Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T06:51:12.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gross energy yields and the support energy requirements for the production of sugar from beet and cane; a study of four production areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. B. Austin ,
G. Kingston ,
P. C. Longden  and
P. A. Donovan
R. B. Austin
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge, England
G. Kingston
Affiliation:
Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, Bundaberg, Queensland
P. C. Longden
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Bury St Edmunds, England
P. A. Donovan
Affiliation:
South African Sugar Association Experiment Station, Mount Edgecombe, Natal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In t h e four production areas studied the gross energy contents of the biomass of the U.K. and Californian sugar beet crops were about 222 GJ/ha/year, while those for the Queensland and Transvaal sugar cane crops were about 682 GJ/ha/year. Recoverable sucrose constituted about 45% of the gross energy yield in the sugar beet crops but only about 29% in t he sugar cane crops, largely due to the bagasse (fibre) present in the cane. Since the sugar cane bagasse was used as fuel it provided nearly all the energy for the production of raw sugar from the sugar cane crops, but sugar beet by-products supplied no energy for t he production of sugar from sugar beet. This difference between the two species was the main reason why the support energy required for sugar production from beet, 28·8 GJ/t sugar, was greater than for production from sugar cane, 10·5 GJ/t sugar. The ratios, energy in refined sucrose:support energy required for its production, were 0·60 for sugar beet and 1·60 for sugar cane.

The efficiencies of conversion of the photosynthetically active solar radiation incident on the crops into energy in biomass (excluding fibrous roots) were 1·2% for sugar beet and 2·0% for sugar cane. This difference in efficiency did not appear to be due to a consistent species difference in the proportion of t he radiation intercepted by the crops, and may have been a consequence of the more efficient photosynthetic carbon fixation mechanism in sugar cane than in sugar beet. The efficiencies of conversion of incident photosynthetically active radiation into energy as sucrose recovered from the plants showed no consistent difference between species and averaged 0·56%.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , December 1978 , pp. 667 - 675
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. (1970). Laboratory Manual for Queensland Sugar Mills. 5th edn.Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Anon. (1974). Production statistics. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association, 1970–1974, 44–48.Google Scholar
Batty, J. C., Hamad, S. N. & Keller, J. (1975). Energy inputs to irrigation. ASCE Proceedings. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division 101, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, T. A. & Glasziou, K. T. (1975). Sugar cane. In Crop Physiology (ed. Evans, L. T.). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cervinka, V., Chancellor, W. J., Coffelt, R. J., Curley, R. G. & Dobie, J. B. (1974). Energy Requirements for Agriculture in California. Occasional Publication of the University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Church, B. M. & Webber, J. (1971). Fertilizer practice in England and Wales: a new series of surveys. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 22, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J. P. (1975). Photosynthesis and Prodvctivity in Different Environments (ed. Cooper, J. P.). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P., Webb, D. J. & Wright, E. M. (1973). The effect of time of sowing and harvesting on growth, yield and nitrogen fertilizer requirement of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
F.A.O. (1975). Commodity Review and Outlook, 1974–5. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Fick, G. W., Loomis, R. S. & Williams, W. A. (1975). Sugar beet. In Crop Physiology (ed. Evans, L. T.). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flood, B. W. (1975). Trends in fly ash collection and dewatering systems used in Australian sugar mills. In Symposium of Engineering Aspects of Environmental Protection. Australia: Institute of Engineering.Google Scholar
Gifford.R. M. (1974). Acomparison of potential photo-synthesis, productivity and yield of plant species with differing photosynthetic metabolism. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 1, 107–117.Google Scholar
Hudson, J. C. (1975). Sugar cane: its energy relationships with fossil fuel. Span 18, 12–14.Google Scholar
Last, P. J., Draycott, A. P. & Hull, R. (1976). The influence of level of topping and other cultural factors on sugar beet yield and quality. International Sugar Journal 78, 167–170, 193–199.Google Scholar
Leach, G. (1975). Energy and Food Production. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyle, O. (1957). Technology for Sugar Refinery Workers. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (1976). The feeding of arable by-products to sheep. Advisory Leaflet 585. London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food.Google Scholar
Price Jones, D. (1974). Energy considerations in crop protection. Outlook on Agriculture 8, 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, A. D. (1976). Sugar beet production costs in California. Leaflet 2877, Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California.Google Scholar
Rostron, H. (1974). Some effects of environment, age and growth regulating compounds on the growth, yield and quality of sugar cane in Southern Africa. M.Sc. thesis, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
South African Sugar Association (1975). Experiment Station Report on Situation Survey at Pongola. Mount Edgcombe: South African Sugar Association (Cyclo-styled report).Google Scholar
Szeicz, G. (1974). Solar radiation for plant growth. Journal of Applied Ecology 11, 1117–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. D. (1965). Mulching in sugar cane. Ph.D. thesis, University of Natal.Google Scholar