Download Energy use and economical analysis of Sugarcane production in

International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences.
Available online at www.ijagcs.com
IJACS/2013/5-3/249-252
ISSN 2227-670X ©2013 IJACS Journal
Energy use and economical analysis of Sugarcane
production in Iran a case study: Debel Khazaeei
agro-industry
Ebrahim zarei Shahamat 1, Mohammad Amin Asoodar1, Afshin Marzban1 and Abbas
Abdeshahi2
1. Department of Agricultural Machinery, Khouzestan Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University,
Khouzestan, Iran
2. Department of Agricultural Economy, Khouzestan Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University,
Khouzestan, Iran
Corresponding author email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of energy consumption i.e. the
amount of input and output used in sugarcane production, to make an economical analysis at a
sugarcane agro-industry company, named Debel Khazaeei in Khuzestan, Iran. To pursue the purpose
of this study, data were collected from this company. The results indicated that total energy input was
78094.03 MJha-1 and total energy output was calculated as 104760 MJha-1 and electricity energy used
in sugarcane production systems had a high share with 33.2 percent. Subsequently, water for
irrigation, fertilizer, machinery, chemicals, seed cuttings and human labor used 25.1, 15, 5.2, 2.7, 2.6
and 0.6 percent energy respectively. The energy use efficiency, energy, and water productivity,
energy-water productivity, agrochemical energy ratio, renewable energy and non-renewable energy of
sugarcane production were 1.34, 1.12 KgMJ-1, 2.8 Kg M-3, 0.04 gr. (M-3.Mj-1), 17.96%, 22094.46 MJha1
and 55999.57 MJha-1 respectively. The benefit–cost ratio from sugarcane production was calculated
to be 0.71 that showed sugarcane production in Iran is not profitable.
Key words: Energy ratio, economic analysis, sugarcane, Iran.
INTRODUCTION
Sugarcane is the most important product that in addition to sugar, also supplies raw materials.. About 60
percent of the world’s sugar is supplied from sugarcane production and the rest is produced from sugar beet.
Basically, food, forage, fiber and other products are produced from sugarcane. Meanwhile, energy has been a
key point to agriculture since the age of subsistence agriculture. Furthermore, it is an established fact
worldwide that agricultural production is positively correlated with energy input (Taheri et al., 2010). In modern
agricultural system, the input energy is much more than it used to be in traditional agricultural system. Energy is
directly used in tillage operations, planting, harvesting; and indirectly used in inputs such as pesticides,
fertilizers, transportation, construction of drainage, land leveling and other inputs that are associated with
sugarcane production. But, efficient energy use has been reduced in response to ineffective use of input
energy. However, increasing input energy, in order to obtain maximum yield may not bring maximum profit
because of increase in production costs (Erdal et al., 2007). In addition, increased input use may constitute a
pressure over the environment and result an excessive use of natural resources.
Efficient use of energies help to achieve increased production efficiency and therefore contribute to
economy, profitability and competitiveness of agriculture sustainability in rural areas (Ozkan et al., 2004; Singh
et al., 2002). Khan et al. (2008) showed that in tractor-operated farm systems total energy input was 5563. 6
kwh (20.02 GJ) for ratoon farms and 13679. 5 kwh (49.24 GJ) for Planted Farms. The total energy output was
85858. 5 kwh (309.09 GJ) for ratoon farms and 72649.5 kwh for planted farms (261.53 GJ). Energy efficiency
on planted farms and ratoon farms were 5.31 and 15.43 respectively. Also energy consumption was 0.11 kW
hkg-1 (0.396 MJ Kg-1) for ratoon farms and 0.31 kwh kg-1 (1.11 MJ Kg-1) for planted farms. On the whole, the
main objective of this study was to calculate the energy cycle and the economic analysis of sugarcane agro
industry in Khouzestan province,Iran that could be effective for sustainable management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (3), 249-252, 2013
This study was conducted at Debel Khazai sugarcane agro-industry which is located at latitude 31° to
31°10' north and longitude 45° to 48° 36' east of Khouzestan province, Iran, 2010. The inputs included
fertilizers, chemicals, cutting stalk, hours of labor, water consumption, hours of machine work, diesel fuel, and
electricity. Data were collected in forms of tables, annual statistics and interviews with people who were in any
way connected to the administrative executives; including the head managers, middle managers, workers and
drivers of the operating parts. In order to analyze the energy the indicators such as: energy efficiency, energy
productivity, energy intensiveness and specific energy, renewable and nonrenewable energy were calculated
(Hatirli et al., 2008; Mohammadi et al., 2010)
Energy use efficiency = energy input (MJ ha-1) /energy output (MJ ha-1)
(1)
-1
-1
Energy productivity = sugarcane output (kg ha ) / energy input (MJ ha )
(2)
Water productivity = sugarcane output (kg ha-1) / water consumption (M3ha-1)
(3)
Water-energy productivity = sugarcane output (kg ha-1) / [energy input (MJ ha-1) * water consumption (M3 ha-1)]
(4)
Agrochemical energy ratio= input energy of agrochemicals (MJ ha-1) / total input energy (MJha-1)
(5)
The input energies were divided into renewable and nonrenewable energies (Kizilaslan, 2009;
Samavatean, 2010). Renewable energies consisted of human labor, water for irrigation, and seed cutting; and
nonrenewable energies included diesel, pesticide, fertilizers, electricity, and machinery. To obtain the amount of
energy output and energy input it was necessary to calculate it by using the energy equation which is shown in
Table 1.
Table1. Energy equivalent of inputs and output in sugarcane production
Input
A. Inputs
Diesel
Machinery
Fertilizer
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Chemicals
Human labor
Electricity
water
Seed cuttings and stalks
B. Out put
Seed cuttings and stalks
Unit
Energy equivalent (MJ/unit)
References
L
h
kg
51.33
62.7
(Samavatean et al., 2010)
(Samavatean et al., 2010)
66.14
12.44
120
3.6
.63
1.2
(Erdal et al., 2007)
(Erdal et al., 2007)
(Demircan, et al., 2006)
(Bojaca and Schrevens, 2010)
(Gundogmus, 2006)
(Gundogmus, 2006)
(Ricaud, 1980)
1.2
(Ricaud, 1980)
kg
h
kWh
3
M
kg
Kg
In the last part of this research, economic analysis of sugarcane production was investigated and net profit
and benefit–cost ratio were computed (Yilmaz et al., 2005). Benefit/cost ratio = Gross value of production ($ ha1
) / Total cost of production ($ ha-1) (6).
Gross value of production ($ ha-1) = Sale price ($ kg-1) * Yield (kg ha)
(7).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of input-output energy use in sugarcane production
The inputs used, outputs in sugarcane production systems, their energy equivalents, and percentages in
the total energy input are presented in Table 2. The results have revealed that total energy input in sugar cane
production systems were 78094.03 MJ ha-1. Electricity energy used in sugarcane production systems had a
high share of 33.2 % (Fig1). Water for irrigation used in sugarcane production systems ranked second place
with 25.1% of the total energy input. Next the energy related to fertilizer (nitrogen+ phosphorus), machinery,
Chemicals, Seed cuttings and Human labor were 15, 5.2, 2.7, 2.6 and .6 percent respectively. In this study
water used for irrigation was 31157 M3 ha-1. The energy equivalent used for this water was 19628.91 MJ ha-1. In
this study sugar cane yield was 87300 Kg ha-1 and the total energy equivalents used for this amount was
104760 MJ ha -1.
Table 2 . Amount of inputs, output and energy inputs and output in sugarcane production
A) Input (Unit)
Diesel fuel (L)
Machinery (h)
Fertilizer (kg)
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Chemicals (kg)
Quantities per unit area (ha)
237.5
65
Total energy equivalent (MJ/ha)
12192.41
4075.5
percentage
15.6
5.2
173.47
19.16
17.5
11473.31
238.35
2100
14.7
0.3
2.7
250
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (3), 249-252, 2013
Human labor (h)
Electricity (kwh)
3
Water (m )
Seed cuttings (kg)
Total energy Input (MJ)
B)Output (kg)
Seed cutting (kg)
Stalk (kg)
Total energy out put (MJ)
237.53
7200
31157
1666.66
465.56
25920
19628.91
1999.99
78094.03
74300
13000
89160
15600
104760
w ater for irrigation;
25.1
Human labour; 0.6
0.6
33.2
25.1
2.6
100
Machinery; 5.2
Diesel fuel; 15.6
nitrogen; 14.7
seed; 2.6
phosphate; 0.3
electricity; 33.2
pesticides; 2.7
share of important energy inputs in total energy
Figure 1. share of important energy inputs in sugarcane production
Energy efficiency, energy productivity, water productivity, energy-water productivity, agrochemical energy
ratio, renewable energy and nonrenewable energy are shown in table 3. Energy efficiency for this study was
1.34. Energy efficiency was reported 4.83 for alfalfa production systems in Iran (Yousefi and Mohammadi,
2011); 2.8 for wheat production systems in Turkey (Streimikiene et al., 2007); 3.51 for rain fed barley
production systems in Iran (Yousefi and Ghazvineh , 2011); and 25.75 for sugar beet production systems in
Turkey (Erdal et al., 2007). Energy productivity, water productivity, energy-water productivity, agrochemical
energy ratio, renewable energy and non-renewable energy of sugarcane production were 1.12 Kg MJ-1, 2.8 Kg
M-3, 0.04 gr. (M-3.Mj-1), 17.96%, 22094.46 MJ ha-1 and 55999.57 MJ ha-1 respectively.
Table 3. Energy Indicators of sugarcane production
Item
Energy use efficiency
Energy productivity
Water productivity
Energy- water productivity
Agrochemical energy ratio
a
Renewable energy
b
Non- renewable energy
b
a
Unit
-1
KgMJ
-3
Kg M
-1
gr. (M-3.Mj )
%
-1
MJha
-1
MJha
sugarcane
1.34
1.12
2.8
0.04
17.96
22094.46
55999.57
includes human labor, seed cutting and water for irrigation
includes fuel diesel, chemical, fertilizers, machinery and electricity
Economic analysis of sugarcane production
The total cost of sugarcane production and the gross value of production were calculated and reported in
Table 4. Total expenditure for the production was 3771.69 $ ha-1 while the gross production value was found to
be 2711.95 $ ha-1. Based on these results, the benefit–cost ratio from sugarcane production in the surveyed
farms was calculated to be 0.71, so sugarcane production in Iran is not profitable. The research results were
consistent with findings reported by other authors, such as, 2.53 for sweet cherry (Demircan et al., 2006); 2.37
for orange; 1.89 for lemon and 1.88 for mandarin (Ozkan et al., 2004); 1.03 for stake-tomato (Esengun et al.,
2007); 0.86 for cotton (Yilmaz et al., 2005); and 1.17 for sugar beet (Erdal et al., 2007). The net returns from
sugarcane sales were insufficient to cover economic costs. The sensitivity analysis showed that in order for the
income to equal the expenses sugarcane should be produced at an average of 103.33 ton per ha.
Table 4. Economic analysis of sugarcane
Cost and return components
Value
251
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (3), 249-252, 2013
-1
Yield (kg ha )
-1
Sale price ($ kg )
-1
Gross value of production ($ ha )
-1
Total cost of production ($ ha )
Benefit/cost ratio
74300
0.0365
2711.95
3771.69
0.71
CONCLUSION
In this study the energy indicators and the cost analysis of sugarcane production in Khuzestan province of
Iran have been investigated. Total energy consumption of Sugarcane was 78094.03 MJ/ha and energy output
was calculated as 104760 MJha-1. Electricity energy used in sugarcane production systems had a high share of
33.2 percent; subsequently, Water for irrigation, fertilizer, machinery; chemicals, seed cuttings and human labor
were 25.1, 15, 5.2, 2.7, 2.6 and 0.6 percent respectively. The energy use efficiency, energy productivity, water
productivity, energy-water productivity, agrochemical energy ratio, renewable energy and non- renewable
energy of sugarcane production were 1.34, 1.12 KgMJ-1, 2.8 Kg M-3, 0.04 gr. (M-3.Mj-1), 17.96%, 22094.46
MJha-1 and 55999.57 MJha-1 respectively. The benefit–cost ratio from sugarcane production was calculated to
be 0.71 which showed sugarcane production in Iran is not profitable.
REFERENCES
Bojaca CR, Schrevens E. 2010. Energy assessment of peri-urban horticulture and its uncertainty, case study for Bogota, Colombia.
Energy, 35(5), 2109-2118.
Demircan V, Ekinci K, Keener HM, Akbolat D, Ekinci C. 2006. Energy and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: A case
study from Isparta province. Energy Convers Manage; 47: 1761–1769.
Erdal G, Esengun K, Erdal H, Gunduz O. 2007. Energy use and economical analysis of
Esengun K, Erdal G, Gunduz O, Erdal H. 2007. An economic analysis and energy use in stake-tomato production in Tokat province of
Turkey. Renew Energy; 32: 1873–81.
Gundogmus E. 2006. Energy use on organic farming, A comparative analysis non organic versus conventional apricot production on small
holding in Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management, 47, 3351-3359.
Hatirli SA, Ozkan B, Fert C. 2008. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in greenhouse tomato production. Renew Energy. 31: 427-438.
Khan MA, Zafar J, Bakhash A. 2008. Energy requirement and economic analysis of sugarcane production in Dera Islamic Khan district of
Pakistan. Gomal University Journal of Research 24: 72-82.
Kizilaslan H. 2009."Input–output energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat Province of Turkey", Applied Energy., 86: pp: 1354–1358.
Mohammadi A, Rafiee S, Mohtasebi SS, Rafiee H. 2010. Energy inputs – yield relationship and cost analysis of kiwifruit production in Iran.
Renewable Energy. 35: 1071–1075.
of typical village in arid zone, India––part–I. Energ Convers Manage, 43:2275–86.
Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C. 2004. Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture.
Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Karadeniz F. 2004. Energy requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in Turkey. Energy Convers
Manage. 45:1821–30.
Renew Energy; 29:39–51.
Ricaud R. 1980. Energy input and output for sugarcane in Louisiana, Pimentel, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture,
Boca Raton, FL., CRC Press, pp: 135-136.
Samavatean N, Rafiee S, Mobil H, Mohammadi A. 2010. An analysis of energy use and relation between energy inputs and yield, costs
and income of garlic production in Iran. Renewable Energy, in press, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.11.020.
Singh H, Mishra D, Nahar NM. 2002. Energy use pattern in production agriculture
Streimikiene D, Klevas V, Bubeliene J. 2007. Use of EU structural funds for sustainable energy development in new EU member states.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev; 116:1167–87.
sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy. 32: 35–41.
Taheri GA, Asakereh A, Haghani K. 2010. Energy elevation and economic analysis of canola production in Iran a case study: Mazandaran
province. International journal of environmental sciences 1 (2), 236-243.
Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. 2005. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy 30:145–
155.
Yousefi M, Ghazvineh S. 2011. Diesel fuel consumption and Energy use efficiency of rainfed Barley production systems in Iran. World
applied sciences journal. 13(6), 1375-1379.
Yousefi M, Mohammadi A. 2011. Economical analysis and Energy use efficiency in Alfalfa production systems in Iran. Scientific Research
and Essays Vol. 6(11), pp. 2332-6.
252