is the sugar beet crop sustainable in england?
DESCRIPTION
Is the sugar beet crop sustainable in England?. Keith Jaggard Broom’s Barn Research Station Rothamsted Research Please do NOT quote without author’s permission. Scope:. UK beet sugar industry Biodiversity & pesticide impact Soil & water Energy Economics Politics & world trade. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Is the sugar beet crop
sustainable in England?
Keith JaggardBroom’s Barn Research Station
Rothamsted Research
Please do NOT quote without author’s permission
Scope:
• UK beet sugar industry• Biodiversity & pesticide impact• Soil & water• Energy• Economics• Politics & world trade
UK beet sugar industry:
• Products are c. 1.3Mt sucrose, 0.8Mt dried animal feed, 0.4Mt lime, 0.6Mt soil, betaine and vinasse (a K fertilizer), electricity and heat for glasshouses,
• 6 factories• 7,100 growers using 150,000 ha• 20,000 jobs in sugar and supply industries
The distribution of beet crops in the UK, 2000
Bury beet sugar factory
The crop:
• Sown March, harvested September – January, processed September to end February (c. 160 days)
• Average yields c. 50t/ha beet at 17-19% sugar content (9t/ha sucrose)
• Grown on well drained soils, mostly in eastern England
• Typically c. 19 man hours/ha
Beet seed drill
Environment impact assessment
Joint project with Hertfordshire University assessed:
• impact & fate of pesticides• fate of N fertilizer• energy consumption & CO2 production• global warming potential
• Used 13 crop production scenarios in 3 UK regions
• Used typical beet crop habitat
Scenario 1Sandy soil, limed and dressed with organic manure, ploughed and pressed in February, drilled in March. Granular insecticide at drilling and sprayed 4x to control weeds, once to control diseases. Given 80kg N/ha, hoed once, irrigated 2x. Harvested December at 50t/ha.
Scenario 11
Peat soil, fertilized with P, K, Mg in October, ploughed December, cultivated February and sown with cover crop to control wind erosion. Sown early April with insecticide-treated seed and given 30kg N/ha. Sprayed 7x to kill weeds and cover crop, 2 of these sprays contained Mn, one B. Sprayed 1x with fungicide. Harvest 60t/ha mid October.
Pesticide risk assessments made using pEMA
p-EMA models dispersion pathways of pesticides in the environment to estimate the concentrations to which organisms will be exposed. These concentrations, and their toxicity to the organisms, are used to calculate risk indices. This follows the procedures used in UK regulatory assessments
Specific Risks
Scenario I & II
AldicarbMetamitron
Scenario XI & XII
MetamitronParaquat (in PDQ)
PhenmediphamImidacloprid
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Rest%
Fen%
W Mids%
Frequency of environments adjacent to beet fields
Pesticides contributing most to risk
Scenario PesticideNo surface water Surface water
I & II aldicarb aldicarbIII aldicarb metamitronIV, V & VI aldicarb phenmediphamVII, VIII, IX & X imidacloprid chloridazonXI imidacloprid phenmediphamXII imidacloprid paraquat
Average ecotoxicity score
Potatoes 230
Sugar beet 26 (67)
Winter wheat 35
Oilseed rape 85
Spring barley 30
Peas 75
Groundwater
• No significant risk to groundwater in any Scenario
• Lenacil was at most risk of leaching into groundwater, but was still in the acceptable band
Fate of N fertilizer
• Nitrate leaching trivial: 0.3-7kg/ha
• Denitrification: large losses (6-56kgN/ha, mean of 15kg/ha) associated with organic manures (applied to 30% of beet area).
• Important consequences of N2O production for global warming.
Energy consumption
• Considered input manufacture, cultural operations, transport and machinery manufacture
• Input ranged from15-25 GJ/ha, with a mean of 20.4 at the factory gate
• Output in delivered beet ranges from 150-220 GJ/ha
• Output/input ratio 6-13
Energy consumption and GWP
Crop Input (GJ/ha)
GWP (tCO2/ha)
Potatoes 31.3 3.0
Sugar beet 19.8 (20.4) 1.4
Winter wheat 20.8 1.7
Oilseed rape 15.5 1.2
Spring barley 9.3 0.7
Peas 6.7 0.7
Soil conservation
• Wind erosion was an expensive problem; now mostly controlled by cover crops or minimum tillage
• Water erosion: within field movement in 15% of beet fields, where average redistribution is 0.3mm/ha, but this is concentrated in vulnerable patches
• Soil lost during beet delivery: c. 2.7mm in 50 years, but this is recycled
Economics: price structure
• Current beet price c. £30/t of quota• Payments made for early and late delivery
and an allowance for delivery costs• Beet surplus to quota makes sugar which
must be exported outside the EC. Current value c. £5/t
Current profitability
• 13 beet production scenarios• Assume 10% of beet is surplus• Calculate net margins• Range from £256/ha to £784/ha: most variation due
to yield differences. Weighted average £560/ha• Real returns are less if proportion of surplus beet
is larger
Comparison of gross margins: 2001
(£/ha)Winter wheat 550*
Winter barley 435*
Spring barley 412*
Oilseed rape 448*
Sugar beet 826
Potatoes 2672
•Includes area payment (£200-250)
•Source: Lang, 2002
Whole farm performance: 2001 (£/ha)
With beet Without beet
Output 558 401
Support pay 178 209
Var. costs 246 183
G. margin 490 427
Fixed costs 506 504
Net farm income 81 19
Source: Lang, 2002
Politics and World Trade
• 2006 review EU Sugar Regime• Regime sets national quotas• Guarantees price for quota sugar• 1.1Mt tariff-free sugar from ACP• Surplus exported outside EUBut• EU quota more than consumption• WTO unhappy
Review Options
• Consider impact on environmentthen:
1. ‘Status quo’…but quota and price reduced
2. Reduced quota – perhaps SFP compensation – quota phased out
3. ‘Free market’ – first preference of Oxfam and NGO’s
Brazil
• World price c.10c/lb• Production for export up from c. 1 to14 Mt
since 1990
• Meanwhile Australian industry on its knees
Alternative uses
• Potential biofuel source• Sugar is the simplest starting point for
bioethanol manufacture• Used for ETBE production in France• Proven agriculture• Potential to simplify and cheapen sugar
extraction in a mixed facility
Conclusions
•Sustainable ecologically and economically
•Endangered politically
•Possible use as biofuel