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Please do NOT quote without author’s permission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