and E. procerus type clones with selected S. officinarum.
The project focused on four main objectives: [1] Evaluate the efficiency of the methodology of the two early selection system that is family selection and individual mass selection where mechanical harvesting and weighing technique are not available.

The two trials planted to this effect were planted in April 2013 and February 2014 respectively.
The 2013 trial is in Stage 2 now and was planted in July 2015 and the effect of the selection system would be seen after evaluation of the plant crop in 2016 season.

For 2014 trial, the individual selection as been done and the selections are being propagated.

The family selection will be carried out in ratoon in 2016 and a stage 2 trial will be planted.

Both the trials involve families from West Indies whereas 2013 trial also have some SRIF crosses.
SRIF will continue this trial and the results will be made available after the evaluation.

[2] To focus on the possibility of determining the breeding values of parental clones that produced the families using Best Linear Unbiased Predictors (BLUPs) of parental performance estimated from family selection trials.

BLUPs are estimates of breeding value, which is the additive genetic component of the genotype.
It will take 5-8 years of repeated use of proven parents and families to ascertain the breeding values.

The proven families would be those producing good progenies in terms of high sugar and cane yielding varieties.

In 2015, the refresher course on ASReml software which will use BLUP’s to estimate the breeding values was undertaken in November.

The SRIF staff are prepared to conduct necessary analysis as and when data becomes available.
[3] To undertake a germplasm collection programme where very little or no collections have been made so far such as Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

This had been initiated earlier in 2013 but it has not been possible to bring the collected materials to Fiji due to tough biosecurity conditions in case of Myanmar.

However with respect to Vietnam it has been possible to sign a MoU and import 15 Erianthus and 5 S. officinarum varieties.
Two of the Vietnam Erianthus have been used for crosses in 2015 season together with local Erianthus arundinaceous and preserved Indonesian collection.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 68 EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI [4] To select five to ten S. officinarum clones and make crosses with six E. arundinaceous and four E. procerus to develop an array of genotype with bloodline from genu Erianthus.
These genotypes are to have minimum characteristics for the other traits of agronomic importance for further breeding and commercial acceptability.

The normal time span for release of varieties is beyond the scope of this operation however it would lay the foundation for the parental line development.

In 2015, 29 crosses had been conducted of which 2 were with the officinarum.

The fuzz (seeds) have not been sown yet.
The project also had provision for improvement of the infrastructure required for sugarcane breeding and some of the infrastructure development include:  Construction of the crossing shed at Dobuilevu, Rakiraki  Purchase of germination chamber for sugarcane breeding  Purchase of SpectraCane for analysis of sugarcane samples  Purchase of PCR and other equipment to set up the molecular diagnostics lab  Purchase of farm implements and irrigation equipment In addition to the infrastructure development; staff received training in various aspects of sugarcane breeding.
Some of the training and attachments carried out in collaboration with other research institutes include:  Training in sugarcane breeding at Sugar Research Australia (SRA -previously BSES)  Training in Sugarcane breeding at West Indies Sugarcane Breeding Station (WISCBS)  Training in statistics at SRA  Training in DNA extraction and PCR at Mauritius Sugarcane Breeding Station (MSIRI) Figure 4: Biparental crosses set-up at the Breeding Facility in Dobuilevu 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT TO THE SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI Page 69 FACP APPENDICES SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 70 FACP APPENDICES FACP APPENDICES Appendix 1: Main features of 2015 season compared with 2014 Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills open open open open open open open open open open 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.
%POCS 13 12.4 12 12.6 12 12.1 12 11.9 12 12.3 Cane purity average for season Tonnes cane harvested Tonnes cane crushed Appendix 2: Monthly rainfall(mm) for 2015 compared with long term average Mills Lautoka No.

of years 2015 actual 107 yrs avg.

to 2015 2015 actual 130 yrs avg.

to 2015 2015 actual 127 yrs avg.


to 2015 2015 actual 118 yrs avg.
to 2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 9 65 8 38 2 65 15 70 Rarawai Labasa Penang Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Appendix 3: Crop production details Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills FACP APPENDICES Page Areas harvested (hectares) Plant First ratoon 2nd ratoon Other ratoons Total Cane harvested Plant First ratoon 2nd ratoon Other ratoons Total Yield tonnes cane per hectare (tch) Plant First ratoon 2nd ratoon Other ratoons Avg.
yield/ha Varieties crushed (% of total cane harvested) Ragnar Aiwa Beqa Galoa Kaba Mali Mana Naidiri Vatu Waya LF91-1925 Kiuva Expt./Others Total 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.2 2.7 nil 90.5 2.1 0.1 nil 1.5 1.1 nil 100 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 2.3 0.1 91.8 1.7 nil nil 1.0 1.3 0.3 100 55.5 55.5 52.7 46.1 47.9 60.0 53.0 52.0 46.0 47.0 62.0 60.0 54.0 48.0 50.0 0.5 0.3 nil nil 5.0 nil 90.9 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.1 nil nil nil 6.2 1.1 88.9 1.2 nil 0.3 0.9 nil 0.2 100 58.0 57.0 50.0 41.0 45.0 23.9 0.2 nil 6.2 0.4 10.3 nil 33.8 16.6 6.7 0.9 0.8 0.1 100 58.9 65.2 52.6 47.1 51.1 24.8 0.2 0.1 5.5 0.4 12.2 nil 31.7 16.3 6.8 1.3 0.5 0.2 100 60.0 55.0 50.0 50.0 51.0 0.1 nil 0.1 nil 0.3 0.1 95.4 3.4 nil 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 100 52.2 50.3 46.7 46.1 47.4 0.7 0.1 nil Appendix 4: Rainfall (mm) at mill centres Mill Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang For 12 months ended 31st December For 12 months ended 30th September Appendix 5: Rainfall distribution affecting 2015 crop(mm) Period Month Early Jul-14 Mid Late Early Mid Late Early Mid Aug-14 Sep-14 Lautoka nil 0.8 0.5 nil nil nil nil nil Rarawai nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil Labasa 3.5 4.6 9.6 2.4 Nil
 Nil Nil Nil Penang 3.6 0.2 19.9 2.5 4.7 9.0 Nil Nil SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 72 FACP APPENDICES Oct-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Dec-14 Nov-14 5.8 14.0 5.2 22.0 42.4 Nil 8.7 57.0 44.8 35.5 81.5 62.5 52.1 80.2 115.9 50.0 35.0 107.8 Nil Nil 81.9 Nil Nil 13.0 Nil 7.8 Nil Nil Early - 1st to 10th of the month Mid - 11th to 20th of the month Late - 21st to end of the month 17.1 20.1 6.4 6.2 31.3 Nil 55.1 42.8 22.0 71.4 62.1 13.8.3 12.9 61.9 209.4 67.0 54.8 73.1 5.9 0.7 60.9 2.1 Nil 4.4 Nil 11.8 Nil 3.5 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-15 Mar-15 Jun-15 Apr-15 5.8 45.4 76.1 78.9 46.7 29.6 40.0 60.2 58.0 35.8 70.0 45.7 68.8 157.3 133.1 113.5 5.5 162.5 7.4 7.9 84.8 12.7 58.9 Nil Nil Nil 2.0 Nil 0.4 16.7 31.0 50.8 21.4 0.2 43.2 281.8 211.8 25.9 315.5 312.4 350.6 325.6 319.6 252.8 33.7 100.1 9.6 43.9 57.5 0.4 70.5 1.3 0.4 2.4 3.1 9.1 Appendix 6 : hectares harvested Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills Crop P R Total P R Total P R Total P R Total P R Total Average for period of five seasons 2006/ 2010 788 14614 15402 1127 14553 15680 1116 14039 15155 339 3991 4330 3369 47197 50567 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 1991/ 1995 3634 20580 24214 2899 17360 20259 3120 19604 22724 1386 4958 6344 11039 62502 73541 2011/ 2015 775 10630 11405 953 11367 12320 1403 11500 12903 368 3142 3510 3499 36640 40139 Last four seasons individually SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Appendix 7: Tonnes of cane
 harvested Mills 1991/ 1995 Average for period of five seasons 2006/ 2010 763321 738316 695728 213253 2410619 2001/ 2005 971454 878509 840388 239044 2929395 1996/ 2000 1216597 957507 1017061 309205 3500370 Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills 1283569 1017374 1166055 291206 3758204 FACP APPENDICES Page 73 2011/ 2015 516159 551682 547372 170698 1785912 Last four seasons individually 2012 2013 2014 2015 481483 508638 413285 143568 1546974 405652 498881 546156 159720 1610409 520264 596350 544353 171214 1832181 521065 490765 662600 170129 1844559 Appendix 8 : Tonnes of cane per hectare harvested 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 Average for period of five seasons 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 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 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 2011/ 2015 57.7 44.3 45.2 56.7 43.8 44.8 53.4 41.4 42.7 50.6 48.4 48.6 55.3 43.5 44.5 Last four seasons individually Appendix 9 : Hectares harvested in relation to registered area and cultivated area (ha) Mills Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang Total 2015 hectares (A) Registered (1) 22810 21910 18771 7785 71276 Cultivated (2) 11516 13062 13245 3883 41705 Harvested 10882 11849 12972 3588 39291 Hectares harvested as % of various categories "A" (1) 47.7 54.1 69.1 46.1 55.1 Appendix 10 : Plant cane harvested as percentage of total cane harvested Mills Average for period of five seasons Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills 1991/ 1995 15.0 14.0 14.0 23.0 16.0 1996/ 2000 13.0
 18.0 12.0 19.0 15.0 2001/ 2005 5.0 6.0 7.0 11.0 7.0 2006/ 2010 5.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.4 2011/ 2015 8.5 9.7 13.4 10.7 10.5 Last four seasons individually 2012 2013 2014 2015 3.1 6.9 5.9 5.1 5.3 7.1 9.4 17.4 8.1 10.5 7.8 8.3 11.1 9.2 9.1 10.7 11.1 15.6 17.8 13.2 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 55.5 47.1 47.9 49.6 40.6 41.4 58.9 49.9 51.1 52.2 46.5 47.4 54.9 45.9 46.9 (2) 94.5 90.7 97.9 92.4 94.2 Page 74 FACP APPENDICES Appendix 11: Plant, ratoon yields and percentage of total area harvested - 2015 Crop Mills Plant tch 55.5 49.6 58.9 52.2 54.9 Area ha 1006 1095 1756 580 4437 % of Area 9.2 9.2 14.0 16.2 11.3 Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All Mills First ratoon Area ha 653 799 1219 238 2908 tch 55.5 49.8 65.2 50.3 57.6 Other ratoons All cane tch 46.5 39.8 48.0 46.2 44.9 Area ha 9223 9955 9997 2770 31946 % of Area 84.7 8.4 7.7 7.7 81.3 tch 47.9 41.4 51.1 47.4 46.9 Area ha 10882 11849 12972 3588 39291 % of Area 6.0 6.7 9.0 6.6 7.4 Appendix 12 : Seasonal %POCS in cane Mills Rough average for period of five seasons Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All Mill Avg.
1991/ 1995 12.5 12.9 12.1 12.6 12.5 1996/ 2000 11.4 11.4 11.1 11.1 11.2 2001/ 2005 11.5 11.9 11.5 11.9 11.7 2006/ 2010 10.8 10.9 10.7 11.1 11.0 2011/ 2015 11.4 11.3 11.5 11.1 11.4 Last four seasons individually 2012 2013 2014 2015 10.7 10.7 11.6 11.5 11.1 11.6 11.5 11.2 10.6 11.3 12.9 12.0 12.3 11.9 12.3 12.4 12.6 12.1 11.9 12.3 Appendix 13: Weekly POCS in cane 2015 season Week no.
Average Lautoka 12.03 11.91 11.83 12.30 12.67 12.89 12.77 12.59 12.71 12.53 12.85 12.84 11.91 10.91 12.53 12.43 11.84 12.62 12.60 12.65 12.73 12.75 12.40 Rarawai 10.25 10.39 11.09 11.87 12.49 12.60 12.78 12.74 12.69 12.71 12.70 12.72 12.73 12.62 12.47 12.49 12.45 11.87 11.77 11.70 Labasa 11.89 12.01 11.87 11.94 12.00 12.26 12.56 11.88 12.58 12.56 12.32 12.47 12.48 12.47 12.11 11.90 12.33 11.60 10.92 8.09 Penang 10.67 11.92 12.27 11.85 12.20 11.68 12.00 11.61 11.69 11.70 11.95 11.90 11.89 12.00 12.43 11.40 10.84 12.16 11.91 11.76 Average 11.21 11.56 11.77 11.99 12.34 12.36 12.53 12.21 12.42 12.38 12.46 12.48 12.25 12.00 12.39 12.06 11.87 12.03 11.76 10.81 12.73 12.75 12.11 Appendix 14 : Sugar produced (tonnes 94 N.T.
equivalent) Mills Tonnes sugar 94 N.T equivalent Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills SRIF ANNUAL REPORT FACP APPENDICES Page 75 Last five seasons individually Appendix 15 : Sugar tonnes 94 N.T equivalent per hectare (tsh) Mills Average for period of five seasons 2001/ 2005 4.9 5.4 5.0 4.7 5.1 1996/ 2000 5.6 5.6 5.0 5.4 5.4 1991/ 1995 6.2 6.3 6.0 5.5 6.1 Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang Average 2006/ 2010 4.4 4.0 4.0 5.4 4.3 2011/ Appendix 16 : Length of season (weeks) - Start and finish of crushing (date) Average length of season (5 yearly) Mills 2001/ 2005 1996/ 2000 2006/ 2010 1991/ 1995 2011/ 2015 2012 Last four seasons individually 2013 2014 2015 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 All mills 26.1 28.2 24.1 25.9 21.7 24.2 26/06/12 to 04/12/12 22.8 10/07/12 to 17/12/12 16.1 26/06/12 to 16/10/12 16.3 26/06/12 to 18/10/12 19.9 19.0 02/06/13 To 03/11/13 20 26/06/13 To 13/11/13 19 27/06/13 To 09/11/13 17 25/06/13 To 20/10/13 18.7 19 01/07/14 To 08/11/14 21.5 19/06/14 To 17/11/14 16.5 17/06/14 To 11/10/14 16.9 27/06/14 To 11/10/14 18.5 21 02/07/15 To 24/11/15 19.4 23/06/15 To 28/10/15 19.2 17/06/15 To 28/10/15 15.9 29/06/15 To 19/10/15 18.9 Appendix 17 : Varieties Percent of hectares harvested Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang Varieties Ragnar Waya Mali Galoa Aiwa Kiuva Mana LF91-1925 Kaba Vatu Beqa Naidiri Exp.
Other var.
2014 0.6 nil 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.3 91.8 1.0 2.3 nil 0.3 1.7 nil 0.3 2015 0.7 nil nil 0.2 0.4 0.9 92.1 1.2 2.3 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.1 2014 0.5 0.4 nil nil 0.3 1.1 90.9 0.3 5.0 nil nil 0.9 nil 0.6 2015 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.3 nil 89.9 0.6 5.6 nil nil 1.0 nil 0.3 2014 23.9 6.7 10.3 6.2 0.2 0.8 nil 0.9 0.4 16.6 nil 33.8 nil nil 2015 24.4 7.3 11.8 5.3 0.3 0.5 nil 1.3 0.4 16.9 0.1 31.7 nil 0.2 2014 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 nil 0.3 95.4 0.1 0.3 nil nil 3.4 nil 0.03 2015 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 90.9 0.2 0.9 0.2 nil 5.9 nil nil All Mills 2014 7.5 2.1 3.1 1.9 0.3 1.0 64.3 0.6 2.6 4.9 0.1 11.2 nil nil 2015 8.5 2.5 4.3 1.8 0.3 0.5 60.9 1.0 2.6 5.6 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.2 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 76 FACP APPENDICES 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 Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills Year Varieties Ragnar Waya Mana Galoa Vatu Mali Aiwa Beqa Kaba Naidiri Kiuva LF91-1925 Experiment Other Varieties % 3.8 0.6 0.7 nil 0.1 nil 69.0 91.8 80.8 1.0 0.1 0.3 nil nil nil 0.1 0.1 nil 1.4 0.4 1.4 0.4 0.3 nil 5.3 2.3 7.1 8.8 1.7 4.0 5.1 1.3 nil 4.6 1.0 3.8 0.2 0.1 nil Area ha 28.2 6.7 3.8 nil 1.1 nil 511.4 1025.1 463.8 7.4 1.1 1.7 nil nil nil 0.7 1.1 nil 10.4 4.5 8.0 3.0 3.4 nil 39.3 25.7 40.8 65.2 19.0 23.0 37.8 14.5 nil 34.1 11.2 21.8 1.5 1.1 nil % 2.3 0.5 2.8 0.6 0.4 0.9 63.0 90.9 60.0 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 1.2 0.3 0.5 nil nil nil 11.4 5.0 16.1 2.8 0.9
 5.0 nil 1.1 1.4 nil 0.3 11.0 0.2 0.6 2.3 Area ha 21.7 6.4 15.3 5.7 5.1 4.9 594.8 1160.4 327.8 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 11.3 3.8 2.7 nil nil nil 107.6 63.8 88.0 26.4 11.5 27.3 nil 14.0 7.6 nil 3.8 60.1 1.9 3.3 29.4 % 27.2 23.9 25.0 5.0 6.7 5.6 nil nil nil 6.3 6.2 8.2 13.0 16.6 7.9 8.5 10.3 6.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 nil nil nil 0.5 0.4 0.4 34.7 33.8 37.4 2.0 0.8 0.5 2.4 0.9 6.9 nil 0.1 1.8 Area ha 314.8 473.0 313.9 57.9 132.6 70.3 nil nil nil 72.9 122.7 103.0 150.4 328.5 99.2 98.4 203.9 77.8 1.2 4.0 1.3 nil nil nil 5.8 7.9 5.0 401.6 669.0 469.6 23.1 15.8 6.3 27.8 17.8 86.6 nil 2.0 22.6 % nil 0.1 0.1 nil 0.1 nil 64.6 95.4 62.3 nil 0.1 2.9 0.4 nil nil nil 0.1 0.1 nil nil 0.7 nil nil nil 0.3 0.3 2.5 0.3 3.4 29.1 nil 0.3 0.1 nil 0.1 2.1 nil nil nil Area ha nil 0.5 0.4 nil 0.5 nil 184.3 485.6 221.0 nil 0.5 10.3 1.1 nil nil nil 0.5 0.4 nil nil 2.5 nil nil nil 0.9 1.5 8.9 0.9 17.3 103.2 nil 1.5 0.4 nil 0.5 7.5 nil nil nil % nil 7.5 12.2 nil 2.1 2.8 41.3 64.3 37.1 nil 1.9 4.2 nil 4.9 3.6 nil 3.1 2.9 nil 0.3 0.5 nil nil nil nil 2.6 5.2 nil 11.2 22.8 nil 1.0 0.5 nil 0.6 6.5 nil 0.3 1.3 Area ha nil 366.1 333.1 nil 102.5 76.5 3128.0 3138.8 1013.1 nil 92.7 114.7 nil 239.2 98.3 nil 151.3 79.2 nil 14.6 13.7 nil nil nil nil 126.9 142.0 nil 546.7 622.6 nil 48.8 13.7 nil 29.3 177.5 nil 14.6 35.5 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT FACP APPENDICES Page 77 Appendix 20 : Cane transport in Fiji (tonnes of cane harvested and actual method of delivery) Lorry direct to mill Mills carrier Delivered portable line Winch trailer or lorry to mainline Year Lautoka Rarawai Labasa Penang All mills Tonnes % of Total 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 0.4 1.7 0.3 nil 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 13652 15915 12464 3964 9491 2065 12464 1436 nil 32927 38797 23827 25106 Tonnes % of Total 21.0 158002 24.0 179905 23.0
 168852 25.0 129410 22.2 144569 23.6 113819 23.3 168852 22.4 116328 21.3 111036 25.0 184605 25.0 184094 25.0 164490 24.0 126450 Tonnes % of Total 77.0 569577 74.0 574754 75.0 544730 75.0 394094 76.4 498273 75.9 365599 75.0 544730 77.4 402500 78.7 410029 70.0 520946 70.0 509470 71.0 471034 71.0 370460 Total Tonnes % of Total nil nil nil 840 nil nil nil 3010 3026 11145 nil nil nil nil nil nil 52509 59013 47436 29070 33077 17677 8630 15442 12032 3.6 3.6 6.3 2.2 2.5 0.3 0.2 nil nil nil 0.2 nil nil nil 1.0 1.0 6.0 nil nil nil nil nil nil SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 78 FACP APPENDICES Appendix 21: Percentage burnt cane of total tonnes crushed Year
 % Lautoka Total % Rarawai Total % Labasa Total % Penang Total 154116 198116 250168 294605 271096 307753 326348 239482
% Average Total SRIF ANNUAL REPORT FACP APPENDICES Page 79 APPROVED VARIETIES SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 80 APPROVED VARIETIES APPROVED VARIETIES The list of sugarcane varieties approved for planting during 2015 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 Medium soils Poor soils Sandy soils Flat Fertile soil Medium soils Lautoka/Qeleloa Poor soils Rich alluvial soils Kaba, Mana, Viwa Varieties recommended on maturity trends Mid – late maturing Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Early – mid maturing Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Medium soils Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Lautoka/Meigunyah Flat Fertile soils Poor soils Lautoka/Legalega Lautoka/Natova Lautoka/Lautoka Lautoka/Saweni 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 Flat Fertile soils Medium soils 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri,
 LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Mill/Sectors Soil types Lautoka/Saweni Lautoka/Lovu Lautoka/Drasa Rarawai/Varoko Rarawai/Mota Rarawai/Naloto 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 APPROVED VARIETIES Page 81 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Varieties recommended on maturity trends Mid – late maturing Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Early – mid maturing LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri,
 LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa LF91-1925, Qamea LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Mana, Kaba, Vatu, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Mana, Kaba, Vatu, Viwa LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mali, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Galoa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 82 APPROVED VARIETIES Mill/Sectors Soil types Labasa/Wailevu Flat Fertile soils
 Labasa/Vunimoli Labasa/Labasa Labasa/Bucaisau Labasa/Wainikoro Labasa/Daku 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 Medium soils Poor soils Saline soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Poor soils Saline soils Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Varieties recommended on maturity trends Mid – late maturing Early – mid maturing Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mali, Viwa Galoa, Vatu Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mali, Viwa Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mali, Viwa Galoa, Vatu, Mali Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Waya, Viwa Kaba, Waya, Mali, Viwa Galoa, Vatu, Mali Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Waya, Viwa Kaba, Waya, Mali, Viwa Galoa, Vatu, Mali Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Waya, Viwa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 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 Flat Fertile soils Medium soils Viti Vanua area Penang/Malau Rich alluvial soils Medium soils LF91-1925, Qamea Poor soils Salt affected
 areas Naidiri, LF91-1925 Penang/Ellington Poor soils LF91-1925, Qamea Salt affected areas Naidiri, LF91-1925 Flat Fertile soils Medium soils LF91-1925, Qamea Poor soils Salt affected areas Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Galoa Mana, Kaba, Kiuva, Mali, Viwa Naidiri, LF91-1925, Qamea Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Mali, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Galoa Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Aiwa, Beqa, Naidiri, LF91-1925 Ragnar, Kaba, Kiuva, Viwa Ragnar, Kaba, Vatu, Kiuva, Mali, Viwa Kaba, Mana, Viwa Galoa 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT ABBREVIATIONS Page 83 ABBREVIATIONS SRIF FSC SIT SCGC SCGF MoS SPF FMS EU - Sugar Research Institute of Fiji - Fiji Sugar Corporation Ltd - Sugar Industry Tribunal - Sugar Cane Growers Council - Sugar Cane Growers Fund - Ministry Of Sugar - South Pacific Fertilisers - Fiji Meteorological Services - European Union CIRAD - Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le POCS or pocs - Pure obtainable cane sugar NPK - Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium N P K RCBD Rep - Nitrogen - Phosphorus - Potassium - Randomized Complete Block Design - Replication Trt or Trts - Treatment(s) Tph or Tpha - Tonnes cane per hectare Tsh or Tsha - Tonnes sugar per hectare TC/TS or tc/ts - Tonnes cane per tonnes sugar (tonnes of cane required to produce 1 ton of sugar) AVG./Avg.
- Average LF[YEAR] - Lautoka Fiji [year in which the fuzz was planted], e.g.
LF2014 G x E FFE QBPS FSI - Genetic by Environment - Farmer Feel Effect - Quality Based Payment Scheme - Fijian Sugar Industry ASPAC - Australian Soil and Plant Analysis Council LBC FTIR CQD IMG UV-VIS RMSECV SOI ENSO - Lime Buffering Capacity - Frontier Transform Infra-Red - Cane Quality Department - Industry Management Group - Ultra violet visible light spectrum - Root Mean Square Error of Cross validation - Southern Oscillation Index - El Niño Southern Oscillation SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 84 GLOSSARY GLOSSARY Clones / Varieties Series Germplasm Fuzz 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.

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

Breeding Plots / Flowering Beds Small areas planted with sugarcane for the purpose of harvesting flowers from.

Gene Pool Standards Brix G X E trials Supply 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 Phytotoxic Poisonous to plants.

Farmorganix/Stand Up Brand names of new organic fertilisers being tested at SRIF.
SummaGrow Spectra-Cane 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.
%brix Total soluble solutes in cane juice Polarisation (or Pol) The apparent sucrose content expressed as a mass percent measured by the optical rotation of polarized light passing through a sugar solution.

%pol Percent total sucrose in cane juice 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Fiber %fiber Purity POCS LBC GLOSSARY Page 85 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.

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 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.

CQD IMG UV-VIS spectrophotometer Nematology Pathology The scientific study of nematode worms.
The science of the causes and effects of diseases SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015 Page 86 GLOSSARY FINANCIAL REPORT 2015 SRIF ANNUAL REPORT Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Financial Statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Contents Board rep01i 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 3-4 5 6 7 8 - 18 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 2015 and the related statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income and statement of cash flows for the year ended on that date and report as follows: Directors The Intitute did not have a Board present for the period 30 September 2012 to 4 May 2014.
An interim board was appointed by the Ministry of Sugar on 4 May 2014 and the Board details were as follows: Mr Abdul Khan (appointed on 4 May 2014) Mr Manasa Tagicakibau (appointed on 4 May 2014) Mr Sundresh Chetty (appointed on 4 May 2014) The new Board was appointed on 1 March 2015.
The Directors in office and up to the date of this report are: Professor Rajesh Chandra - Chairman (appointed 1 March 2015) Mr Abdul Khan (appointed on l March 2015) Mr Daniel Elisha (appointed 1 March 2015) Mr Manasa Tagicakibau (appointed on 1 March 2015 and resigned on 18 July 2017) Professor Paras Nath (appointed 1March2015) Mr Sundresh Chetty (appointed on 1March2015) Dr K. Shanmudha Sundaram (appointed 1March2015) Mr Graham Clark (appointed 18 July 2017) Ms Reshmi Kumari (appointed 18 July 2017) The Board has taken all necessary steps to have the accounts prepared properly with external input and has insured that the external auditors have unfetted access to all documents and information sought by them with the shared aim to ensure that the final accounts represent the true state of affairs of the Institute in 2015, including any liabilities.
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 31December2015 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.
Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Directors' report (continued) Receivables The directors took reasonable steps before the lnstitute'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.
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 Donor 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 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 Sugar Cane Growers Council.

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 parliment that is proposing major changes in the functioning of Sugar Research Industry 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 Directors, 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 __ O_I __ day of N'OV€1Y\lbE.2.

2017.

Signed in accordance with a resolution of the Board.
Board member 2 Honorable Commodore J osaia V oreqe Bainimarama Minister responsible for the Sugar Industry PO Box 2212 Government Buildings Suva Dear Minister INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS OF SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji, which comprise the statement of financial position as at 31 December 2015, and the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, and statement of cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory notes as set out in notes 1 to 19.
Directors' and Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Directors and management are responsible for the preparation of financial statements that give a true and fair view in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards and for such internal control as the directors and management determine is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing.

Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.

The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error.
In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation of financial statements that give a true and fair view 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 entity's internal control.
An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by the management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
3 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS OF SUGAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF FIJI (continued) Basis for qualification VAT Payable The financial statements show an amount of VAT payable to the Fiji Government of $541,323.

The VAT status of the Institute is currently being determined with FRCA and it is not presently known what the outcome of this will be.
The impact on the amount recorded in the financial statements is currently incapable of determination, and accordingly, we are not able to determine what adjustments, if any, might be necessary to the amounts recorded in the financial statements.

Expenses The Institute recorded $4,009,814 in total expenses in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income for the year ended 31 December 2015.
The Institute did not provide appropriate supporting documents totalling $3 6,3 14 for the year ended 31 December 2015 for audit verification.

As a result we were unable to determine whether any adjustments might have been necessary in respect of the Institute's total expenses for the year ended 31 December 2015, and the elements making up the statement of financial position and cash flows.
Opinion In our opinion, except for the possible effects of the matters noted in the Ba_sis for Qualification opinion paragraphs, the financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of Sugar Research Institute of Fiji as at 31 December 2015 and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards.
Report on Other Legal and Regulatory Requirements 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) proper books of account have been kept by the Institute, so far as it appears from our examination of those books; ii) the financial statements are in agreement with the books of account; and iii) to the best of our information and according to the 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.
1 November, 2017 Nadi, Fiji KPMG Chartered Accountants 4 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income For the year ended 31December2015 Contributions and grants Estate income Other income Total income Note 6 7 2015 $ 2014 $ 3,743,559 2,380,353 224,413 2,537 226,279 108,546 3,970,509 2,715,178 Cost of operations 8 (1,678,857) (1,249,324) Administrative expenses 9 (a) (2,330,957) (1,485,426) Deficit from operations (39,305) (19,572) Finance income Deficit before tax Income tax benefit Balance at the beginning of the year Deficit for the year 39,305 19,572 10 The notes on pages 8 to 18 are an integral part of these financial statements.
5 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Statement of financial position For the year ended 31December2015 Assets Current assets Cash and cash equivalents Receivables and prepayments Receivable from related parties Total current assets Non-current assets Property, plant and equipment Total non-current assets Total assets Current liabilities Bank overdraft Deferred income Payable to related parties Employee benefits Trade and other payables Total current liabilities Note 12 13 17 (b) 11 12 14 17 (c) 15 16 2015 $ 2014 $ 4,000,895 157,104 5,224,999 9,382,998 2,674,107 2,750 5,924,999 8,601,856 4,019,316 4,019,316 4,225,307 4,225,307 13,402,314 12,827,163 10,448,540 2,260,537 45,933 647,304 13,402,314 16,836 10,083,526 2,254,407 45,933 426,461 12,827,163 Total liabilities 13,402,314 12,827,163 Signed on behalf of the board L~ ~· a -Board Member The notes on pages 8 to 18 are an integral part of these financial statements.
6 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Statement of cash flows For the year ended 31December2015 Operating Activities Receipts from stakeholders and donors Payment to suppliers and employees Interest received Cash flows provided by Operating Activities Investing Activities Acquisition of property, plant and equipment Received from related parties Cash flows used in Investing Activities Note 2015 $ 2014 $ 4,335,523 (3,631,442) 39,305 3,093,462 (2,365,975) 19,572 743,386 747,059 11 (116,598) 700,000 (583,791) 583,402 (583,791) Net increase in cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year Cash and cash equivalents at 31 December 1,326,788 2,674,107 4,000,895 163,268 2,510,839 2,674,107 12 The notes on pages 8 to 18 are an integral part of these financial statements.
7 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 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 lnstitute'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 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.

2.
2.

Basis of preparation (a) Statement of compliance The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with [nternational Financial Reporting Standards (rFRS) as adopted by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).
The financial statements were authorised for issue by the Board of Directors on _______ _ (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 Donor 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 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 Sugar Cane Growers Council.

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 except where stated.

(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.
(e) Use of estimates and judgments The preparation of financial statements in conformity with fFRS 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.

8 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 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.

Costs includes expenditure that is directly attributable to the acquisition of the asset.

Any gain or loss on disposal of an item of property, plant and equipment are determined by comparing the proceeds from disposal with the carrying amount of property, plant and equipment, and 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: Building and land 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.

9 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 3.
Significant accounting policies (continued) (c) Financial instruments (i) Non-derivative financial assets The Institute initially recognises receivables on the date that they originate.

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.

The Institute classifies non-derivative financial assets into loans and receivables.
Receivables Receivables are non-derivative 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 receivables are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method, less any impairment losses.

Receivables comprise receivables from related party receivables, prepayments, deposits and other receivables.
Cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents comprises cash at bank, cash on hand and bank overdraft.

(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 recognisition 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.

Trade and other payables and payable to related party are stated at amortised cost.
IO Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 3.

Significant accounting policies (continued) (d) Inventories Inventories are measured at the lower of cost and net realisable value.

The cost of inventories is based on the first-in first-out principle, and includes expenditure incurred in acquiring the inventories, production or conversion costs and other costs incurred in bringing them to their existing location and condition.
Net realisable value is the estimated selling price in the ordinary course of business, less the estimated selling expenses.

(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, restructuring of an amount due to the Institute on terms that the Institute would not consider otherwise indications that a debtor or issuer will enter bankruptcy or the disappearance of an active market for a security because of financial difficulties.

(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) Revenue Grant income 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.
11 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 3.

Significant accounting policies (continued) (g) Employee benefits (continued) 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 obligation can be measured reliably.

(h) Income tax The Institute is not subject to income tax.
(i) Receivable from related parties The amounts receivable from related parties are recognised when there is a contractual receivable or a right to receive.

4.

Financial risk management The financial statements do not disclose information relating to the nature and extent of risks arising from financial instuments to which the Institute is exposed at year end, since credit risk, liquidity risk and market fluctuatuions are not material to the Institute.

5.
5.

Standards Issued but not yet adopted A number of new standards, amendments to standards and interpretations are effective for annual periods beginning after 1 January 2014, and have not been applied in prepaing these financial statements.

None of these are expected to have a significant effect on the financial statements of the Company.

12 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 6.
Contributions and grants Contributions from stakeholders and grants that compensate the Institute for revenue and capital expenditure are recognised from deferred income as follows: African Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) Contribution from the Fiji Government European Union Fiji Sugar Corporation (FSC) Sugar Cane Growers 7.

Other income Sundry income 8.
Cost of operations Advertising Bank charges Consultancy fees Depreciation Electricity EU Cost Communication expenses Material costs Motor vehicle running expenses RAF costs Repair and maintenance Subcontract expenses Travel Wages and salaries (refer note 9 (b )) 2015 $ 782,609 450,622 782,609 782,609 2,798,449 2014 $ Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31December2015 9 (a) Administrative expenses Auditors remuneration - audit - other services Accomodation and meals ACP cost Bad debts CEO security Doubtful debts expense Electricity Fiji National Provident Fund contributions General expenses Hire of services ICT consumables ICT license Insurance Inventory write off Legal fees Medical expense Media and publications Freight Postage Rent Repair and maintenance Stationery Staff expenses Training Training and Productivity Authority of Fiji Travel Tuition fees OHS Uniforms Visa permit Water Wages and salaries (refer note 9 (b)) (b) Personnel expenses Fiji National Provident Fund contributions Training and Productivity Authority ofFiji Key management compensation - short term benefits Wages and salaries Other staff related costs 2015 $ $ 10.
Income tax In 2012 the Fiji Revenue and Customs Authority confirmed that the entity is not subject to income tax.

14 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31December2015 11.
Property, plant and equipment Land& Building Fixtures & fittings Plant & equipment Motor vehicles Computers Work in progress $ $ $ $ $ $ Total $ 5,609,968 583,791 6,193,759 116,598 (15,556) 6,294,801 1,628,771 339,681 1,968,452 307,033 2,275,484 1,138,474 65,435 1,203,909 254,522 56,923 311,445 19,230 1,203,909 330,675 178,226 (178,226) 22,722 22,722 870,755 124,138 994,893 74,489 1,069,382 267,719 209,016 134,527 229,162 21,613 250,775 15,198 265,973 25,360 60,670 64,702 178,226 3,981,197 4,225,307 22,722 4,019,316 Cost Balance at 1January2014 Acquisitions Transferred during the year Balance as at 31 December 2014 Acquisitions Transferred during the year Balance as at 31 December 2014 Depreciation Balance at 1January2014 Depreciation charge Balance at 31 December 2014 Depreciation charge Balance at 31December2014 Carrying amount At 1January2014 At 3 1 December 2014 At 31December2015 2,490,147 140,759 178,226 2,809,132 43,932 43,932 2,809,132 43,932 73,083 28,707 101,790 31,365 133, 155 2,417,064 2,707,342 2,675,977 19,375 4,393 23,768 4,393 28,161 24,557 20,164 15,771 1,504,667 320,674 1,825,341 74,646 (15,556) 1,884,431 436,396 160,830 597,226 181,588 778,814 1,068,271 1,228,115 1,105,617 15 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31December2015 12.
Cash and cash equivalents Cash at bank Cash on hand Cash and cash equivalents in the statement of financial position Bank overdraft Cash and cash equivalents in the statement of cash flows 13.

Receivables and prepayments Staff loan Prepayments Deposits 14.

Deferred income 2015 $ 2014 $ 4,000,885 10 4,000,895 4,000,895.
20,658 133,696 2,750 157,104 2,674,097 10 2,674,107 (16,836) 2,657,271 2,750 2,750 The Institute's Deferred income comprises of the receipt of grant income from stakeholders, European Union, African Carribbean and Pacific Group of States, Mauritius Sugar Research Institute and Fiji Sugar Tribunal.

Each grant received has its specific conditions that the Institute needs to comply with.
The movement in Deferred income is as follows: 2015 $ 10,083,526 4,366,973 (4,001,959) 10,448,540 4,598,172 4,425,346 1,162,670 81,095 181,257 10,448,540 2014 $ 7,840,186 4,978,090 (2,734,750) 10,083,526 4,174,540 4,943,375 873,006 125, 130 10,116,051 45,933 45,933 45,933 45,933 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: Contribution from stakeholders European Union grant African Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) Mauritius Sugar Research Instititue (MISRI) Fiji Sugar Tribunal 15.
Employee benefits Balance at 1 January Provision during the year Provision utilised during the year Balance at 31 December 16 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 16.

Trade and other payables Trade payables Other payables VAT payable 17.
Related parties 2015 $ 51,806 54, 175 541,323 647,304 2014 $ 78,480 66,908 281,073 426,461 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.

Transactions with these parties and outstanding balances at year end are disclosed below.

(a) Board members The Intitute did not have a Board present for the period 30 September 2012 to 4 May 2014.
An interim board was appointed by the Ministry of Sugar on 4 May 2014 and the Board details were as follows: Mr Abdul Khan (appointed on 4 May 2014) Mr Manasa Tagicakibau (appointed on 4 May 2014) Mr Sundresh Chetty (appointed on 4 May 2014) The new Board was appointed on 1 March 2015.
The Directors in office and up to the date of this report are: Professor Rajesh Chandra - Chairman (appointed 1 March 2015) Mr Abdul Khan (appointed on 1 March 2015) Mr Daniel Elisha (appointed 1 March 2015) Mr Manasa Tagicakibau (appointed on 1 March 2015 and resigned on 18 July 2017) Professor Paras Nath (appointed 1 March 2015) Mr Sundresh Chetty (appointed on 1March2015) Dr K. Shanmudha Sundaram (appointed 1 March 2015) Mr Graham Clark (appointed 18 July 2017) Ms Reshmi Kumari (appointed 18 July 2017) (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 (VIP) Balance at the end of the year 2014 $ 4,124,999 1,800,000 5,924,999 2015 $ 3,424,999 2,700,000 (900,000) 5,224,999 900,000 900,000 Receivables from related parties are interest free and receivable as and when required.
17 Sugar Research Institute of Fiji Notes to the financial statements For the year ended 31 December 2015 17.

Related parties (continued) (c) Amounts payable to related parties Fiji Sugar Corporation Payable to related parties are interest free and payable on demand.
( d) Transactions with related parties Revenue Grant income - Fiji Sugar Corporation Grant income - Fiji Government Grant income - Sugar Cane Growers Estate income - Fiji Sugar Corporation Impairment loss Sugar Cane Growers (e) Key management personnel 2015 $ 2014 $ 2,260,537 2,260,537 2,254,407 2,254,407 782,609 815,135 782,609 226,279 2,606,632 782,609 782,609 782,609 224,412 2,572,239 782,609 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 personnel compensation is comprised as below: Short-term employee benefits 2015 $ 87,432 2014 $ 124,427 18.

Capital commitments and contingencies Capital commitments and contingent liabilities as at 31 December 2015 amounted to $Nil (2014: $Nil).

19.
19.

Events subsequent to balance date There is a draft Sugar Industry Bill before the parliment that is proposing major changes in the functioning of Sugar Research Industry 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 Directors, 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.

18 GLOSSARY Page 87 © Sugar Research Institute of Fiji, 2015.

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.

SRIF ANNUAL REPORT 2015