Aglime for fiji mdf

Aglime for Fiji Prepared for the Market Development Facility – Fiji Islands

Date: February 2013 Author: ProAnd Associations Australia Pty Ltd

Australian AID – managed by Cardno on behalf of AusAID

CONTENTS Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 1 1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

2

1.1 Fiji Aglime Study ...................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Aglime ................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 How Soils get Acidic ................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 How Much Aglime is Needed to Change Soil pH .................................................................... 5 2.3 Setting Target Soil pH Levels ................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Fiji Aglime Quality ................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Soils Mapping .......................................................................................................................... 7 3 Crop Details ........................................................................................................................ 11 3.1 Sugarcane .............................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.1 Estimated Yield Increases ................................................................................................. 13 3.1.2 Lime Application ............................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3 Cost Benefit Model ........................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Dairy ...................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1 Crop & Soil Matrix ............................................................................................................. 17 3.2.2 Estimated Yield Increases ................................................................................................. 18 3.2.3 Lime Application ............................................................................................................... 19 3.2.4 Cost Benefit Model ........................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Cassava .................................................................................................................................. 20 3.3.1 crop & soil matrix .............................................................................................................. 20 3.3.2 Likely Uptake Rates ........................................................................................................... 20 3.4 Dalo ....................................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 Crop & Soil Matrix ............................................................................................................. 22 3.4.2 Estimated Yield Increases ................................................................................................. 22 3.4.3 Lime Application ............................................................................................................... 23 3.4.4 Cost Benefit Model ........................................................................................................... 23 3.5 Yaqona .................................................................................................................................. 24 3.5.1 Crop & Soil Matrix ............................................................................................................. 24 3.5.2 Likely Uptake Rates ........................................................................................................... 24 3.5.3 Estimated Yield Increases ................................................................................................. 25 3.5.4 Lime Application ............................................................................................................... 25 3.5.5 Cost benefit ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.6 Coconut ................................................................................................................................. 25 3.6.1 Crop & Soil Matrix ............................................................................................................. 26 3.7 Other Crops ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.7.1 Crop & Soil Matrix ............................................................................................................. 26 3.7.2 Likely Uptake Rates ........................................................................................................... 26 3.8 Economic Benefits................................................................................................................. 27 4 Raising Awareness .............................................................................................................. 28 4.1 Field Demonstrations ............................................................................................................ 28 4.2 Other Relevant Factors ......................................................................................................... 29 4.2.1 Soil Testing Services .......................................................................................................... 29 Annex 1 – The effect of soil pH, CEC and target Al saturation level on lime requirement for Fiji soils 31 Annex 2 – Business Plan – CONFIDENTIAL ................................................................................... 37

AGLIME FOR FIJI Annex 3 - Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) ................................................................... 38 Annex 4 – References Used in Preparation of this Report ............................................................ 40

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Map of Fiji .............................................................................................................................. vi Figure 2 - Soil Acidity and Fertiliser Effectiveness .................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 - Aluminium Saturation vs Soil pH (Re-drawn from Rayment and Wallis, 1981)...................... 4 Figure 4 – Aglime Analyses 1................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 5 – Aglime Analyses 2................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 6 - Vanua Levu Acidity Map ......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7 - Viti Levu Acidity Map .............................................................................................................. 8 Figure 8 - Changes in soil acidity between the original soil dataset and current soil testing values. .. 10 Figure 9 - Farm & Crop Statistics - Fiji ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 10 - Major Farm and Crop Statistics .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 11 - Cost Benefit Estimate - Sugarcane ...................................................................................... 17 Figure 12 - Cost Benefit Estimate - Dairy .............................................................................................. 19 Figure 13 - Cost Benefit Estimate - Dalo ............................................................................................... 23 Figure 14 - The M4P Strategic Framework ........................................................................................... 38 Figure 15 – Field Visit Locations ............................................................................................................ 39 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Areas of soils (ha) in each slope category on the three main islands of Fiji ............................ 7 Table 2 - Distribution of soil pH values (percent) in Fiji for different crop types and locations ............. 9 Table 3 - Literature Review - Yield Gain from Liming ........................................................................... 15 Table 4 - Crop Soil Acidity Intersection – Dairy..................................................................................... 17 Table 5 - Crop Soil Acidity Intersection - Cassava ................................................................................ 20 Table 6 - Crop Soil Acidity Intersection – Dalo ..................................................................................... 22 Table 7 - Crop Soil Acidity Intersection – Yaqona ................................................................................. 24 Table 8 - Crop Soil Acidity Intersection – Coconut................................................................................ 26 Table 9 - Crop Soil Acidity Intersection – Other Crops.......................................................................... 26 Table 10 - Estimated Economic Impact at Production Level ................................................................ 27 Table 11 - Aglime Requirement - Depth 20cm; Al Saturation Target 30%........................................... 32 Table 12 - Aglime Requirement - Depth 20cm; Al Saturation Target 20%........................................... 33 Table 13 - Aglime Requirement - Depth 20cm; Al Saturation Target 10%........................................... 34 Table 14 - Aglime Requirement – Depth 30cm; Al Saturation Target 20% .......................................... 35 Table 15 - Aglime Requirement – Depth 10cm; Al Saturation Target 20% .......................................... 36 LIST OF PICTURES Picture 1 – Standard concrete Lime Quarry............................................................................................ 6 Picture 2 - Lime demonstration area near Labasa ................................................................................ 14 Picture 3 - Sugar Cane Leaves from the Labasa demonstration-site .................................................... 14 Picture 4 – Stems per Plant from the Labasa demonstration-site ........................................................ 15 picture 5- Spreading agricultural Limestone using tractor-mounted equipment ................................ 16 picture 6 - Hand Operator Spreader .................................................................................................... 16 Picture 7 - Dairy cows on pasture near Korovou .................................................................................. 18 Picture 8 - Dalo Crop in Naitasiri ........................................................................................................... 22 Picture 9 - Four year old Yaqona plant at the Tu Tu training centre on Taveuni Island ....................... 24 Picture 10 - Coconut plantation on the MPI research station on taveuni island.................................. 25 Picture 11 - Vegetable Cropping: Cabbages and Fancy lettuces - near Sigatoka................................. 26

Market Development Facility

Page: iii

AGLIME FOR FIJI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We are extremely grateful to the many people in government, the private sector and the development community who generously gave us their time and opinion during the mission and after, both formally and informally. We know from our own experience just how many consultants come through asking the same people similar questions, and we admire your patience and understanding.

DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared from information provided from numerous sources. Our procedures do not necessarily include confirmation or validation procedures of that information and this document is provided to the client for its exclusive use and benefit only. No other party should rely on it for inferences or forecasts made therein. The authors accept no responsibility to such parties.

In addition, certain inferences and forecasts have been drawn and made on the above basis.

Although every effort has been made to ensure that such inferences and forecasts are reasonable, no responsibility can be accepted by the authors for any eventual outcomes.

Market Development Facility

Page: iv

AGLIME FOR FIJI

ABBREVIATIONS Al ACIAR AusAID BAT Ca CCSLA CEC COMTRADE DoA EU FAO FAOSTAT FDB FCA FCDCL FSC GOF IACT KPI M4P MDF Mn MPI NCLC NZ pH SCGC SME SOPAC SPC SPF SRIF TTT TTM

Aluminium Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Australian Agency for International Development British American Tobacco Calcium Cane Farmers Co-operative Savings & Loan Association Cation Exchange Capacity United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database Fiji Department of Agriculture European Union Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO Statistics Division Fiji Development Bank Fiji College of Agriculture Fiji Cooperative Dairy Company Limited Fiji Sugar Corporation Government of Fiji Increasing Agricultural Commodity Trade Key Performance Indicator Making Markets Work Better for the Poor Market Development Facility Manganese Fiji Ministry of Primary Industry National Crop & Livestock Council New Zealand A measure of hydrogen ion concentration. pH less than 7 is acidic and pH greater than 7 is alkaline Sugar Cane Growers Council Small Medium Enterprise Secretariat of the Pacific Community Applied Geoscience and Technology Division South Pacific Community South Pacific Fertilisers Sugarcane Research Institute of Fiji Tei Tei Taveuni Taiwan Technical Mission

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Average 2012) US $1.00 = Fiji Dollar F1.80 Aus $1.00 = Fiji Dollar F1.85 NZ $1.00 = Fiji Dollar F1.45

Market Development Facility

Page: v

AGLIME FOR FIJI

FIGURE 1 - MAP OF FIJI

Market Development Facility

Page: vi

AGLIME FOR FIJI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project has reached the following conclusions: 1. Agricultural production in Fiji is significantly reduced due to acid soils.

2. Application of agricultural lime (Aglime) is required to improve crop yields; increase agricultural production and thereby reduce agricultural imports and/or increase agricultural exports.

3. There are very few (if any) significant agricultural sector inputs that are produced in Fiji.

4. While the Aglime business is important for Fijian agriculture, sales volumes of Aglime would be unlikely to support significant capital investment or contribute significantly to business returns.

5. With Standard Concrete’s current pool of resources and expertise, their investment into the processing of limestone for other purposes has provided an opportunity for Aglime to be produced in Fiji as an important agricultural input.

6. A business plan (Annex 2 - Confidential to MDF and Standard Concrete) has been prepared that indicates Aglime can be locally manufactured and supplied by Standard Concrete at a price significantly lower than imported Aglime.

7. The impact of the application of Aglime on increasing agricultural production will be highly dependent on the annual uptake rate (the number of agricultural hectares that are treated with Aglime annually).

8. It is considered imperative for the success of the Fiji Aglime project that promotion of the use of Aglime includes activities conducted by the Lime Task Force, its members and other public and private agricultural sales, support and extension enterprises to encourage the uptake rate such as:  Wide scale on-farm demonstration of the benefits of Aglime across all relevant agriculture activity and across a variety of geographical areas;  Establishment of simple soil testing services with rapid feedback to farmers for soil acidity (and possibly electrical conductivity for saline soils); and  Extensive training of agriculture support and extension services on the importance of soil health, soil acidity levels and the benefits of Aglime.

9. While economic outcomes could not be estimated for some of the crops covered here, due to a lack of reliable response data, for those crops which could be evaluated, the benefits are summarized below. This limited set of data shows that using Aglime to restore the productivity of Fiji’s cropping and agricultural soils has the potential to significantly improve the returns to Fiji’s growers and farmers. Further, as most, if not all, of this benefit will be spent in the local community, the improvement in the local economy will be far greater than the base amount. Additionally, with two of the above crops being export commodities (sugar and dalo), and with any increase in dairy production serving to reduce the need to import dairy products, the country’s external balance of payments would also be significantly improved.

Crop Sugarcane

Nett Yield Benefit per Annum $F7,600,000

Dairy

$F7,000,000

Dalo

$F23,500,000

Yaqona

$F4,930,000

Market Development Facility

Other Impacts Harvesting gangs - $F8,100,000 Transport operators - $F6,400,000 Process worker wages (n/a) Total - $F14,500,000 Transport Process worker wages (n/a) Harvest (n/a) Transport (n/a) Harvest (n/a) Transport (n/a) TOTAL

Total Economic Impact per Annum $F22,100,000

$F7,000,000 $F23,500,000 $F4,930,000 $F57,530,000

Page: i

AGLIME FOR FIJI

1 INTRODUCTION The Market Development Facility (MDF) is an Australian Government, AusAID-funded initiative with the aim to create additional employment and income earning opportunities for workers, farmers and small businesses by:  

Making relevant sectors of the economy more productive and competitive, and making them grow; and, Stimulating innovation, better access to relevant goods and services, and more appropriate rules and regulations in and around those sectors.

The Facility is committed to implementing the ‘Making Markets Work for the Poor’ (M4P) approach.

This stipulates that:   

The Facility will work in partnership with players in the private and public sector with the incentive, ability and leverage to trigger lasting, systemic market changes.

It will use mutually agreed upon action plans, which include clear financial and resource commitments, to arrive at appropriate, sustainable solutions.

Sector players take the lead in implementing and the Facility’s role is limited and shortterm.

A brief outline of the M4P methodology is provided in Annex 3.

MDF is currently working closely with a private sector company that has shown interest in mining and producing limestone locally for agricultural purposes. Currently, agricultural lime is not produced in Fiji and imported lime is expensive. Therefore, the application of agricultural lime, which is a common practice to improve soil pH in many countries, is not widely practiced in Fiji due mainly to the lack of knowledge by farmers and unaffordability of imported lime for most farmers. Hence proper soil management is not maintained and, over the past years, soil pH levels have fallen due to a number of farming practices used in attempts to increase production, such as over-cropping and applying heavy doses of fertilisers and chemicals.

Therefore, before investing in local production, a thorough analysis is required to determine the potential demand for locally produced agricultural lime within Fiji to justify the company’s investment in the required machinery. MDF seeks to produce a feasibility study to assess demand for locally produced lime from Fijian farmers involved in commercial, semi-commercial and subsistence farming across a range of sectors such as the sugar, dairy, root-crops and horticulture.

1.1 FIJI AGLIME STUDY The purpose of the study is to:   

Assess the soil conditions and soil pH levels in Fiji, and in relation to soil use, the approximate amounts of lime that needs to be applied to bring pH levels up to optimum levels.

Based on this, and combined with the awareness about soil conditions and lime application and farmers’ readiness to invest, assessment of the potential demand for lime in Fiji.

Calculate the feasibility of investing in local lime mining and distribution in Fiji (confidential to Standard Concrete).

Market Development Facility

Page: 1

AGLIME FOR FIJI

2 PURPOSE OF AGLIME Aglime removes acidity from the soil. If the soil becomes too acid, crop production will fall even if fertilisers and other crop inputs are supplied at the correct levels.

Acidity is measured using the pH scale, which runs from:    

0 – extremely acid, to 14 – extremely alkaline.

A pH of 7 is neutral – neither acid nor alkaline.

Soil pH values vary with the procedure used, while the pH scale is logarithmic.

Accordingly, a unit change in pH is equivalent to a ten-fold increase or decrease in the activity of H+ or OH–.

Most crops require a slightly acid soil pH level of from 6.0 to 7.0; there are some plants which require acidic soil to thrive (e.g., azaleas, pH 4.5) while others such as lettuce prefer a pH of 7.0. The acid in the soil reacts with the carbonate in the limestone to give water and carbon dioxide, while the calcium is released into the soil to replace the acid.

Depending on soil conditions, the reaction between the limestone and the soil is as follows: In normal siliceous soils with low exchangeable aluminium contents: EQUATION 1 - LIMESTONE - SOIL REACTION NORMAL

CaCO3

+

H2O

 Ca2+ + HCO3– + OH

In tropical soils containing reactive colloids of Al, neutralisation with limestone undergoes the following reaction: EQUATION 2 - LIMESTONE - SOIL REACTION REACTIVE ALUMINIUM

2Al -colloid + 3CaCO3 + 3H2O  3Ca -colloid + 2Al(OH)3 + 3CO2 In the special case of acid sulfate soils, the neutralisation reaction with agricultural limestone (or equivalent) includes: EQUATION 3 - LIMESTONE - SOIL REACTION REACTIVE ALUMINIUM

2H+ + CaCO3 + SO42–+ H2O  CaSO4.2H2O + CO2 2.1 HOW SOILS GET ACIDIC Soils become acidic primarily through the process of plant nutrient uptake. In most cases, plants take up more nutrients that exist in the soil solution as positively-charged cations than they do of those which exist as negatively charged anions. To prevent an internal imbalance, the plant roots compensate for this imbalance by excreting acidity into the soil - so the soil becomes more acid while the plant becomes more alkaline than the soil it lives in.

In natural ecosystems, where most of the nutrients taken up by the plants are returned to the soil at, or close to, where they were taken up, this imbalance has no long term effect. But, where the crop is removed from the soil to be consumed elsewhere (e.g., exporting dalo corms to New Zealand), the recycling of alkalinity back into the soil does not happen. The longer the cropping process goes on, the more acid the soil becomes.

Market Development Facility

Page: 2

AGLIME FOR FIJI If soil pH levels are low – below 5.5 – worthwhile responses to liming often occur on most noncalcareous soils, regardless of their genesis and cropping history.

The reduction in acidity caused by adding lime to the soil affects many soil processes. These include: 

Soil microbial activity. Many beneficial groups of soil microbes function best at pH levels around 6, and are impaired if pH levels are lower or higher.

Availability of plant nutrients. Many nutrients are more available to plants at pH levels around 6.0 than when pH levels are lower or higher. Nutrients affected in this way include phosphate, calcium, magnesium and the trace nutrients boron and molybdenum. Figure 2 below shows how the availability of different plant nutrients change as soil pH (1:5 soil:water) changes. Note how the availability of soil phosphorus increases as soil pH increases from below 5.0 to around 6.5, while calcium and magnesium availability improves as pH increases right through the range at which most plants can grow (5.0 to 7.5). This means that fertilisers applied to a soil at the correct pH level for the crop concerned will be more effective than when they are applied to a soil with the pH level below target.

FIGURE 2 - SOIL ACIDITY AND FERTILISER EFFECTIVENESS



Reduction in solubility of heavy metals and aluminium. Some heavy metal elements – iron and manganese in particular – can become available in amounts that can affect plant growth once soil pH levels fall lower than 5.5. Aluminium solubility increases as pH falls; once soil pH levels fall below 5.5, aluminium toxicity can reduce root growth and development and also reduce the movement of phosphate out of the roots and into the leaves and stems of plants (it is one of the main causes of the inefficiency noted in the table above). Aluminium toxicity is common in Fiji soils when the pH falls below 5.5, and on soils where the pH is less than 5.2, is nearly always one of the main limitations to plant growth.



Many soil testing schemes rely on measuring exchangeable aluminium in soils to assess the amount of lime needed. However, there is usually a strong relationship between soil pH and the degree to which the cation exchange capacity is saturated with aluminium, so provided the soil test reports CEC and pH, the quantity of aluminium present and hence the amount of lime needed, could be calculated. Examples of these curves are shown below (Fig

Market Development Facility

Page: 3

AGLIME FOR FIJI 3). If pH on its own is being measured, then the target should be to lift soil pH to above 5.5 to 5.7, as by then all available aluminium will be removed.

FIGURE 3 - ALUMINIUM SATURATION VS SOIL PH (RE-DRAWN FROM RAYMENT AND WALLIS, 1981)



Stability of soil structure. The calcium released as the lime reacts helps prevent clay particles from forming massive impervious units in the soil, while the increased bacterial and fungal activity provides natural adhesives and binding agents to hold larger aggregates together. In combination, these processes produce a soil structure that allows air to permeate through the root zone in the spaces between the aggregates, while plant available water is stored in the aggregates.

These effects can be summed up by saying that correcting the soil pH helps to make the soil an ideal environment for plant growth.

The influence of liming on plant growth can be expressed through the effects of several different processes; the size and duration of a liming response at any particular site will depend on which of the many possible processes are involved. These processes can include: 

Especially where the soil pH is well below 5.6, liming can produce a quick and spectacular growth response. This is because the bacteria and fungi which normally break down plant litter and release the nutrients it contains cannot function effectively in very acid soils, so plant litter tends to accumulate. Once these soils are limed and soil pH goes up, the activity of the bacteria and fungi also increases, breaking down the accumulated litter and releasing the locked-up nutrients. The released nutrients, especially the nitrogen, can give a large increase in plant growth soon after liming.



Improvements in the efficiency of fertiliser use: plant nutrients are more efficiently recycled when soil pH levels are over 5.5 than when they are lower. More efficient recycling reduces the amount of nutrient needed to support a given level of production, so, once the soil is limed, the nutrients already in the soil can then support higher levels of production, increasing plant growth and (for dairy pastures) animal performance. Provided soil pH is maintained at the higher level, and nutrients removed off-site in produce are replaced, the effect will be sustained.



The reduction in aluminium solubility with liming allows plant roots growing on limed soils to penetrate deeper into the soil, making the plants less dependent on the nutrients and water contained in the top few centimeters of the soil. This reduces the effect of dry

Market Development Facility

Page: 4

AGLIME FOR FIJI periods, because the crops on limed soil have access to moisture reserves deeper in the soil than crops on unlimed land.

2.2 HOW MUCH AGLIME IS NEEDED TO CHANGE SOIL PH While many schemes for assessing how much Aglime is needed are based on neutralising exchangeable acidity or reducing the amounts of exchangeable aluminium in the soil (eg, Rayment and Lyons, 2011), field experience has shown that differences based on laboratory measurements often do not show up in the field. For example, Edmeades et al (1984) found no reason, based on analysing the data from 130 replicated liming field trials in New Zealand, to distinguish between mineral soils based on either soil genesis or soil texture. These workers found that, on average, it would take some 7.5 tonnes of normal-quality Aglime to change the soil pH by one unit.

In Fiji, there does not appear to have been much field work investigating how Aglime changes soil pH. One study was carried out by Yee et al (1986), which showed that Aglime changed soil pH at a rate of 7.5 tonnes per pH unit at rates of 3 and 6 tonnes/ha, and at a rate of 6.5 tonnes/pH unit when 9T/ha were applied.

In Hawaii, on similar soils to many of those in Fiji, Uchida and Hue (2000) showed that to shift the pH from 5.0 to 6.0 took between 2.5 and 3.5 tons of Aglime/acre, which corresponds to between 5.5 and 8.75 tonnes/ha, or an average of 7.1 tonnes/ha.

Given the similarity of these numbers, it seems reasonable to use 7.5 tonnes/ha/pH unit as a basis for calculating the lime required to shift soil pH between measured and target levels, at least until sufficient data concerning the relationship between pH and the level of Aluminium (Al) saturation of the soil CEC, are obtained so the approach outlined below could be adopted.

An alternative approach is suggested by the data from Rayment and Wallis (1981). The close relationship in their data between soil pH in a 1:5 soil:water suspension and the saturation of the CEC with exchangeable aluminium implies that pH could be used, provided the CEC is known, to predict the amount of exchangeable Al present. From this, method 16A1 of Rayment and Lyons (2011) could then be used to predict the lime needed to either totally neutralize all the exchangeable Al present (i.e., reduce the Al saturation of the CEC to zero) or to reduce the exchangeable Al to below the minimum saturation level that the crop can tolerate. A series of tables illustrating how this approach could be applied are included as Appendix 4.

If this approach is used at present, it may be prudent to assume that for most soils, the pH-Al saturation relationship is similar to Rayment and Wallis (1981) “Vanua Levu soils” category, as, for a given soil pH, it has higher Al saturation levels than the “Viti Levu soil” category.

A series of tables outlining estimates of Aglime requirements for Fiji Soils taking into account, acidity (pH), Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and Aluminium (Al) saturation have been developed for both Viti Levu and Vanua Levu soils and are provided at Annex 1.

2.3 SETTING TARGET SOIL PH LEVELS While many of the crops in Fiji (e.g. sugar cane) have been shown in field trials to achieve maximum yield at soil pH levels of 5.0 to 5.2 (Gawander, pers comm.), which corresponds to the soil pH level at which exchangeable Al is reduced to an acceptable level, the pH levels reported are often derived from small, relatively uniform plots.

Soil pH measurements taken from farms are taken from much less uniform areas. Thus, a measured field soil pH reading represents the average for the field, with half of the field at a lower soil pH level that the reading suggests. For this reason, rather than use a measurement of 5.2 to define the pH at Market Development Facility

Page: 5

AGLIME FOR FIJI which such crops will perform well, a pH of 5.5 is suggested as the target for field pH measurements.

Given that the expected accuracy for such measurements is +/- 0.2 to 0.3 pH units, using a target of 5.5 should ensure that the desired reduction in soil aluminium is achieved. There will be some soils where, to lessen the occurrence of soil Manganese (Mn) toxicity that can continue through to at least pH 6.0 to 6.5 (1:5 soil/water extract), soil pH may need to be increased to pH levels well above 5.5. This need applies particularly to plants known to be sensitive to elevated soil Mn concentrations such as white clover and soybeans.

2.4 FIJI AGLIME QUALITY Samples from the proposed Aglime quarry operated by Standard Concrete have shown that it should provide Aglime of adequate to high quality (CaCO3-equivalent strength of over 90%), provided the material is finely-enough ground to be effective.

PICTURE 1 – STANDARD CONCRETE LIME QUARRY

7mm all-in material (see Figure 4 below) is stockpiled at the right of this view below the white truck.

Two sets of samples have been analysed to date. The commercial lime came from an imported lime source, while the SCI sample was supplied by Standard Concrete from its existing limestone quarry.

The results are shown below in Figures 4 and 5: Figure 4 – Aglime Analyses 1

Market Development Facility

Page: 6

AGLIME FOR FIJI FIGURE 5 – AGLIME ANALYSES 2

The 5mm and 7mm samples from rock quarried were analysed by the Eurofins Laboratory at the Ruakura Agricultural Centre in Hamilton, New Zealand. The 7mm all-in sample is 90.7% CaCO3 on a dry weight basis.

Analysis of currently-available sieve data shows that, from a sample of 7mm all-in limestone material, for the proportion which passed the 2.36mm aperture screen, 64% was finer than 0.6mm.

This indicates that the proposed material – a product to be produced by screening off the 3mm all-in fraction from a larger (10mm all-in) feedstock should be of an acceptable degree of fineness to change soil pH and to buffer acidity for 2 to 3 years after the initial application.

The final assessment of the quality and probable effectiveness of the Aglime produced from the Standard Concrete quarry will only be possible once the needed machinery has been installed and samples of the Aglime are available for analysis.

2.5 SOILS MAPPING While data derived from the Soil Resource survey (e.g., Leslie 2012) and correlation of current crop use is on the GIS database held at the MPI Koronivia Research Station, this project was unable to obtain data on the intersection between crop location and the location of the acid soils in Fiji. We were able to obtain limited access to the database to have the intersection between slope category and acidity level produced at a national level (Table 1). Most of the cropping soils are located on soil slope classes A, B and C – i.e., land on zero to 15 degree slopes (Land Use Planning Section, Department of Agriculture, 2012) - which together total some 19% of the land area in the main islands (Viti Levu, Vanua Levu and Taveuni).

TABLE 1 - AREAS OF SOILS (HA) IN EACH SLOPE CATEGORY ON THE THREE MAIN ISLANDS OF FIJI

Soil Acidity Strongly Acidic pH <5.2 Moderate Acidic pH 5.3-5.9 Slightly Acidic ph 6.0-6.5 Neutral pH 6.6-7.0 Slightly Alkaline pH 7.1-7.5 Moderate Alkaline pH >7.6 Others - not classified Total

A

B

SLOPE CATEGORY D E areas in hectares

C

F

G

H

TOTAL

103,298

5,769

20,706

25,319

93,374

149,573

180,985

150,512

16,159

4,033

13,112

15,194

38,826

76,477

95,091

73,821

74,818

46,027

8,166

50,426

22,862

45,788

58,022

45,657

35

194

1,668

1,754

10,701

24,152

32,909

28,361

3,176

33

481

1,597

1,268

1,314

1,737

1,129

14,295

1,573

1,945

3,013

6,607

15,044

16,440

9,046

26,755

453

600

3,621

5,523

7,792

5,204

4,459

729,535 332,712 351,767 99,774 10,735 67,961 54,407

211,780

58,081

46,676

100,923

179,162

320,140

390,388

312,984

1,646,891

A map was also produced to show where the acid soils are located, based on the level of acidity in the soil units described by Leslie and Seru (1998) (Figures 6 and 7). This shows the distribution of soil acidity in undisturbed (i.e., not used for agriculture) soil, and shows that much of the soil resource in Fiji is naturally acid. The natural acidity of Fijian soils has always presented a challenge to growers trying to achieve high sustainable crop yields, and has, in many locations, resulted in soils becoming too acid to grow commercially-viable crop yields. As a result, much of the cropland now lies fallow, and, in common with many of the other countries in the Pacific and South East Asia, soils on sloping

Market Development Facility

Page: 7

AGLIME FOR FIJI land are now being cultivated with all the risks of erosion and the associated environmental degradation that accompany such practices.

FIGURE 6 - VANUA LEVU ACIDITY MAP

FIGURE 7 - VITI LEVU ACIDITY MAP

Market Development Facility

Page: 8

AGLIME FOR FIJI Dr Wolf Forstreuter of Secretariat of the Pacific Community Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (SOPAC) is currently mapping the location of different crops using photogrammetry, and will soon have a datafile mapped to a 1:50,000 scale. Once this is completed, it will be able to be aligned with the soils GIS database at MPI Koronivia to give an accurate relationship between crop cover and any of the soils datasets on the GIS database. However, this was unable to be completed prior to the presentation of this report, although once it is completed, the datasets in this report could be updated if so desired.

It is worth noting, though, that the soil acidity levels on the database are those of the soil sets in their pristine state; cropping activity without the use of Aglime is likely to have increased the proportion of acid soils above that in the GIS database.

In order to allocate soil acidity levels to crop types an alternative approach was used.

Access was provided to two sets of soil pH data, one from the laboratory records of the Soil Testing laboratory at MPI Koronivia which was collated according to the location from which the samples were submitted and covered the period 2006 to 2010 inclusive. Soil pH levels were determined using a 1:5 soil:water suspension from samples collected from 0-20cm depths. These samples were drawn from soils under all crop types except sugar cane. The other dataset, from FSC Lautoka, comprised the sugar cane farm soil pH results from each of the four mill areas for 2012. Again, the pH levels were determined using a 1:5 soil:water suspension, on 0-25cm samples.

Each of the two datasets was subdivided into sets relating to each of the administrative divisions of Fiji – Northern, Eastern, Western and Central.

The 2009 Agricultural Census was used to source details of the areas within each Division of each of the main crops or farming activities – Sugar Cane, Dairy, Cassava, Dalo, Yaqona, Coconut and “Other Crops” which included all the minor crops whose individual areas were too small to warrant separate consideration.

The areas of each crop were then allocated proportionately to the different soil acidity levels according to the proportions of samples from each area in the above soil pH datasets.

For the purposes of this report, the soil acidity categories in Leslie (2012) were modified as follows: the extremely acid category was amalgamated with the strongly acid category; the moderately acid category was split into Strongly to Moderate and Moderate to Slightly acidic to allow a split in soil pH levels between those below and above pH 5.5 (the boundary condition for soluble aluminium in soils), while all soils above pH 7 were grouped into a single Alkaline class.

The distribution of soil pH values among the categories used is shown in Table 2 below: TABLE 2 - DISTRIBUTION OF SOIL PH VALUES (PERCENT) IN FIJI FOR DIFFERENT CROP TYPES AND LOCATIONS

Strongly Acidic pH <5.2

CENTRAL WESTERN NORTHERN EASTERN

56.8 20.0 30.6 12.9

WESTERN NORTHERN

23.7 79.6

Market Development Facility

Str to Mod Acidic pH 5.3 -5.5

Mod to Sl Acidic pH 5.6 - 5.9

Slightly Acidic pH 6.0-6.5

Crops other than sugar cane 13.8 17.1 7.7 8.9 17.1 35.0 17.3 26.9 18.8 10.6 20.5 34.1 Sugar cane 19.9 24.6 27.5 10.4 5.2 4.3

Neutral pH 6.6-7.0

Alkaline pH>7.0

1.4 8.9 3.0 8.3

3.1 10.1 3.4 13.6

2.8 0.4

1.4 0.0

Page: 9

AGLIME FOR FIJI Figure 8 below shows the contrast between the proportions of soils in each acidity category in Table 1 which was based on the soil survey data of Leslie and Seru (loc cit), and that in Table 2. It clearly shows how cropping has increased the level of acidity, primarily by reducing the proportion of soils in the slightly acidic category and increasing those in the moderately and strongly acidic categories.

The shift is slightly more pronounced in the Sugar Cane, compared to the Other Cropping, soils.

FIGURE 8 - CHANGES IN SOIL ACIDITY BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL SOIL DATASET AND CURRENT SOIL TESTING VALUES.

Change in soil acidity from original soil values 50

Percentage in each category

45 40

All sugar cane

35

Other cropping Original Soils

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Strongly Acid (pH<5.2)

Market Development Facility

Moderately Acid (pH 5.3 to 5.9)

Slightly Acid (pH 6.0 to 6.5)

Near Neutral (pH 6.6 to 7.0)

Alkaline (pH >7.0)

Page: 10

AGLIME FOR FIJI

3 CROP DETAILS Figure 9 provides the relationship between the farming area and number of farms for all agricultural production in Fiji. It can be observed that major activities include sugarcane, cassava, dalo, coconut, dairy, rice and yaqona. With the exception of rice (rice grows in wet pH neutral conditions) all of these crops are addressed in the following review.

FIGURE 9 - FARM & CROP STATISTICS - FIJI

45,000

40,000

40,000

35,000

35,000

30,000

30,000

25,000

25,000

20,000

20,000

15,000

15,000

10,000

10,000

5,000

5,000

Sugarcane Cassava Dalo Coconut-(Copra)-Nuts Dairy (FDFCL) Rice Yaqona Watermelon Tomatoes French-Beans Yams Eggplant Cow-Pea Maize Banana Kumala-(Sweet-Potatoes) Chinese-Cabbage Okra-(Bhindhi) English-Cabbage Pumpkin Dalo-ni-Tana Duruka Pineapple Ginger Kawai Plaintain Peanuts Tobacco Capsicum Other-assorted-vegetables Pawpaw Chillies Voivoi Amaranthus Tivoli Bele Cocoa-(Wet-Beans) Gourd Masi Rourou Kura Carrot Dhania Lemon Other-Fruit Ota Other-Citrus Breadfruit Passion-Fruit Other-Spices Mandarin-Tangerine

0

Total Area in Production (HA)

Farms (No.)

Area (HA)

Farm & Crop Statistics - Fiji 2008 45,000

0

Source: 2009 Census

Farms with Crops

Figure 10 provides statistics for the major crops and also provides an indication of average farm size.

Clearly the principal targets for uptake of lime based on economies of scale are dairy, followed by coconut, then sugarcane.

FIGURE 10 - MAJOR FARM AND CROP STATISTICS Source: 2009 Census

45,000

50.00

40,000

45.00 40.00

35,000

35.00

30,000

30.00 25,000 25.00

20,000

HA/Farm

Farm (No.)/Production Arfea (HA)

Principal Farm & Crop Statistics - Fiji 2008

20.00

15,000

15.00

10,000

10.00

5,000

5.00

0

0.00

Farms with Crops

Total Area in Production (HA)

Market Development Facility

Planted Area per Farm (HA/Farm)

Page: 11

AGLIME FOR FIJI

3.1 SUGARCANE The sugarcane industry is in the process of re-organising itself to facilitate an increase in production and to assist growers with the uptake of new methods and technologies to allow this to happen.

Stages to this process include: 

A program of soil testing to identify where lime-responsive soils exist (lime responsive being defined as where soil pH levels are at or below 5.2).



Applying lime to correct soil pH and bring it up to over 5.5. o

At present, with high lime prices, this is being confined to the cane-row by applying lime at ca. 11.5 T/ha in the row; once this rate is corrected for the percentage of the total are covered it comes to 2.5 T/ha. This rate will be diluted by inter-row cultivation practices and the long-term effectiveness may be compromised

o

With lower lime prices, it should be possible to apply lime as needed to the whole field at initial cultivation and so ensure that the entire root zone for the crop is treated. This approach is recommended by researchers studying farming in acid tropical soils (eg, von Uexkull and Bosshart, 1989). International research results (see below) show that this is a profitable undertaking at Fijian costs and returns.



Introducing deep ripping during land preparation for new plantings to remove the limitations to root-growth from the compacted soil layer that has developed in most sugarcane fields after 20+ years of continuous cane cultivation.



FSC has undertaken to fund both liming and deep-ripping during seedbed preparation as a charge-back cost for the cane grower along with the other inputs provided to the growers (P. Bhoodna, pers comm.)



Increasing the numbers of Extension Officers (EO) so that there is one EO per 350 growers.

Adding lime to the inputs used to grow sugar cane will help with correcting the areas identified as potential limitations to cane growth and productivity in several long-term studies (eg, Barzegar et al (2005), Morrison et al (2005); Graham et al (2002); Hartemink, (1998)). These include: 

the development of acid soil conditions o



increased amounts of exchangeable aluminium in the soil (aluminium is toxic to roots) o



increasing soil pH locks up aluminium in insoluble forms; this, allied with the release of calcium and the increase in soil cation-exchange capacity (see below) reduces the toxicity level of the aluminium to a point where it no longer affects plant growth and development.

the loss of organic matter o



applying lime will neutralize soil acidity and increase soil pH,

increased yield due to liming will return greater amounts of organic matter to the soil in recycled trash and root tissue.

reduced soil cation-exchange capacity (CEC)

Market Development Facility

Page: 12

AGLIME FOR FIJI o



increased soil compaction o



the calcium supplied by the lime often helps improve aggregate stability and soil structure. It also helps ensure that plant-root elongation is not restricted by calcium deficiency.

reduced plant-available water-storage o



increasing soil pH will often increase the soils’ effective CEC when the soil is dominated by variable charged colloids, including organic matter. (Fiji has many such soils, which are typically highly weathered.)

improving soil structure and adding organic matter will increase the amounts of plant-available water that can be stored in the soil.

increased lock-up of applied phosphate fertilisers o

increasing soil pH to towards neutral will reduce the tendency of the soil to bind applied phosphate in forms that sugar-cane plants cannot use, and will likely lead to the release of some of the bound-up phosphate already in the soil. Indeed, some responses to lime applications can be due to improvements in soil nutrient supply (e.g., Moberly 1974).

3.1.1 ESTIMATED YIELD INCREASES Given that liming has the beneficial effects outlined at the start of this section, what evidence is there that liming will have a positive financial outcome for Fijian cane growers?

Demonstration areas have been set up by FSC staff near Labasa, at Seaqaqa (3 – one is only recently planted (October 2012) and has not been assessed), and east of Rakiraki (2). At three of these sites, - one each at Seaqaqa, Labasa and Rakiraki - there is clear visual evidence of cane growth responses, in terms of: 

taller plants, see Picture 2;



larger leaves, wider and longer, see Picture 3;



more stems per plant 5 to 6 stems/plant (unlimed) vs 12-15/plant (limed), see Picture 4;



increased plant survival after sowing.

Grower opinion was that yield would be increased by 50% to 100%.

Market Development Facility

Page: 13

AGLIME FOR FIJI PICTURE 2 - LIME DEMONSTRATION AREA NEAR LABASA

LIMED AREA IS TO THE LEFT OF THE GROWER.

PICTURE 3 - SUGAR CANE LEAVES FROM THE LABASA DEMONSTRATION-SITE

TOP: FROM LIMED AREA; BOTTOM: FROM UNLIMED CONTROL

Market Development Facility

Page: 14

AGLIME FOR FIJI PICTURE 4 – STEMS PER PLANT FROM THE LABASA DEMONSTRATION-SITE

LIMED PLANT (LEFT) AND UNLIMED PLANT (RIGHT).

Lime applied at 11T/ha at a price range of F$200 – F$250 per T (VEP, excluding transport and packaging) would cost around F$2,200 – F$2750 per Ha (this corresponds with the in-row application-rate used in the demonstration plots).

At Seaqaqa, with present yields of the order of 35 T cane (TC)/ha, this would give (in the first year) increases of 17.5 to 35TC/ha, or an increase in gross returns, at F$65/TC of F$1,138 to F$2,275/ha. If the ratoon crops yield some 80% of the seed crops, then over the next 4 years (assuming a 5-year crop cycle) the total accumulated returns would come to F$4,778 to F$9,550/ha.

Elsewhere, with current yields of the order of 50T/ha, the increases come to 25 to 50TC/ha, or F$1,625 to F$3,250/ha (year 1), and the accumulated returns come to F$6,825 to F$13,650.

Provided accumulated other costs do not exceed 50% of the harvest payment, the use of lime even on the lowest-yielding areas will be profitable, although the FSC may have to consider amortising the cost of the lime against the entire 5-year cycle rather than charging it all against the initial year’s crop.

How realistic are these “impressions of gain”? A survey of the literature available on-line yielded the following: TABLE 3 - LITERATURE REVIEW - YIELD GAIN FROM LIMING

Author(s)

Rate of Lime (T/ha) (cost - $FJ)

Moberly (1974) Sth Africa Nixon et al (2003) Sth Africa

5.6 ($1,120) 7 and 14 10T = $2,000

Golden, 1972 USDA (2001) (USA) Choudry (1984) Philippines Average

12.5 ($2,460) 2.5 ($500) 4.6 ($920) 7.0 ($1,400)

Yield Year 1

Ratoon Yields

Total yield gain (seed crop plus 4 ratoons) TC/Ha

Value at $FJ65/TC (net gain)

25TC

20TC

105

$6,825 ($5,705) $11,050 ($9,050)

17TC/T lime

170

(over planting + 5 ratoons)

10T = 170TC 7.5TC

6.0TC

31.5

13.5TC

11.0TC

57.5

19.8TC

15.8TC

83

20 TC

16 TC

84 TC

$2,050 (-$410) $3,740 ($3,240) $5,390 ($4,470) 5,460 ($4,060)

Four of the five examples showed a clear financial benefit in terms of the Fijian costs and prices, which supports the contention that liming has the potential to markedly improve the financial position of Fijian cane-growers.

Market Development Facility

Page: 15

AGLIME FOR FIJI

3.1.2 LIME APPLICATION A PPROPRIATE A PPLICATION This model for improvement through liming will require mechanical spreading of lime â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the amounts needed are too big to be able to be reliably spread by hand.

This means that tractor-mounted spreading hoppers or tow-behind spreaders will be needed for the larger areas.

PICTURE 5- SPREADING AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE USING TRACTOR-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT

Smaller areas could be spread using hand-operated spreaders such as the example illustrated.

PICTURE 6 - HAND OPERATOR SPREADER

Teams of 4 or 5 people working together should be able to efficiently spread lime over small (0.5 to 1.0 acre) blocks.

3.1.3 COST BENEFIT MODEL Using the above average outcomes, Figure 11 below shows how the returns to the grower are affected by yield increases smaller, or larger, than predicted. Even at a lower than expected yield increase, and with other production costs coming to greater than half the gross return, liming still has a positive outcome. The situation will only be improved by increases in efficiency elsewhere in the production process (i.e., reduced production costs) and by increased cane payout levels.

Market Development Facility

Page: 16

AGLIME FOR FIJI FIGURE 11 - COST BENEFIT ESTIMATE - SUGARCANE

INPUT INFORMATION Aglime Cost 200 $F/tonne Crop Value 65 $F/tonne Lime Rate 7 t/ha Applied cost 1400 $F/tonne

FINISHED CROP COSTS Harvesting Cost 15 $F/tonne Transport Cost 12 $F/tonne Other Crop Costs 7.5 $F/tonne TOTAL 34.5 $F/tonne Net Price to grower 30.5 $F/tonne

Seed Crop

1

15 20 25 458 610 763

12 16 20 366 488 610

Outcomes: Yield Poor increase Average (TC/ha) Good Poor Returns Average ($/ha) Good

Ratoons 2 12 16 20 366 488 610

3

4

12 16 20 366 488 610

12 16 20 366 488 610

Net Result 63 84 105 522 1,162 1,803

With over 32,000 ha of potentially lime responsive soils, these yield increases could add an average of F$38,000,000 of disposable income to the Fijian growers’ budgets over five years (F$7,600,000/annum).

In addition to this, with an average of an extra 17T/ha of cane to harvest, the cash injection into the support community (cane harvesters and transporters) could come to some F$14,500,000 per year.

The total direct benefit to the cane-growing community could therefore come to some F$22,100,000 a year.

3.2 DAIRY 3.2.1 CROP & S OIL MATRIX The Fijian dairy farms are almost all located in the Central Division, so the soil acidity profile for that area has been used to characterize the Aglime need for the sector.

TABLE 4 - CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION – DAIRY

CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION - HECTARES DAIRY CENTRAL WESTERN NORTHERN EASTERN FIJI

Strongly Acidic (pH <5.2) 1477

1477

Market Development Facility

Mod. To Str Acid Sl. to Mod. Acid (pH 5.3 - 5.5) (pH 5.6- 5.9) 359 445

359

445

Slightly Acidic (pH 6.0-6.5) 201

Near Neutral (pH 6.6-7.0) 36

Alkaline (pH >7.0) 81

201

36

81

TOTAL CROP AREA 2600 0 0 0 2600

Page: 17

AGLIME FOR FIJI PICTURE 7 - DAIRY COWS ON PASTURE NEAR KOROVOU

The aim for high-producing pasture land is to have a pH level of 6.0. While much of the literature on liming soils in the tropics refers to the need to remove exchangeable aluminium from the soil profile – which would be effectively complete at pH 5.5 - the higher target has been used because an essential part of a high producing pasture is a viable legume component capable of fixing some 150 kg N/ha/year. At this level of N input, the legume is able to underwrite the base N demand for a long-lived high-producing permanent pasture without the need for frequent heavy dressings of expensive nitrogen fertiliser. Nitrogen fixation in high producing legumes is normally maximized at soil pH levels of 6.0 or higher.

An investment in lime early in the pasture-development process will save on-going expenditure later in the life of the pasture.

3.2.2 ESTIMATED YIELD INCREASES Based on relationships developed for New Zealand pastures between soil pH and the expected increase in pasture production from a given rate of Aglime (Shannon, 1999), applying the lime needed to lift soil pH will give some 15% extra pasture growth.

However, this is likely to grossly underestimate the true position. Rather, once the pasture development process is commenced – including liming, fertiliser and seeding with high-producing grasses and legumes – it is more likely that pasture growth rates will be doubled.

Increasing soil pH will: 

Increase pasture palatability; if this means that weed species as well as pasture species are more readily consumed, then the weeds (e.g., Navua sedge) may very well reduce in extent, allowing better pasture growth



Increase pasture utilisation. If the 15% increase in pasture growth on land where pasture utilisation is poor is accompanied by, for example, a 10% increase in pasture utilisation, then animal intakes could very well increase by 40% with a corresponding rise in production.

Allied with the removal of weeds (above) the increase in pasture quality along with the increase in intake will very likely increase production still further.

Market Development Facility

Page: 18

AGLIME FOR FIJI 

Make it possible to add a productive legume such as white clover or desmodium to the pastures. This will further improve pasture quality – especially the protein content - and hence animal productivity, and should, through the effect of nitrogen fixation, also increase the amount of pasture growth. Adding 150 kg N/ha/year could add as much as 1,500 to 2,250 kg DM/ha/year to existing annual pasture growth.



Permit the establishment and growth of improved pasture species. This alone has the potential to double production, but it will require the regular application of maintenance lime, plus phosphate, sulphur and potassium fertilisers and micronutrients such as Zn, B and Mo if such improvements are to be sustained.

It is this combination of effects that has the potential to double pasture production – but liming will help ensure other improvements occur, and for these to be sustained.

3.2.3 LIME APPLICATION A PPROPRIATE A PPLICATION The dairying sector is likely to require Aglime to be supplied in bulk as the areas to be covered on each property are too large to do by hand or with small machinery.

If a spreader truck were to be imported from New Zealand, it could either load directly at the quarry and travel to farms close by (within 10 to 15km) to spread the lime; for farms at a greater distance, lime could be delivered in bulk to a dry yard from which the spreader truck could then be loaded using a front-end loader.

Alternatively, one or more farmers may have a tractor capable of towing a 2 to 3 tonne payload fertiliser spreader which could also be used to spread lime where needed.

As with other sectors, the use of Aglime should be guided by the results of soil tests; pastureland should be tested once every two to three years to check on soil pH (as well as P, K etc). Each farm should be split into areas of similar soil type, past history and present use so that the test results can accurately show the needs of the different areas of the farm.

3.2.4 COST BENEFIT MODEL Using a base farm at the lower end of the production-spectrum - 2 cows/ha producing only 3L milk/cow/day –such as is likely to be found on acid soil, liming to produce an increase to 12.5L milk/ha/day will be highly profitable after 2 to 3 years. The Fiji Dairy farmers Co-operative Ltd is proposing to make lime available at no cost to farmers who undertake to follow through with a program of pasture improvement that includes liming, fertiliser application and sowing improved pastures; if this is done, then the initial wait for profitability will be removed.

FIGURE 12 - COST BENEFIT ESTIMATE - DAIRY

Stock performance Base: Cows/ha Yield/cow (L/day) Total Milk (L/ha/day) After liming Cows/ha Yield/cow (L/day) Total Milk (L/ha/day) Milk Returns (c/L)

Market Development Facility

2 3 6

Liming Investment Tonnes/ha $/tonne applied Total Cost

7.5 $200 $1,500

2.5 5 12.5

Maintenance kg/ha/yr $/tonne applied Total Cost

300 $200 $60

70

Page: 19

AGLIME FOR FIJI Year 1 Year2 Year3 Year 4 Year 5 Liming Cost $1,500 $60 $60 $60 $60 Milk returns ($/ha/yr) $1,533 $2,363 $3,194 $3,194 $3,194 Balance $33 $2,303 $3,134 $3,134 $3,134

Summed over the land likely to show such benefits – approximately 2,600 ha of the current land under dairy – the direct benefit to the dairy farming community could accrue to over F$8,000,000 per year once the development program is complete.

3.3 CASSAVA Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is often grown on land which has been previously cropped with dalo and/or Yaqona. Once yields of these crops fall to the point where they have become uneconomical, the land is switched to Cassava and may later be left to lie fallow. Cassava roots become infected with mycorrial fungi allowing them to become very efficient at extracting phosphate from the soil and to resist the effects of aluminium toxicity (Howeler et al, 2000). For this reason, acceptable yields are often obtained on infertile acid soils, and lime is not generally recommended for the crop.

The dual-use of cropping land (cassava following dalo, for example) also means that land used for dalo may already have been limed before being used for cassava, so to assume that the areas in census readings (e.g., the 2009 Fiji agricultural census) allocated to cassava will not already have been used for dalo, for example, could mean that the area needing lime based on the 2009 census could represent an over-estimate of the amounts of lime needed for the cassava crop.

Cassava is listed as having an optimum soil pH range of 5.5 to 6.5; so liming recommendations are only made for soils below this pH range.

3.3.1

CROP & SOIL MATRIX

The census data showed that there were 15,400 ha allocated to cassava production.

TABLE 5 - CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION - CASSAVA

CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION - HECTARES CASSAVA CENTRAL WESTERN NORTHERN EASTERN FIJI

Strongly Acidic pH <5.2 3162 1039 1259 73

Str to Mod Acidic pH 5.3 -5.5 768 465 713 60

Mod to Sl Acidic pH 5.6 - 5.9 953 889 1108 116

5533

2007

3066

Slightly Acidic 6.0-6.5 431 1820 771 193 3216

pH

Neutral pH 6.6-7.0 78 465 122 47

Alkaline pH >7.0 172 524 139 77

713

913

TOTAL CROP AREA 5564.07 5203.35 4112.29 567.07 15446.78

3.3.2 LIKELY UPTAKE RATES As cassava is grown as part of a rotation, not all of the land potentially used for the crop will be treated in any one year. Thus of the potential Aglime demand, probably only 20% or 1780 tonnes, will be realized in any one year if all growers were to follow the recommendations. With a likely initial uptake rate of only 20% (J Marlow, pers comm.), this will amount to some 240 tonnes/year, possibly climbing to the 1,780 tonnes over the next 5 to 10 years.

3.4 DALO Growers have been experiencing a reduction in yields over the past 5 years.

On Taveuni Island, which currently produces 70 to 80% of Fiji’s export crop of dalo, this has been seen in yields going from 10T/ha to 4T/ha on established cropland (Peter Kjaer, pers. comm.), causing the growers to abandon much of the flatter-contoured land and move operations up into

Market Development Facility

Page: 20

AGLIME FOR FIJI the forested area; Taveuni Island now has the fastest deforestation rate of any area of Fiji and up to 70% in some areas of the Land Use Capability Class I and II land now lies idle, having not recovered productivity after an extended fallow.

In addition, the size and quality of the crop have decreased over the same time, with shipments to both Australia and New Zealand having been rejected in recent months on the basis of either pest contamination or crop size.

Depending on the ruling price (Taveuni growers can receive anywhere from F$0.60 to F$2.70/kg for export grade dalo), the loss in yield on the good land has cost F$6,000 to F$16,200/ha.

Some growers now spend up to 4 hours/day walking to and from their cropland, while the previous best land lies idle as even extended fallows have proved unable to restore productivity.

All growers interviewed on the island would be keen to purchase lime at an affordable price if adding it to their operations would allow them to bring unproductive land back into production and reduce the proportion of land lying fallow at any one time.

Preliminary trial results from Taveuni (Pattison, pers comm.) have shown that dalo on Taveuni responded well to treatments, such as liming, which improved soil pH. In another initiative, advisors from ACIAR have introduced the use of the Mucuna bean (Mucuna pruriens) to help restore soil fertility (J. Dean, pers comm.). The bean is sown on land at the end of its cropping cycle and allowed to grow for 6 to 9 months. After this, it is cut down and left on the soil surface. The next crop - often dalo - is sown into the composting Mucuna residue, which initially acts as mulch, reducing the need for weeding; the crop then benefits from the release of nutrients as the Mucuna residues decompose. Trial work in Africa has shown that each tonne of Mucuna residue (on a dry weight basis) can release ca. 30 kg of N to be used by the following crop.(Carsky et al, 2002) Other projects (Asiegbu and Agba, 2008; Jiri, 2003) showed that Mucuna responds to both lime and phosphate fertiliser, so that an appropriate time to incorporate lime into the dalo cropping cycle could very well be when a Mucuna cover crop is sown. There is work under way on Taveuni, under the control of the Agronomy Department from the MPI, Koronivia, looking at lime responses in Mucuna.

Dalo growers on Viti Levu also report that dalo has become increasingly difficult to produce. Small operators have â&#x2026;&#x201D; to ž of their cropland in fallow or growing alternative crops that tolerate soil acidity and poor soil fertility (e.g., cassava), but which do not give as high a financial return as dalo.

Market Development Facility

Page: 21

AGLIME FOR FIJI PICTURE 8 - DALO CROP IN NAITASIRI

ONE OF THE AUTHORS (P SHANNON) IS TAKING A SOIL SAMPLE FROM THE CROP

One grower in Naitasiri has documented the decline in yield, with records that show Dalo tuber sizes of 1.0 to 1.5 kg reducing over the period since 2006 to 0.4 to 1.0 kg. With current yields at 5T/ha, this implies that prior to 2006, he was getting some 9T/ha – so he has lost 4T/ha, which represents a loss of F$4,750/ha in income at the current export price of F$1.70/kg. At the same time, fertiliser prices have increased – he recently paid F$1,900/T for 500 kg of a mix of urea and compound fertiliser. He also noted that the New Zealand market has had to reduce the minimum acceptable tuber size from 600g to 400g to obtain sufficient quantities of crop.

As a result of these changes, he has reduced his Dalo area from 4.5 to 2 ha.

3.4.1 CROP & S OIL MATRIX The probable spread of Dalo growing in each division, based on soil acidity levels as detailed in the soil sample records from the Koronivia MPI laboratories, is detailed below: TABLE 6 - CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION – DALO

CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION - HECTARES Strongly Acidic pH <5.2

Str to Mod Acidic pH 5.3 -5.5

Mod to Sl Acidic pH 5.6 - 5.9

CENTRAL WESTERN NORTHERN EASTERN

4125 423 1510 114

1002 190 856 94

1243 362 1329 180

FIJI

6172

2141

3115

DALO

Slightly Acidic 6.0-6.5

pH

Neutral pH 6.6-7.0

Alkaline pH >7.0

TOTAL CROP AREA

563 741 926 301

102 190 146 73

225 213 167 120

7,259 2,119 4,935 882

2530

511

726

15,195

3.4.2 ESTIMATED YIELD INCREASES If soil acidity is the main causal factor for the loss in yields, liming should bring yields back to previous levels – so after liming, the 4-tonne yields off the acid areas, for example, could be restored to approximately 10T/ha.

Market Development Facility

Page: 22

AGLIME FOR FIJI

3.4.3 LIME APPLICATION For this crop, which is largely grown on hand-cultivated plots, spreading lime over the whole cultivated area will probably prove impractical because of the large amounts of material that would need to be carried manually in to sometimes remote areas.

The cost benefit estimates below have been based on mixing lime with the soil during the planting process by applying a small amount of lime to a 30cm by 30cm area into the centre of which each Dalo seedling is transplanted. With some 12,300 plants/ha being planted (MPI, 2010), the area of treated land per hectare will come to 1100m2. Thus, to lift the pH from 5.0 to 6.0 (the optimum pH for Dalo growth) in each mound for the strongly acid areas, at a rate of 7.5 T lime/pH unit change, would take 0.83 tonnes of lime/ha or some 70g of lime per mound.

For the strongly to moderately acid areas, the amounts needed are 0.5T/ha and 40g/mound, and for moderately to slightly acidic soils, 0.25T/ha and 20g/mound.

3.4.4 COST BENEFIT MODEL The increase in yield (scaled from a 6T/ha increases on the Strongly Acid soils to no increase in the Slightly Acidic soils), show that using lime to improve soil conditions should be very profitable.

FIGURE 13 - COST BENEFIT ESTIMATE - DALO

Percentages

Unlimed Export Reject

Limed 60 40

Strongly Acidic pH <5.2

Current yield(T/ha) Export Reject Limed Yield Export Reject Change Lime needed(T/ha) Lime cost ($/ha) Net ($/ha)

4 2.4 1.6 $3,520 10 8.0 2.0 $10,400 $6,880 0.83 166 $6,714

Prices 80 20

Str to Mod Mod to Sl Acidic Acidic 5.3 -5.5 5.6 - 5.9

6 3.6 2.4 $5,280 10 8.0 2.0 $10,400 $5,120 0.5 100 $5,020

Lime ($/T) 200

$1.20 $0.40

8 4.8 3.2 $7,040 10 8.0 2.0 $10,400 $3,360 0.25 50 $3,310

Slightly Acidic Neutral pH 6.6ph 6.0-6.5 7.0

10 8.0 2.0 $10,400 10 8.0 2.0 $10,400

10 8.0 2.0 $10,400 10 8.0 2.0 $10,400

Alkaline pH >7.0

10 8.0 2.0 $10,400 10 8.0 2.0 $10,400

Directly applying these benefits to the growing community, once the acid land has been restored to full production, indicates that extra revenue could be as high as F$62,000,000 per year.

However, historical data (Fiji Government, 2012) show that total Dalo production fell from some 83,751,000 kg in 2005 to 60,283,000 kg in 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a loss of some 23,468,000 kg. The 2010 figure, if the areas indicated in the Agricultural Census are accurate, indicates a yield of 3.9 to 4.0 tonnes/ha of crop (consistent with both the Taveuni and Naitasiri growersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; records), while in 2005, the yields would have been some 5.5 tonnes/ha. Applying these figures to the model above gives gains of some F$2,000/ha/yr, and an overall increase of F$23,500,000.

As local demand is already being met, most of the extra production will go into the export market; this will have a significant effect on the external accounts for Fiji.

Market Development Facility

Page: 23

AGLIME FOR FIJI

3.5 YAQONA 3.5.1 CROP & S OIL MATRIX Yaqona is grown in all Divisions of Fiji, with the largest areas in the Northern Division, possibly reflecting the extensive cultivation of the crop on Taveuni Island and eastern Vanua Levu.

TABLE 7 - CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION â&#x20AC;&#x201C; YAQONA

CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION - HECTARES YAQONA CENTRAL WESTERN NORTHERN EASTERN FIJI

Strongly Acidic pH Str to Mod Acidic <5.2 pH 5.3 -5.5 747 181 345 155 1,393 790 166 137 2,651

1,262

Mod to Sl Acidic Slightly Acidic pH 5.6 - 5.9 6.0-6.5 225 102 295 605 1,226 854 264 440 2,011

2,000

pH

Neutral pH 6.6-7.0 18 155 135 107

Alkaline pH >7.0 41 174 154 176

415

545

TOTAL CROP AREA 1,314 1,728 4,553 1,289 8,884

PICTURE 9 - FOUR YEAR OLD YAQONA PLANT AT THE TU TU TRAINING CENTRE ON TAVEUNI ISLAND

3.5.2 LIKELY UPTAKE RATES With Yaqona being a 4 to 5 year crop, only 20 to 25% of the Yaqona land would receive liming whether for investment (remediation) liming or for maintenance, if lime is to be applied only at planting (some growers may elect to lime an existing crop on acid soils if initial performance is poor), so the maximum annual demand is probably going to be of the order of 1,500 to 1,870 T/year; with an initial 20% uptake-rate, the demand should start at around 300 to 375 T/year, possibly climbing to the 1,500 T/yr level over the next 4 to 5 years.

Market Development Facility

Page: 24

AGLIME FOR FIJI

3.5.3 ESTIMATED YIELD INCREASES There are no yield data currently available. Grower observations from Taveuni indicated a 25 to 50% increase in initial growth-rates when limed plants were compared to unlimed plants in the same growerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plot.

3.5.4 LIME APPLICATION As with Dalo, Yaqona is often grown in small plots unsuited to mechanical farming. For this reason, it is proposed that lime will be applied to the mounds in which the individual Yaqona are planted.

Yaqona are planted at a rate of 2,500 plant mounds/ha; if it is assumed that each mound occupies a square meter, then liming will be required to cover 2,500m2/ha â&#x20AC;&#x201C; or one quarter of the area.

For strongly acid soils, the required amounts are 1.88T/ha, or 750g lime/mound; for Moderately to Strongly acid soils, 1.13 T/ha or 450g/mound, while the weakly to moderately acid soils will need 0.56T/ha or 230g/mound.

3.5.5 COST BENEFIT If a moderate yield increase over the whole crop of 12.5% is assumed to be obtainable with liming, then the revenue increase would total (based on the F$66,000,000 value placed on the crop in the 2009 census) would come to F$8,250,000. With 8,884 ha in Yaqona production, this gives an extra F$930/ha. The cost of lime even for the most acid land comes to only F$375/ha at F$200/T applied, so the surplus after liming is F$555/ha or F$4,930,000.

3.6 COCONUT While there are over 15,000 ha of land occupied by coconut plantations, the majority of these plantations are not being commercially managed at present. The crop is included because of the land area it occupies, and to indicate what could happen to Aglime demand if the industry were to be revived.

PICTURE 10 - COCONUT PLANTATION ON THE MPI RESEARCH STATION ON TAVEUNI ISLAND

Market Development Facility

Page: 25

AGLIME FOR FIJI

3.6.1 CROP & S OIL MATRIX TABLE 8 - CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION – COCONUT

CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION - HECTARES COCONUT CENTRAL WESTERN NORTHERN EASTERN

Strongly Acidic pH <5.2 110 66 3,889 229

Str to Mod Acidic pH 5.3 -5.5 27 30 2,204 189

Mod to Sl Acidic pH 5.6 - 5.9 33 56 3,423 364

4,294

2,449

3,876

FIJI

Slightly Acidic 6.0-6.5 15 115 2,384 606

pH

3,120

Neutral pH 6.6-7.0 3 30 376 148

Alkaline pH >7.0 6 33 430 243

557

712

TOTAL CROP AREA 194 330 12,707 1,778 15,009

3.7 OTHER CROPS This category includes a range of crops, the individual areas of which are too small to include on a separate basis. These crops include: Rice, Yams, Watermelon, French Beans, Tomatoes, Cow Pea, Eggplant, Kumala (Sweet Potatoes), Maize, Chinese Cabbage, Okra (Bhindi), Dalo ni Tana, English Cabbage, Pumpkin, Ginger, Kawai, Tobacco , Peanuts, Capsicum, Other assorted vegetables, Tivoli, Amaranthus, Gourd, Carrot The optimum pH for most of these crops lies between 6.0 and 7.0, so many of the soils used will need to be limed.

It is worth noting that these crops are relatively high value; the lime being imported into Fiji and which retails for F$600 to F$700/T has largely been used on these crops, so the economics of liming are obviously excellent.

3.7.1 CROP & S OIL MATRIX TABLE 9 - CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION – OTHER CROPS

CROP SOIL ACIDITY INTERSECTION - HECTARES Other Crops CENTRAL WESTERN NORTHERN EASTERN FIJI

Strongly Acidic pH <5.2 760 891 1,689 26

Str to Mod Acidic pH 5.3 -5.5 185 399 957 21

Mod to Sl Acidic pH 5.6 - 5.9 229 763 1,487 41

3,366

1,562

2,519

Slightly Acidic 6.0-6.5 104 1,561 1,035 68

pH

2,768

Neutral pH 6.6-7.0 19 399 163 17

Alkaline pH >7.0 41 449 187 27

598

704

TOTAL CROP AREA 1,338 4,463 5,519 198 11,518

PICTURE 11 - VEGETABLE CROPPING: CABBAGES AND FANCY LETTUCES - NEAR SIGATOKA.

3.7.2 LIKELY UPTAKE RATES If lime is made freely available at lower prices than those currently ruling, these growers are likely to be rapid adopters.

Market Development Facility

Page: 26

AGLIME FOR FIJI

3.8 ECONOMIC BENEFITS While economic outcomes could not be estimated for some of the crops covered here, due to a lack of reliable response data, for those crops which could be evaluated, the benefits are summarized below (Table 10).

TABLE 10 - ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT AT PRODUCTION LEVEL

Crop Sugarcane

Net Yield Benefit per Annum F$7,600,000

Dairy

F$7,000,000

Dalo

F$23,500,000

Yaqona

F$4,930,000

Other Impacts

Total Economic Impact per Annum F$22,100,000

Harvesting gangs – F$8,100,000 Transport operators – F$6,400,000 Process worker wages (n/a) Total – F$14,500,000 Transport Process worker wages (n/a) Harvest (n/a) Transport (n/a) Harvest (n/a) Transport (n/a)

F$7,000,000 F$23,500,000 F$4,930,000 TOTAL

F$57,530,000

Note: n/a: data not available This limited set of data shows that using Aglime to restore the productivity of Fiji’s cropping and agricultural soils has the potential to significantly improve the returns to Fiji’s growers and farmers.

Further, as most, if not all, of this benefit will be spent in the local community, the improvement in the local economy will be far greater than the base amount.

Additionally, with two of the above crops being export commodities (sugar and dalo), and with any increase in dairy production serving to reduce the need to import dairy products, the country’s external balance of payments would also be significantly improved.

Market Development Facility

Page: 27

AGLIME FOR FIJI

4 RAISING AWARENESS 4.1 FIELD DEMONSTRATIONS One of the best ways to show farmers how much they could benefit from the use of Aglime is to provide them with an in-field demonstration of those benefits.

In order to do this successfully, some careful steps need to be followed in selecting and setting up the demonstration areas.

1. Do not select a site that is likely to show a poor response. Be prepared to check several possible sites. You will be looking for – a. A site with a responsive soil pH level b. A site with pH levels uniform across the whole site (take three or four soil samples from different parts of each proposed demonstration-area) c. A site with no other problems which could end up masking the Aglime response such as: i. Compacted subsoil stopping root development ii. A site which is abnormally wet or dry iii. No gross nutrient deficiencies (mildly nutrient deficient sites can be corrected, but a for site with a pronounced nutrient deficiency it may take up to 2 crop cycles for the full effect of the improved nutrient levels to develop; this could reduce either the size of the lime response or it may mask it completely if the nutrient deficiency is more acute than the lime deficiency).

2. Select an area large enough to allow you to obtain realistic measurements. For row crops, the area needs to be at least 10 meters long by 10 rows wide so you can collect yield measurements from the centre 6 rows (leave the 2 rows at either edge alone to avoid edge effects), and also leave 2 meters at each end of the area. For pastures, an area of 0.5ha – 0.25ha each for a treated area and a control – should be enough.

3. Always include a control area (one with no Aglime, but which is otherwise treated exactly the same as the Aglime treated area); don’t rely on comparing the treated area with the “rest of the paddock” as there could be other factors affecting growth besides soil pH levels (that is why it is vital to make sure the whole demonstration area – control plus Aglime treated – is uniform before you start).

4. Apply an appropriate rate of Aglime. Assume that the soil pH will change by one pH unit for 7.5 tonnes of lime and make sure you apply enough to move the soil pH from the measured value to the desired target. Don’t apply a light rate to try to “keep costs down” in the eye of the local farmers; to do so is to risk having a demonstration area that shows an insignificant response when, in fact, it was economically responsive to Aglime at the correct rate.

5. As well as yield measurements, try to measure quality effects as well. For example, sucrose levels in sugar cane, mineral levels in pasture, or changes in pasture composition (eg, did the numbers of weeds decrease and the amounts of grasses and clovers increase?).

Market Development Facility

Page: 28

AGLIME FOR FIJI

4.2 OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS 4.2.1 SOIL TESTING SERVICES As outlined in the section on the sugar crop, present support services are not likely to be able to handle the increased need for soil testing that raising awareness of the issue of soil acidity, and providing Aglime at an affordable cost, is likely to generate.

As well as improving access and responsiveness of laboratory and extension services, another approach could be to train people to provide a soil pH testing service, as outlined below.

Market Development Facility

Page: 29

AGLIME FOR FIJI SOIL HEALTH ADVISERS (SHA) - LOCALISED SOIL TESTING SERVICES P ROCEDURE  SHAs advise farmers on appropriate ways to collect soil samples S (based on MPI Technical Bulletin 6 – Soil Sampling Protocol) and O I provide a soil sampling probe to the farmer L  Farmer collects and air dries sample; S  Farmer takes soil sample(s) (from different farm areas if required) A M to SHA who tests for pH and provides advice to the farmer on P Aglime requirement; or, L I  SHA conducts a field day or other meeting where farmers bring N G along soil samples for testing and advice.

To provide advice to the farmer the SHA: P R  Shows the farmer his registration certificate O  Mixes soil with water 5:1 B E  Allows to stand for 30 minutes  Calibrates pH meter using reliable buffer solutions  Stirs sample and measures pH  Compares pH to target figure for farmers crop (target figure for the crop set on the basis of soil group and aluminium toxicity)  Advises amount of lime to work into soil to achieve pH target E QUIPMENT R EQUIRED The SHA would require:  Soil sampling probe/s  Clean water supply  Marked plastic beakers  pH meter  supply of standard buffer solutions Estimated value of the equipment would be less than F$600 T RAINING & R EGISTRATION The SHA would need to attend a training course and receive a certificate and registration number (expected to be around 2 days).

In order to retain registration SHAs would be expected to record pH levels in their area and on a quarterly basis report the results to a central data system set up by the Lime Task Force to assist to build up a profile of the soil acidity situation in Fiji.

S ERVICE C HARGE A service charge in the region of F$20 would be proposed to conduct the acidity test and to provide advice on Aglime requirements.

At a farmers meeting it would be expected that say 20 soil samples could be processed in an afternoon.

B USINESS P ROPOSITION Income per farmers meeting – F$400 Income per Annum – F$1600 (based on one farmers meeting per quarter) I NVESTMENT P AYBACK Investment payback would be expected to result from:  30 analyses  One and a half farmers meetings

Market Development Facility

Page: 30

AGLIME FOR FIJI

ANNEX 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE EFFECT OF SOIL P H, CEC AND TARGET AL SATURATION LEVEL ON LIME REQUIREMENT FOR FIJI SOILS The following tables provide estimates of Aglime requirements for Fiji Soils taking into account, acidity (pH), Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and Aluminium (Al) saturation. The tables have been developed for both Viti Levu and Vanua Levu soils.

Market Development Facility

AGLIME FOR FIJI TABLE 11 - AGLIME REQUIREMENT - DEPTH 20CM; AL SATURATION TARGET 30%

Depth 20 cm Target Al saturation 30 % Viti Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.4 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 3.5 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 3.6 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 3.7 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 3.8 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 3.9 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.0 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.1 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.2 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.3 86.1 4.7 7.0 9.3 11.7 14.0 4.4 71.2 3.4 5.1 6.9 8.6 10.3 4.5 57.8 2.3 3.5 4.6 5.8 7.0 4.6 45.9 1.3 2.0 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.7 35.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 4.8 26.5 4.9 19.1 5.0 13.1 5.1 8.6 5.2 5.6 5.3 4.1 5.4 1.5 5.5 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.7 0.0 5.8 0.0 5.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 Vanua Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.4 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 3.5 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 3.6 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 3.7 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 3.8 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 3.9 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.0 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.1 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.2 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.3 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.4 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.5 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.6 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.7 100.0 5.8 8.8 11.7 14.6 17.5 4.8 90.5 5.0 7.6 10.1 12.6 15.1 4.9 75.7 3.8 5.7 7.6 9.5 11.4 5.0 62.3 2.7 4.0 5.4 6.7 8.1 5.1 50.1 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 5.2 39.2 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 5.3 29.6 5.4 21.3 5.5 14.3 5.6 8.6 5.7 4.1 5.8 1.0 5.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 -

Market Development Facility

17.5 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 16.3 12.0 8.1 4.6 1.6 -

17.5 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 17.6 13.3 9.4 5.9 2.7 -

20 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 18.7 13.7 9.3 5.3 1.8 -

20 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 20.2 15.2 10.8 6.7 3.1 -

AGLIME FOR FIJI TABLE 12 - AGLIME REQUIREMENT - DEPTH 20CM; AL SATURATION TARGET 20%

Depth 20 cm Target Al saturation 20 % Viti Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.9 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 4.0 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.1 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.2 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.3 86.1 5.5 8.3 11.0 13.8 16.5 4.4 71.2 4.3 6.4 8.5 10.7 12.8 4.5 57.8 3.2 4.7 6.3 7.9 9.5 4.6 45.9 2.2 3.2 4.3 5.4 6.5 4.7 35.5 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.2 3.9 4.8 26.5 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.6 4.9 19.1 5.0 13.1 5.1 8.6 5.2 5.6 5.3 4.1 5.4 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.6 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.8 4.0 5.9 1.5 6.0 0.0 Vanua Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.9 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 4.0 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.1 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.2 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.3 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.4 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.5 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.6 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.7 100.0 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 4.8 90.5 5.9 8.8 11.8 14.7 17.6 4.9 75.7 4.6 7.0 9.3 11.6 13.9 5.0 62.3 3.5 5.3 7.0 8.8 10.6 5.1 50.1 2.5 3.8 5.0 6.3 7.5 5.2 39.2 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.3 29.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 5.4 21.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 5.5 14.3 5.6 8.6 5.7 4.1 5.8 1.0 5.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 -

Market Development Facility

17.5 23.3 23.3 23.3 19.3 14.9 11.0 7.6 4.5 1.9 -

17.5 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 20.6 16.3 12.3 8.8 5.6 2.8 0.4 -

20 26.7 26.7 26.7 22.0 17.1 12.6 8.6 5.2 2.2 -

20 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 23.5 18.6 14.1 10.0 6.4 3.2 0.4 -

AGLIME FOR FIJI TABLE 13 - AGLIME REQUIREMENT - DEPTH 20CM; AL SATURATION TARGET 10%

Depth 20 cm Target Al saturation 10 % Viti Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.9 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 4.0 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.1 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.2 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.3 86.1 6.3 9.5 12.7 15.8 19.0 4.4 71.2 5.1 7.6 10.2 12.7 15.3 4.5 57.8 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 4.6 45.9 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 4.7 35.5 2.1 3.2 4.2 5.3 6.4 4.8 26.5 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.4 4.1 4.9 19.1 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 5.0 13.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 5.1 8.6 5.2 5.6 5.3 4.1 5.4 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.6 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.8 4.0 5.9 1.5 6.0 0.0 Vanua Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.9 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 4.0 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.1 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.2 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.3 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.4 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.5 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.6 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.7 100.0 7.5 11.3 15.0 18.8 22.5 4.8 90.5 6.7 10.1 13.4 16.8 20.1 4.9 75.7 5.5 8.2 11.0 13.7 16.4 5.0 62.3 4.4 6.5 8.7 10.9 13.1 5.1 50.1 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.4 10.0 5.2 39.2 2.4 3.7 4.9 6.1 7.3 5.3 29.6 1.6 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.9 5.4 21.3 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.8 5.5 14.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 5.6 8.6 5.7 4.1 5.8 1.0 5.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 -

Market Development Facility

17.5 26.3 26.3 26.3 22.2 17.8 13.9 10.5 7.4 4.8 2.6 0.9 -

17.5 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 23.5 19.2 15.2 11.7 8.5 5.7 3.3 1.2 -

20 30.0 30.0 30.0 25.4 20.4 15.9 12.0 8.5 5.5 3.0 1.0 -

20 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 26.8 21.9 17.4 13.4 9.7 6.5 3.8 1.4 -

AGLIME FOR FIJI TABLE 14 - AGLIME REQUIREMENT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DEPTH 30CM; AL SATURATION TARGET 20%

Depth 30 cm Target Al saturation 20 % Viti Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.9 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 4.0 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.1 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.2 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.3 86.1 8.3 12.4 16.5 20.6 24.8 4.4 71.2 6.4 9.6 12.8 16.0 19.2 4.5 57.8 4.7 7.1 9.5 11.8 14.2 4.6 45.9 3.2 4.9 6.5 8.1 9.7 4.7 35.5 1.9 2.9 3.9 4.8 5.8 4.8 26.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 4.9 19.1 5.0 13.1 5.1 8.6 5.2 5.6 5.3 4.1 5.4 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.6 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.8 4.0 5.9 1.5 6.0 0.0 Vanua Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.9 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 4.0 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.1 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.2 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.3 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.4 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.5 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.6 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.7 100.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.8 90.5 8.8 13.2 17.6 22.0 26.4 4.9 75.7 7.0 10.5 13.9 17.4 20.9 5.0 62.3 5.3 7.9 10.6 13.2 15.9 5.1 50.1 3.8 5.6 7.5 9.4 11.3 5.2 39.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 5.3 29.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 5.4 21.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 5.5 14.3 5.6 8.6 5.7 4.1 5.8 1.0 5.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 -

Market Development Facility

17.5 35.0 35.0 35.0 28.9 22.4 16.5 11.3 6.8 2.9 -

17.5 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 30.8 24.4 18.5 13.2 8.4 4.2 0.6 -

20 40.0 40.0 40.0 33.0 25.6 18.9 12.9 7.7 3.3 -

20 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 35.3 27.9 21.1 15.0 9.6 4.8 0.6 -

AGLIME FOR FIJI TABLE 15 - AGLIME REQUIREMENT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DEPTH 10CM; AL SATURATION TARGET 20%

Depth 10 cm Target Al saturation 20 % Viti Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.9 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 4.0 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.1 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.2 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.3 86.1 2.8 4.1 5.5 6.9 8.3 4.4 71.2 2.1 3.2 4.3 5.3 6.4 4.5 57.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 3.9 4.7 4.6 45.9 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.7 3.2 4.7 35.5 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 4.8 26.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 4.9 19.1 5.0 13.1 5.1 8.6 5.2 5.6 5.3 4.1 5.4 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.6 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.8 4.0 5.9 1.5 6.0 0.0 Vanua Levu Soils (from Rayment and Wallis 1981) % Al CEC pH Saturation 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 3.9 tonnes of lime/ha (90% purity) 4.0 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.1 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.2 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.3 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.4 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.5 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.6 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.7 100.0 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10.0 4.8 90.5 2.9 4.4 5.9 7.3 8.8 4.9 75.7 2.3 3.5 4.6 5.8 7.0 5.0 62.3 1.8 2.6 3.5 4.4 5.3 5.1 50.1 1.3 1.9 2.5 3.1 3.8 5.2 39.2 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 5.3 29.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 5.4 21.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 5.5 14.3 5.6 8.6 5.7 4.1 5.8 1.0 5.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 -

Market Development Facility

17.5 11.7 11.7 11.7 9.6 7.5 5.5 3.8 2.3 1.0 -

17.5 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 10.3 8.1 6.2 4.4 2.8 1.4 0.2 -

20 13.3 13.3 13.3 11.0 8.5 6.3 4.3 2.6 1.1 -

20 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3 11.8 9.3 7.0 5.0 3.2 1.6 0.2 -

AGLIME FOR FIJI

ANNEX 2 – BUSINESS PLAN – CONFIDENTIAL A CONFIDENTIAL Business Plan has been provided to Standard Concrete as part of this project.

Market Development Facility

AGLIME FOR FIJI

ANNEX 3 - MAKING MARKETS WORK FOR THE POOR (M4P) The M4P approach is based on the recognition that economic poverty is the result of outcomes in markets in which the poor participate. When markets work efficiently and produce equitable outcomes for the poor, they are the most powerful vehicle for delivering growth and poverty reduction. The approach aims to sustainably improve the lives of the poor by analysing and influencing market systems that affect them as entrepreneurs/farmers (in terms of higher margins, increased volumes and improved market access), consumers (in the form of better access to products and services, lower prices and wider choice) and employees (in the form of higher wages and improved working conditions). It works to identify the underlying causes, instead of symptoms, of why markets do not work for the poor. Its actions facilitate change in the behaviour, capabilities, incentives and relationships of market actors to:  

Improve target market systems, and Create the conditions for markets to be continuously upgraded after the M4P ‘intervention’ is completed.

Improved competitiveness is a product of these two outcomes. The Strategic Framework and overall logic of the market development approach is conceptually simple: one acts on a few select points to effect change in a set of connected markets, so that poor people get a better deal (better access to the market or better terms); with more engagement the markets better serve each other, attract investment and competition leading to greater competitiveness, efficiency and growth. This new situation increases incomes in poor families, creates new jobs and empowers the poor and socially marginalised.

The M4P Strategic Framework is shown below at Figure 14.

FIGURE 14 - THE M4P STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK1

1

Diagram courtesy of The Springfield Centre.

Market Development Facility

AGLIME FOR FIJI FIGURE 15 – FIELD VISIT LOCATIONS

Market Development Facility

AGLIME FOR FIJI

ANNEX 4 – REFERENCES USED IN PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT Asiegbu, J.E. and Agba, O.A (2008). Studies on Yield and Yield Component Responses of Mucuna Flagellipes to Lime and Phosphorus Applications under Field Culture in a Tropical Oxisol. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension 7(1): 58 - 65 Barzegar A. R., Sh. Mahmoodi, F. Hamedi and F. Abdolvahabi , (2005). Long Term Sugarcane Cultivation Effects on Physical Properties of Fine Textured Soils. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 7: 59-68 Carsky, R. J., Sanginga, N., Shulz S and Vanlauwe, B (2002). Promising practices for sustainable intensified systems in the savannah zone of West Africa, in: Jamin J.Y., pp Seiny Boukar L., Floret C. (éditeurs scientifiques), 2003. Savanes africaines : des espaces en mutation, des acteurs face à de nouveaux défis. Actes du Collque 27-31 Mai 2002 Garoua, Cameron.

Choudhra, B. A. (1984). The effect of Quick-lime application on some soil properties and their correlation with Sugarcane Yields. Phillipine J Crop Sci 9 41 – 47 Edmeades, D.C., Pringle, R.M., Mansell, G.P. and Shannon, P W. (1984). Effects of lime on pasture production on soils in the North Island of New Zealand. Parts 1-4 NZ J Ag Res 27, 349 - 382 Fiji Government (2012). Republic of Fiji Agriculture Investment Guide. Economic Planning and Statistics Division for the Department of Agriculture Golden, L.E., (1972) (cited in Lousiana Sugar Cane Production Handbook, 2001) Graham, M. H., Haynes, R.J., Meyer, J. H. (2002). Changes in soil chemistry and aggregate stability induced by fertilizer applications, burning and trash retention on a long-term sugarcane experiment in South Africa. European J. Soil. Sci. 53, 589 – 598 Hartemink, A.E. (1997). Acidification and pH Buffering Capacity of Alluvial Soils Under Sugarcane. Exp Agr. 34 231 – 243 Hartemink, A. E. (1998). Changes in Soil Fertility and leaf nutrient concentration at a Sugar Cane Plantaion in Papua New Guinea. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal. 29, 1045-1060 Hartemink, A.E. and Woods A.W. (1988) Sustainable land management in the tropics: the case of sugarcane plantations 16th World Congress on Soil Science. Pp 1-6.

Howeler R. H., Oates, G.G. and Costa Allem, A. (2000). An Assessment of the Impact of Cassava Production and Processing on the Environment and Biodiversity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations International Fund For Agricultural Development. Rome 2001. iKisan (2012) website: http://www.ikisan.com/Crop%20Specific/Eng/links/knt_coconutNutrient%20Management.shtml – accessed on 12/11/2012 Jiri, O (2003). Mineral Nutrition and Integration of Forage Legumes into Smallholder Farming Systems, with Emphasis on Velvet Bean [Mucuna pruriens (L) DC var. utilis]. Master of Philosophy Thesis, University of Zimbabwe.

Leslie, D.M., 2012. A Reference Manual for Utilising and Managing the Soil Resources of Fiji. SPC Land resources Division.

Market Development Facility

AGLIME FOR FIJI Leslie, D. M., and Seru, V.B.(1998). Fiji: Soil Taxonomic Unit Description Handbook. Manaaki Whenua Press.

Cameron, K. and McLaren R. G. (1996). Soil Science: Sustainable Production and Environmental Protection. Oxford University Press; 314pp.

Moberly, P.K. (1974). The Response to Agricultural Lime and Silicate Materials in Some Soils of the South African Sugar Industry. Proc Sth Afr Sug. Cane Assn, April 1974: 58 – 69 Morrison, R. J., Gawander, J. & Ram, A. N. (2005). Changes in the Properties of a Fijian Oxisol Over 25 Years of Sugarcane Cultivation. pp. 139-146 in D. Hogarth (Eds.), International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists Proceedings of the XXV Congress Volume II. Guatemala: The XXV ISSCT Congress Organising Committee.

Nixon, D.J., Meyer, J.H., McArthur, D and Schuman, A.W. (2003) The Impact of Lime and Gypsum on Sugarcane Yields and Soil Acidity in the South African Sugar Industry. Proc Sth Afr Sug.Technol Ass 72 284 – 292 Pattison, T (2012). Soil health under taro production on Taveuni, Fiji – preliminary report.

Rayment, G.E. and Wallis, E.S. (1981). “Suitability of some Fijian soils for pigeonpea production. A report to the Native Land Development Corporation, August 1981”. Department of Primary Industries and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland Rayment, G.E. and Lyons, D.J. (2011). “Soil Chemical Methods – Australasia”. 495+20 pp. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne Shannon, P W (1999). A model for predicting pasture growth responses to the application of agricultural lime. Occ. Rept 12 FLRC, Massey University: 185 - 193.

Uchida, R. and N. V. Hue (2000). Chapter 10 in “Plant Nutrient Management in Hawaii’s Soils, Approaches for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture” J. A. Silva and R. Uchida, eds. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Von UexKull, H. R., Bosshart, R. P. 1989. Management of Acid Upland Soils in Asia; pp 2-19 in “Management of Acid Soils in the Humid Tropics of Asia” eds E.T. Craswell and E. Pushparajah: ACIAR Monograph No.13.

Yee, W S; Wallens P. J., Gangaiya, P and Morrison R. J. (1986). The effect of liming on some chemical properties and maize production on a highly weathered Fiji soil. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad) 63(4): 319324.

Market Development Facility