| Literature DB >> 34025334 |
Fabio Vogelaar Carlucci1, Stella Vannucci Lemos1, Alexandre Pereira Salgado Junior1, Perla Calil Pongeluppe Wadhy Rebehy1.
Abstract
This study aims to identify explanatory factors to increase the agricultural performance of Brazilian and Australian sugarcane mills. The relevance of Brazil and Australia for the sugar industry motivated the development this study based on the most important factors in both countries responsible for increasing the efficiency in sugarcane production. Thus, this study is designed to assess the hypothesis that there are a few explanatory variables that are deeply responsible for the agricultural efficiency in the sugar-energy sector. As a specific objective, it proposes a DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) model that seeks to optimize the production of Total Recoverable Sugar (TRS) by planted area, and simultaneously, minimizes mineral and vegetable impurities. The sample consists of 82 observations from 32 sugarcane mills. An agricultural efficiency study was performed using the two-stage DEA, in which the evaluated mills according to the level of efficiency in the proposed model. Then, a Multiple Linear Regression Analysis was performed to identify the variables with the greatest influence on the performance of the mills in terms of efficiency. The results revealed six relevant variables for increasing the agricultural performance in the production of sugarcane: rainfall (mm weekly), chopped cane delivery (%), delivery time (h), borer (%), air humidity (%), and rods in raw wine (× 105/mL). Finally, semi-structured interviews with Brazilian and Australian experts in the sugar-energy sector allowed the identification of five other relevant complementary factors that were unavailable in the database: genetic variety, agricultural cultivation activities, edaphoclimatic factors, renewal of sugarcane fields and irrigation system. The results of this study were grouped into the dimensions of environment, yield, and impurities, providing quantification and better understanding of the identified explanatory factors and the agricultural performance in terms of production efficiency, offering fundamental information that enables managers to make decisions and prioritize the aspects that contribute more significantly to the increase in agricultural productivity of the planted area.Entities:
Keywords: Agroindustrial best practices; Bioenergy companies; Efficiency; Renewable energy; Two-stage DEA
Year: 2021 PMID: 34025334 PMCID: PMC8123929 DOI: 10.1007/s10098-021-02105-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clean Technol Environ Policy ISSN: 1618-954X Impact factor: 3.636
Fig. 1DEA model developed for this study
Details of the variables used in the DEA model
| Variable type | Variable name | Variable definition | Theoretical framework |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planted Area (ha) | Represents the total area, measured in hectares, used to plant sugarcane for a DMU in a harvest | (Nothard et al. | |
(Desirable) | TRS (tons) | The Total Recoverable Sugar, measured in tons, represents the capacity of sugarcane to be converted into sugar or alcohol through the production process | (Nothard et al. |
(Undesirable) | Impurities such as dirt, stones and gravels introduced by mechanized harvesting, compromising the production of ethanol and sugar | (Fernandes | |
(Undesirable) | Impurities such as green and dry leaves, stem, weeds, and roots introduced by mechanized harvesting, compromising sugarcane crushing | (Fernandes |
Imputation techniques used for regression analysis variables
| Final product | Processes | Indicators | Imputation technique |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sugar and ethanol | Industry | Location (State) | Multiple Imputation |
| Size (s/m/l) | Multiple imputation | ||
| Field | Rainfall (mm/week) | Multiple imputation | |
| Maximum Temperature of Environment (°C) | Unique imputation | ||
| Minimum Temperature of Environment (°C) | Unique imputation | ||
| Relative humidity (%) | Unique imputation | ||
| Dextran (mg/L Brix) | Unique imputation | ||
| Sugarcane Borer (%) | Unique imputation | ||
| Raw material | Chopped cane delivery (%) | Multiple imputation | |
| Juice extraction | Filter cake (kg) | Multiple imputation | |
| Ethanol | Mud | Rods × 105/mL | Multiple imputation |
Fig. 2Summary of the research methodological procedures
Descriptive analysis of the variables of the DEA model
| Variables | Minimum | Maximum | Average | Standard deviation | Variance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planted area (ha) | 82 | 11,403.28 | 146.779.18 | 43,470.59 | 26,477.86 | 701,077,112.02 |
| TRS (ton) | 82 | 127,350.42 | 958.594.43 | 419,423.64 | 209,978.77 | 44,091,082,850.30 |
| Mineral impurity (ton) | 82 | 8.18 | 181.76 | 46.60 | 32.48 | 1,054.65 |
| Vegetable impurity (ton) | 82 | 1.33 | 16.47 | 5.60 | 3.04 | 9.23 |
Unbalanced panel of DEA scores
| Mills | 12/13 | 13/14 | 14/15 | 15/16 | 16/17 | Mills | 12/13 | 13/14 | 14/15 | 15/16 | 16/17 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 74.56 | 77.76 | 72.61 | 94.13 | 72.10 | 20 | 72.03 | ||||
| 2 | 90.87 | 21 | 99.26 | ||||||||
| 3 | 98.69 | 22 | 66.85 | ||||||||
| 4 | 100.00 | 23 | 85.12 | 80.04 | |||||||
| 5 | 80.23 | 89.36 | 86.68 | 83.05 | 90.70 | 24 | 72.25 | 71.71 | |||
| 6 | 71.79 | 72.39 | 75.59 | 100.00 | 25 | 81.89 | 77.80 | 79.91 | |||
| 7 | 88.08 | 94.31 | 80.70 | 81.83 | 26 | 72.37 | |||||
| 8 | 97.11 | 87.18 | 89.74 | 82.85 | 27 | 100.00 | |||||
| 9 | 69.42 | 28 | 95.95 | 90.17 | |||||||
| 10 | 96.42 | 29 | 83.45 | ||||||||
| 11 | 79.12 | 96.62 | 30 | 87.47 | 91.17 | ||||||
| 12 | 68.26 | 67.77 | 31 | 67.11 | 77.16 | 64.99 | |||||
| 13 | 85.83 | 82.91 | 32 | 68.59 | |||||||
| 14 | 68.27 | 77.71 | 33 | 84.92 | 95.53 | 99.12 | 84.66 | 95.30 | |||
| 15 | 81.65 | 84.43 | 34 | 98.62 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 95.31 | 98.33 | |||
| 16 | 75.77 | 35 | 87.00 | 88.35 | 87.66 | 89.40 | |||||
| 17 | 63.15 | 66.06 | 76.31 | 89.68 | 36 | 78.68 | |||||
| 18 | 100.00 | 37 | 77.35 | ||||||||
| 19 | 93.00 | 38 | 87.00 | 88.35 | 87.66 | 89.40 |
Total potential gain per harvest
| Harvest | Harvest adjustment (US$/kg TRS) | Potential gain (ton TRS) | Financial gain (US$) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012/2013 | 18 | 0.0859* | 1,785,449.70 | 153,483,748.72* |
| 2013/2014 | 22 | 0.0831* | 1,573,379.86 | 130,790,776.72* |
| 2014/2015 | 13 | 0.0866* | 997,541.38 | 86,387,083.50* |
| 2015/2016 | 10 | 0.1009* | 824,324.26 | 83,211,787.11* |
| 2016/2017 | 19 | 0.1243* | 1,248,048.04 | 155,189,100.82* |
*Exchange rate US$ 1 = R$ 5.50 (Brazilian currency)
Total TRS increase potential per quartile
| Mills | Total TRS production (ton) | Potential total TRS production (ton) | Potential increase in Total TRS (ton) | Equivalent percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper Quartile | 20 | 10,413,087.08 | 10,664,519.94 | 251,432.86 | 02 |
| 2nd Quartile | 21 | 9,334,787.49 | 10,600,549.49 | 1,265,762.00 | 14 |
| 3rd Quartile | 21 | 8,189,241.49 | 10,266,232.68 | 2,076,991.19 | 25 |
| Lower Quartile | 20 | 6,455,622.71 | 9,290,179.90 | 2,834,557.19 | 44 |
| Total | 82 | 34,392,738.77 | 40,821,482.01 | 6,428,743.24 | 19 |
Coefficients of the Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
| Model | Unstandardized coeff | Standardized coeff | Sig | Collinear statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Standard error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||
| Constant | 17.958 | 22.74 | 0.432 | |||
| Rainfall (mm/week) | − 0.203 | 0.092 | − 2.44 | 0.030* | 0.831 | 1.204 |
| Chopped cane delivery (%) | 0.414 | 0.116 | 0.405 | 0.001* | 0.783 | 1.277 |
| Sugarcane delivery time (h) | 0.101 | 0.041 | 0.304 | 0.016* | 0.660 | 1.516 |
| Maximum Temperature (ºC) | 0.194 | 0.301 | 0.068 | 0.522 | 0.901 | 1.110 |
| Minimum Temperature (ºC) | 0.641 | 0.705 | 0.112 | 0.366 | 0.656 | 1.525 |
| Air humidity (%) | 0.273 | 0.14 | 0.262 | 0.055** | 0.555 | 1.801 |
| Borer (%) | − 1.156 | 0.708 | − 0.183 | 0.107*** | 0.792 | 1.262 |
| Rods in raw wine (× 105/mL) | 0 | 0 | − 0.132 | 0.213 | 0.904 | 1.106 |
| Dextran (mg/L) | − 0.008 | 0.048 | − 0.020 | 0.866 | 0.686 | 1.457 |
| Size (s/m/l) | − 0.149 | 2.531 | − 0.007 | 0.953 | 0.644 | 1.553 |
| Location (State) | − 1.004 | 0.695 | − 0.174 | 0.153 | 0.690 | 1.450 |
| Filter cake (kg) | 0.092 | 0.12 | 0.093 | 0.442 | 0.688 | 1.454 |
*Significant at 5% level
**Significant at 10% level
***Significant at 11% level
Summary of the results of the quantitative stage
| Variables | Normal distribution | Regression analysis | ANOVA/Mann–Whitney quartile analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rainfall (mm/week) | Yes | * | |
| Chopped cane delivery (%) | No | ** | X |
| Sugarcane delivery time (h) | No | * | |
| Air humidity (%) | No | * | |
| Borer (%) | No | ||
| Rods in raw wine (× 105 / ml) | No | X |
*Significant at 5% level
**Significant at 10% level
***Significant at 11% level
Indicators found with theoretical framework and the opinion of experts
| Relevant variables | Brazilian experts | Australian experts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expert 1 | Expert 2 | Expert 3 | Expert 4 | |
| Rainfall (mm weekly) | Long drought impairs sugarcane growth and sugar concentration | High rainfall influences the amount of TRS in sugarcane | The amount of water at the right times is fundamental to the quality of sugar cane | Each region has different rainfall rates. It is essential to take this aspect into account for increasing productivity |
| Chopped cane delivery (%) | Chopped cane is fresher and has a higher percentage of sugar | The technological advancement of these aspects allows a gain in yield with the increase in the percentage of delivery chopped cane | Current harvesting technology enables time and efficiency gains in the sugarcane production process | The mechanization of sugar cane is a very advanced and mature process in Australia, which allows for gains in productivity and scale. In addition to gaining access to information that enables better management |
| Sugarcane delivery time (h) | Faster cane delivery contributes to fresher cane crushing | Crushing in less time generates gains in the extraction of sugarcane juice | It allows less contamination and gains in the quality of the sugar cane produced | An efficient logistic system allows a better use of the CCS of the harvested sugar cane |
| Air humidity (%) | Humid environments favor sugarcane planting and development | Higher humidity allows a greater amount of TRS from sugarcane | Air humidity allows for gains in productivity. They are more favorable environments for the production of sugar cane | It favors yield in the sprouting of sugar cane. Humid environments are positive for an increase in CCS |
| Rods in raw wine (× 105/mL) | Variable related to contamination of sugarcane in the field and contamination in industrial processes | A shorter time between harvest and crushing minimizes the chances of contamination of the raw material | − | − |
| Borer (%) | It has an impact on sugarcane productivity and juice extraction capacity | It must be controlled through cultural, biological, or chemical control | − | − |
| Agricultural cultivation activities | Cultivation methods that involve fundamental activities for the production of sugarcane, such as planting operations, physical–chemical analysis of the soil, maturing and application of fertilizers | Activities related to percentage of chopped cane delivery and cane delivery time. The operation of a harvester is a step of fundamental importance for the efficient production of sugarcane | There are activities related to the management (operation) of sugarcane cultivation and which contribute to the gain in quality of the culture and increase in productivity | Activities related to the planting of sugar cane that guarantee a healthy plantation and rich in CCS |
| Sugarcane field renewal | The capacity of the producer to renew the cane field reflects in the productivity. It is a financial decision | The decision demands assertive cash flow management and allows great productivity gains if done correctly | Sugarcane renewal is an important stage in the sugarcane production cycle and contributes to productivity | There are several variables related to the sugarcane renewal process. The way the grower develops this process directly influences productivity and CCS |
| Edaphoclimatic factors | Cultivation methods and genetic variety of sugarcane must be in line with the type of soil and the climate. This variable is related to rain, air humidity, and temperature | Agricultural cultivation activities must be in line with soil and climate characteristics | Each region has distinct soil and climate characteristics. Sugarcane production must adapt to these characteristics in order to maximize productivity | Edaphoclimatic factors are decisive in the quality of sugarcane. Constant monitoring and adjustment is essential to maximize production |
| Genetic variety of sugarcane | There are several genetic varieties and the choice depends on some factors such as the type of soil and climate | The decision aims to minimize the proliferation of pests and maximize the productivity of the cane field | The choice of the genetic variety of the planted sugarcane is crucial for productivity | The appropriate genetic variety contributes to combating pests and must be adapted to the region's soil and climate conditions for greater production efficiency |
| Irrigation system | – | – | Failure to perform irrigation when needed leads to serious productivity problems in the field. Thus, the lack of water supply at the right time ends up harming the growth of sugarcane and, consequently, the yield in the ratoon cane | When natural resources are not sufficient to supply the amount of water needed for sugarcane production, the implementation of irrigation systems is essential to guarantee a high performance in sugarcane production |
Fig. 3Division of variables according to the sugarcane production process
Explanatory factors identified in the study
| Variables | DEA Model | Two-stage DEA | Brazilian experts | Australian experts | Benchmark | Medians |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total TRS (ton) | X | X | X | |||
| 1/mineral impurities (ton) | X | X | X | |||
| 1/vegetable impurities (ton) | X | X | X | |||
| Planted area (ha) | X | X | X | |||
| Chopped cane delivery (%) | X | X | X | 99% | 96,47% | |
| Rainfall (mm weekly) | X | X | X | Average of 20,18 mm weekly | 23,48 mm weekly | |
| Sugarcane delivery time (h) | X | X | X | Up to 10 h | 12,50 h | |
| Air humidity (%) | X | X | X | Above 65,26% | 65,67% | |
| Borer (%) | X | X | Below 2,58% | 2,75% | ||
| Rods in raw wine (105/mL) | X | X | Below 47,14 × 105/ml | 123,31 × 105/ml | ||
| Genetic variety of sugarcane | Δ | X | X | Δ | Δ | |
| Agricultural cultivation activities | Δ | X | X | Δ | Δ | |
| Edaphoclimatic factors | Δ | X | X | Δ | Δ | |
| Sugarcane renewal | Δ | X | X | Δ | Δ | |
| Irrigation system | Δ | X | Δ | Δ |
X–Variables analyzed in each phase
Δ–Variables identified in the qualitative stage