نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه زراعت، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
2 گروه زراعت، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.
3 گروه مهندسی کشاورزی، دانشگاه ملی مهارت، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
In order to compare the cultivation of two sugar-producing plants (sugarcane and sugar beet) in terms of energy and economic indicators, a field study was conducted in Khuzestan province in 1402 using questionnaires and interviews as data collection tools. Energy consumption efficiency, energy productivity, specific energy, net energy and water consumption efficiency were investigated as energy indicators and gross production value, net income, profit-cost ratio and economic productivity were investigated as economic indicators. Based on the findings of this study, the total energy input in sugarcane cultivation was 93002.4 and in sugar beet was 47148.34 megajoules per hectare. The total energy output in sugarcane cultivation was 98467.2 and in sugar beet was 1273272 megajoules per hectare. In sugarcane cultivation, the largest share of energy was from fuel (34.85%), water (32.9%), and chemical fertilizers (12.3%), and in sugar beet cultivation, the largest share of energy was from fuel (45.77%), chemical fertilizers (24.25%), and water (22.8%). In sugarcane and sugar beet cultivation, the energy efficiency index was 1.06 and 27.01, the energy productivity index was 0.88 and 0.81 kg/MJ, the specific energy index was 1.1334 and 1.2271 MJ/ha, the specific energy index was 5464.8 and 1226123.7 MJ/ha, and the water use efficiency was 2.73 and 7.19 kg/m3 of water consumed. Net income in sugarcane cultivation was estimated at 1927.78 and in sugar beet at 1068.34 dollars per hectare, indicating the greater profitability of sugarcane. In general, sugar beet cultivation was superior in terms of energy efficiency and sugarcane cultivation in terms of economic profitability, which is hoped to attract the attention of policymakers and agricultural extension specialists to create sustainable farming ecosystems in the agricultural development of the province.
کلیدواژهها [English]
Extended Abstract
In order to compare the cultivation of two sugar-producing plants (sugarcane and sugar beet) in terms of energy and economic indicators, a research study was conducted in Khuzestan Province in 2023 using a questionnaire and interview as data collection tools. Sugar is an indispensable component in the food and pharmaceutical industry. Khuzestan is the main hub for sugarcane production in the country and also ranks second in sugar beet production. According the result of this study the more suitable product in terms of energy consumption efficiency, as well as economic viability would be determined. The objectives include examining the economic viability of cultivating the two plants, sugarcane and sugar beet, considering the amount of production costs and their final yield relative to each other, as well as investigating energy consumption efficiency by determining the inputs and outputs of the two systems and estimating the share of renewable and non-renewable energies in each product.
Materials and Methods
This research was conducted in 2023 in Khuzestan province. Through a questionnaire, information on inputs, labor hours, fuel, and costs was collected from 20 experienced farmers who were engaged in sugar beet cultivation in the province whose cultivated land area was over 5 hectares. Sugarcane information was obtained from 3 agro-industries of Farabi, Salman Farsi, and Haft Tappeh. Energy equivalent of each input and output calculated by input or output values multiplied by their corresponding energy coefficient. Various energy indicators plus water use efficiency were calculated. For economic comparison the costs of the inputs used in the production system were calculated in US dollars per unit area (hectare).
Results/ Discussion
Total input energy in sugarcane and sugar beet cultivation was 93002.4 and 47148.34 MJ. ha-1 respectively. Also their total output energy was 98467.2 and 1273272 MJ. ha-1 respectively. In sugarcane cultivation, the largest energy share belonged to fuel (34.85%), water (32.9%), and chemical fertilizers (12.3%), while in sugar beet cultivation, the largest energy share was related to fuel (45.77%), chemical fertilizers (24.25%), and water (22.8%). In sugarcane and sugar beet cultivation, the energy efficiency index was 1.06 and 27.00, the energy productivity index was 0.89 and 0.815 kg. MJ-1, the specific energy index was 1.13 and 1.23 MJ. ha-1, the particular energy index was 5464.8 and 1226123.67 MJ. ha-1, and water use efficiency was 2.73 and 7.19 kg.m-3 respectively. The net income in sugarcane cultivation was $ 1927.78 and in sugar beet cultivation was $1068.34 per hectare, indicating higher profitability of sugarcane. Overall, in terms of energy use efficiency, sugar beet cultivation was superior, and in terms of profitability, sugarcane cultivation was superior which is hoped that it will be of interest to policymakers and agricultural extension specialists in order to create sustainable ecosystems in the agricultural development of the province.
This article is an extract from a Master of Science research project of the first author. M. AghaAlikhani as her supervisor designed the experiment and research planning. The first author (Z. Mirzavand) conducted all interviews and completed the questionnaires in person, and in addition to writing the initial version of the article, she also participated in the statistical analysis of the data. The third author (H. Eyni-Nargeseh) also participated in the preparation of the questionnaires and the statistical analysis of the data. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Data sharing is applicable with a formal and justified request for the corresponding author.
The authors would like to thank and Research Deputy of Tarbiat Modares University (TMU).
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Tarbiat Modares, The authors avoided data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and misconduct.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
)