Otávio Cavalett, Mateus Ferreira Chagas, Nina Rosa Erguy, Eduardo
Toshio Sugawara, Terezinha F. Cardoso, Antonio Bonomi
Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory, Brazilian Center of Research in
Energy and Materials (CTBE/CNPEM)
Sugarcane Life Cycle Inventory
Technological Assessment Program
2012
2
Sugarcane Life Cycle Inventory
Summary
Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6
2 System Characterization ....................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Planting........................................................................................................................ 10
2.2 Cultivation ................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Harvesting ................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Sugarcane yield ........................................................................................................... 14
3 Raw materials and auxiliaries .............................................................................................. 15
3.1 Fertilizers ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Soil correctors and industrial residues ........................................................................ 16
3.3 Agrochemicals ............................................................................................................. 17
3.4 Diesel and machinery usage ........................................................................................ 17
3.5 Sugarcane transport .................................................................................................... 18
3.6 Sugarcane inputs transportation................................................................................. 20
3.7 Vinasse distribution and application auxiliary inventories ......................................... 21
4 Natural resources ................................................................................................................ 24
4.1 Land use ...................................................................................................................... 24
4.2 CO2-uptake and biomass energy ................................................................................. 24
5 Emissions to air ................................................................................................................... 24
5.1 Diesel use in agricultural machinery ........................................................................... 24
5.2 Chemical fertilizers ...................................................................................................... 25
5.3 Limestone .................................................................................................................... 26
5.4 Returned industrial residues (vinasse, filter cake and ash) ........................................ 26
5.5 Trash burning .............................................................................................................. 27
5.6 Unburned trash ........................................................................................................... 27
2012
3
5.7 Root system ................................................................................................................. 27
5.8 Emissions from land use change ................................................................................. 27
6 Emissions to water .............................................................................................................. 29
6.1 Chemical fertilizers ...................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Agrochemicals ............................................................................................................. 29
7 Emissions to soil .................................................................................................................. 29
7.1 Agricultural machinery ................................................................................................ 29
7.2 Agrochemicals ............................................................................................................. 29
7.3 Chemical fertilizers ...................................................................................................... 30
8 Life cycle inventory of the sugarcane production system................................................... 32
9 Final remarks ....................................................................................................................... 34
10 References ....................................................................................................................... 35
2012
4
Tables
Table 1: Average sugarcane chemical composition ...................................................................... 7
Table 2: Sugarcane production in Brazil in 2010 ........................................................................... 8
Table 3: Pre planting operations ................................................................................................. 10
Table 4: Soil preparation for planting ......................................................................................... 10
Table 5: Planting operations ....................................................................................................... 11
Table 6: Planting system characterization .................................................................................. 12
Table 7: Operations for sugarcane plant and ratoon cultivation ................................................ 12
Table 8: Harvesting operations ................................................................................................... 13
Table 9: Harvesting system characterization .............................................................................. 14
Table 10: Sugarcane yields .......................................................................................................... 14
Table 11: Average recommended amount of nutrients for the different sugarcane stages ...... 15
Table 12: Amount of used fertilizers in terms of the total production area ............................... 15
Table 13: Composition of fertilizers ............................................................................................ 16
Table 14: Application of limestone, gypsum and industrial returned residues .......................... 16
Table 15: Agrochemicals application rates for the sugarcane production system. .................... 17
Table 16: Summary of diesel and machinery consumption in mechanized agricultural
operations ................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 17: Sugarcane transport capacity according to harvest system........................................ 19
Table 18: Sugarcane transport system ........................................................................................ 20
Table 19: Transport distances of the main agricultural inputs ................................................... 20
Table 20: Brazilian production and importation of mineral fertilizers........................................ 21
Table 21: Transport of agricultural inputs considered in this study ........................................... 21
Table 22: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse storage tank ........................................................ 22
Table 23: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse pumping system.................................................. 22
Table 24: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse transport channel ............................................... 22
Table 25: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse aspersion system ................................................ 23
Table 26: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse pumping and storage system operation ............. 23
Table 27: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse aspersion system operation ............................... 23
Table 28: Amounts of land use for the cultivation of sugarcane ................................................ 24
Table 29: Emission factors for diesel combustion in agricultural machinery ............................. 25
Table 30: Airborne emission factors from chemical fertilizers use ............................................. 26
Table 31: Nitrogen content and dinitrogen emission factors of industrial residues .................. 26
Table 32: Emissions factors from the straw burning in the field ................................................ 27
Table 33: Parameters defined for calculation of carbon dioxide emissions from land use change
in the European Commission model ........................................................................................... 28
Table 34: Soil emission factors for tire degradation in agricultural machinery .......................... 29
Table 35: Heavy metal content of Brazilian agricultural products (in mg per kg of input) ......... 30
Table 36: Heavy metal content of imported agricultural products (in mg per kg of input) ....... 31
Table 37: Heavy metal emissions to soil (mg.ha-1) ...................................................................... 31
Table 38: Life cycle inventory of Sugarcane/ CTBE BR U ............................................................. 32
2012
5
Figures
Figure 1. Sugarcane plant parts ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Simplified characterization of sugarcane production area ............................................ 9
Figure 3: Design of a Romeu e Julieta truck ................................................................................ 18
Figure 4: Design of a Treminhão truck ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 5: Design of a Rodotrem truck .......................................................................................... 19
2012
6
1 Introduction
Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is a tropical plant from the family Poaceae. It was the
first crop introduced in Brazil in the sixteenth century. Today, commercial sugarcane
production can be found in almost all states, in different soil types (EMBRAPA, 1997).
According to FAO (2010) Brazil is considered the largest sugarcane producing country in the
world with a harvested area of 8,598,440 ha in 2009.
Sugarcane is comprised by stalks, tops and leaves. Tops and leaves are frequently called as
trash or straw. Sugarcane plant is represented in Figure 1. In the process the focus is on the
stalks, because it concentrates most of sugarcane sugar.
Figure 1. Sugarcane plant parts
The soil properties influences the quality of the juice extracted from sugarcane. Lower yields
and lower quality of the juice (measured as sucrose content) are achieved on acid soils.
Generally sugarcane can be cultivated at a pH values from 4 to 9 (FAGERIA et al., 1997), but
the optimum is around 6.5 (EMBRAPA, 2007). So, to achieve high productivity, the best soils
are the ones with good water retention, good ventilation and high fertility. The climate also
influences on this optimal growing, so it must be tropical (hot and wet), with temperature
between 19 and 32°C and annual precipitation above 1000 mm. Taking this into consideration,
the sugarcane composition parameters such as fiber, sugar and water content, can vary from
season, region, specie, among several other factors (EMBRAPA, 2007). The sugarcane
composition considered in this inventory is shown in Table 1.
2012
7
Table 1: Average sugarcane chemical composition
Component Average content
(wt %) Component
Average content (wt %)
Water 74.50
Ashes 0.50
Sugars 14.00
SIO2 0.25
Sucrose 12.50
K2O 0.12
Glucose 0.90
P2O5 0.07
Fructose 0.60
CaO 0.02
Fibers 10.00
SO3 0.02
Cellulose 5.50
Na2O 0.01
Lignin 2.00
MgO 0.01
Hemicellulose 2.00
Cl Trace
Gums 0.50
Fe2O3 Trace
Nitrogen compounds 0.4
Fats and waxes 0.20
Amino acids (aspartic acid) 0.2
Gums and others 0.20
Albuminoids 0.12
Other acids 0.12
Amides (asparagine) 0.07
Free acids 0.80
Nitric acid 0.01
Ammonium Trace
Reference: CAMARGO (1990).
This report describes the sugarcane Life Cycle Inventory considering the main characteristics of
sugarcane production in São Paulo state since this region is the largest sugarcane producer in
Brazil, as shown in Table 2.
2012
8
Table 2: Sugarcane production in Brazil in 2010
Region/state Sugarcane harvested (in 1000 kg) Percentage of total
North 2,570.6 0.45
Rondônia (RO) 179.4 0.03
Acre (AC) 52.6 0.01
Amazonas (AM) 280.3 0.05
Pará (PA) 691.4 0.12
Tocantins (TO) 1,366.9 0.24
Northeast 67,520 11.82
Maranhão (MA) 2,349.8 0.41
Piauí (PI) 982.9 0.17
Ceará (CE) 239.7 0.04
Rio Grande do Norte (RN) 3,208.5 0.56
Paraíba (PB) 6,506 1.14
Pernambuco (PE) 18,430.1 3.23
Alagoas (AL) 29,835.9 5.22
Sergipe (SE) 2,459.2 0.43
Bahia (BA) 3,507.9 0.61
Centre 95,566.1 16.72
Mato Grosso (MT) 13,545.9 2.37
Mato Grosso do Sul (MS) 33,988.1 5.95
Goiás (GO) 48,032.1 8.40
Southeast 364,212.5 63.73
Minas Gerais (MG) 49,909.1 8.73
Espírito Santo (ES) 4,164.7 0.73
Rio de Janeiro (RJ) 2,065.5 0.36
São Paulo (SP) 308,073.2 53.91
South 41,601.8 7.28
Paraná (PR) 41,516.8 7.26
Rio Grande do Sul (RS) 85.6 0.01
North / Northeast 70,090.6 12.26
Centre / South / Southeast 501,380.4 87.74
Brazil 571,471 100.00
Reference: CONAB (2011).
2 System Characterization
The Functional Unit for this inventory is one hectare of sugarcane crop. The system includes all
the agricultural operations related to sugarcane production process. For each process it was
considered the consumption of raw materials, energy, infrastructure, and land use. It also
includes the transport of the raw materials from regional storage to field and the transport of
sugarcane from field to mill. Emissions to air, water and soil related to these operations are
also accounted for. Figure 2 shows a simplified sugarcane production area characterization.
Values inside larger boxes mean the percentage of the total area where they occur. This
2012
9
percentage is used to correct the flows to the fraction of the total area that the operation
actually occurs. A brief description of main sugarcane production agricultural phases is also
provided.
Figure 2: Simplified characterization of sugarcane production area
Pre-planting
Expantion
24.2 %
Reform
75.8 %
22.8 %
Cultivation 100 %
Setts growing
3.5 %
Ratoon
77.2 %
Plant cane
19.3 %
Vinasse application
51.8 %
Harvesting 100 %
Burned
25.4 %
Mechanized
82.4 %
Manual
17.6 %
Unburned
74.6 %
Setts harvesting
3.5 %
Transport
Romeu e Julieta
6.2 %
Distance
32.3 km
Rodotrem
93.8 %
Planting
Filter cake application
58.0 %
Ash application
43.5 %
Mechanized
10.0 %
Semi-mechanized
90.0 %
22.8 %
Sugarcane harvesting
96.5 %
100 %
Chemical
fertilizers
Agrochemicals
Diesel
Agricultural
machinary
Vinasse
Filter cake
Ashes
Lime and Gypsum
Setts planting
15.4 %
Sugarcane planting
84.6 %
2012
10
2.1 Planting
The planting of sugarcane occurs when a new production area is required or for reforming
existing sugarcane field when productivity is low (generally after 5 or 6 harvesting seasons).
Because of that, planting occurs in roundly 20 % of total sugarcane area. It was considered also
planting for setts production; and therefore, the percentage of total area for planting adopted
in this study is 22.8 %, as shown in Figure 2.
As listed in Table 3, a set of pre planting operations are necessary in order to adapt the land for
a new cycle of sugarcane cultivation and they depend on the previous land occupation.
Planting in new areas (areas not previously occupied with sugarcane) is referred as “Planting in
expansion area” and planting in existent areas (reform of existing sugarcane field) is referred
as “Planting in reform area”.
Table 3: Pre planting operations
Agricultural operations Percentage of total area where this operation occurs
Planting in expansion area Roads construction 5.5% Terraces construction 5.5% Systematization of the area 5.5% Planting in reform area
Old ratoon elimination 17.3% Ratoon elimination (harrowing) 17.3% Roads construction 17.3%
To prepare the soil for sugarcane planting the most common agricultural operations are
subsoiling, harrowing, land leveling and application of limestone and gypsum to correct soil
acidity. All these operations are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Soil preparation for planting
Soil preparation Percentage of total area where this operation occurs
Roads maintenance 100.0% Harrowing 22.8% Subsoiling 22.8% Land leveling 22.8% Soil analysis 22.8% Limestone application 22.8% Gypsum application 22.8%
The planting operation is mainly performed in two ways: semi-mechanized or mechanized.
These agricultural operations are listed on Table 5.
2012
11
Table 5: Planting operations
Type of Planting/Agricultural operations Percentage of total area where this operation occurs
Semi-mechanized planting Furrow opening 20.5%
Chemical fertilizer application 20.5% Filter cake mud and ashes application 10.1% Sugarcane setts distribution 20.5% Sugarcane setts cutting 20.5% Furrow closing 20.5% Agrochemicals application 20.5% Planting supervision 20.5% Mechanized planting
Discharging setts in the mechanical planter 2.28% Mechanized planting 2.28%
Furrow opening 2.28% Chemical fertilizer application 2.28% Filter cake mud and ashes application 1.12% Sugarcane setts distribution 2.28% Furrow closing 2.28%
Agrochemicals application 2.28% Planting supervision 2.28%
The semi-mechanized planting starts with furrow opening along with chemical fertilizer (urea
and/or NPK formulates) application in variable amounts depending on crop needs and their
availability in the soil (diagnosed by previous soil fertility analysis). Filter cake mud (residue
from industrial process rich in carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, and other nutrients) and ashes
(residue of sugarcane bagasse burned in industrial boiler, rich in silica and calcium) are
normally applied along with fertilizer in the planting operation. The sugarcane setts are
harvested and then transported from the nursery to the agricultural area. The sugarcane setts
distribution in the furrow and cutting of stalks is done manually. The furrow opening and
closing is performed in a mechanical operation. Closing operation is also a mechanical
operation usually coupled with application of insecticide, nematicide and micronutrients.
In the mechanized planting, the collection of sugarcane setts is performed with an adapted
mechanical harvester (rubberized coating of some internal parts). The sugarcane setts are
transported and discharged in the mechanical planter that can be self-propelled or tractor
driven. These planters perform various operations including furrow opening, fertilization,
application of filtercake mud, distribution of setts, application of agrochemicals and furrow
closing.
It was considered that setts required for semi-mechanized planting are manually harvested
and, for mechanized planting, they are mechanically harvested.
Table 6 presents data for planting system characterization adopted in this life cycle inventory.
Percentage values refer to total planting area only. More setts are used in the semi-
mechanized planting to try to avoid the problem of uneven setts distribution in the furrow.
2012
12
Table 6: Planting system characterization
Planting system parameters Value Unit
Planting type a
Semi-mechanized planting 90.0 %
Mechanized planting 10.0 %
Planting area b
Planting in new (expansion) area 24.2 %
Planting in existent (reform) area 75.8 %
Amount of setts c
Setts for semi-mechanized planting 12.0 tsetts ha -1
Setts for mechanized planting 20.0 tsetts ha -1 a
Estimated based information provided by experts;
b Estimated according to CONAB(2012);
c Based on CONAB (2011).
2.2 Cultivation
Although there are different agricultural practices for cane plant and ratoon cultivation, the
main operations at this stage are: agricultural pests monitoring and control, technological pre-
analysis of sugarcane and fertilization. The typical inputs are agrochemicals, fertilizers and
vinasse (liquid residue from ethanol distillation process, rich in potassium, that is deposed in
the field in order to recycle nutrients). Herbicides are applied on the soil between the rows to
control weeds. In some cases, the use of insecticides is also necessary. Fertilization of ratoon is
usually performed through triple operation (subsoiling, harrowing, fertilizing), or applied over
the straw. Multiple combinations of NPK can be used depending on the recommended dose.
Agrochemicals, fertilizers and vinasse spread operations are described further in this report.
Operations for cultivation of sugarcane plant and ratoon are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Operations for sugarcane plant and ratoon cultivation
Cultivation Percentage of total area where this operation occurs
Cane plant cultivation Agricultural pests monitoring and control 22.81% Agrochemicals application 22.81% Technological pre-analysis of sugarcane 22.81% Cultivator land leveler 22.81% Manual mowing 22.81% Ratoon cultivation
Straw windrowing 58.69% Manual mowing repass 77.19% Agricultural pests monitoring and control 77.19% Agrochemicals application 77.19% Technological pre-analysis of sugarcane 77.19% Fertilization of ratoon - burned sugarcane 8.92% Chemical fertilizer application over the straw - unburned sugarcane 28.28% Vinasse spreading 51.81% Growth regulator application 77.19%
2012
13
2.3 Harvesting
Harvesting of sugarcane can be manual or mechanized, with or without pre harvest burning.
Manual harvesting is usually preceded by the operation of burning the sugarcane field, which
requires preparation with firebreaks and monitoring the operation to prevent fire from
spreading into other areas. The practice of pre harvesting burning increases the efficiency of
manual cutting and it is a common practice in almost all countries where sugarcane is
cultivated. The manual harvesting operation requires intensive manpower use.
There are several problems related to the sugarcane burning such as: loses in stalks sugar
content of about 3%; emissions of CH4, CO, particulates, and several other negative effects on
the flora, fauna and human health. Due these problems and other environmental, social and
economic aspects, there are ongoing burning phase out programs in the main sugarcane-
growing regions in Brazil, with the gradual replacement of manual harvest with burning by
mechanized harvest without burning (e.g. State of São Paulo Law No. 11241). Slope is one of
the limiting factors for harvesting sugarcane mechanically. In São Paulo State, the largest
sugarcane producer, pre-harvest burning is expected to cease in all areas suitable for
mechanical harvest by 2021 by state law, but a voluntary sugarcane industry program has set
2014 as a target year for phasing out pre-harvest burning in those areas (ESTADO DE SÃO
PAULO, 2002).
Mechanical harvesting presents higher efficiency than manual harvesting and it is currently
used in areas with slopes up to 12%. It is an intensive operation in machinery and fuel use in
comparison to manual harvesting. However, this operation does not require pre-harvest
burning operation. Although, mechanical harvesting of burned sugarcane have been practiced
in some areas. Harvesting operations are synthetically presented on Table 8 according to the
two main harvesting systems. Table 9 presents the average values for each harvesting system
in São Paulo in the 2011/2012 season.
Table 8: Harvesting operations
Harvesting Percentage of total area where this operation occurs
Manual harvesting Construction of firebreaks 13.95% Sugarcane field burning 13.95% Manual harvesting 15.24% Manual harvesting of setts 3.16% Loading 15.24% In-field transporter 15.24% Mechanized harvesting
Mechanized harvesting 81.24% In-field transporter 81.24% Mechanized harvesting of setts 0.35%
2012
14
Table 9: Harvesting system characterization
Harvesting Value Unit
Harvesting type
Manual harvesting 17.6 %
Mechanized harvesting 82.4 %
Burning
Area with pre harvesting burning in manual harvesting area 91.5 %
Area with pre harvesting burning in mechanized harvesting area 11.3 % The values represent the mean observed in sugarcane sector in São Paulo State in the 2011/2012 season (IDEA,
2012).
2.4 Sugarcane yield
The sugarcane yield adopted in this inventory is related to the harvested stalks from one
hectare of sugarcane. According to IDEA (2012), the average sugarcane yield in São Paulo state
in 2011/2012 harvesting season was 70.3 Mg ha-1 year-1. Losses during harvesting decrease the
real productivity. Considering average losses in manual and mechanized harvesting, real yield
is 71.4 Mg ha-1 year-1. Table 10 shows sugarcane yields used on this study.
Table 10: Sugarcane yields
Parameter Value Unit
Observed productivity of sugarcane (harvested) 70.3 Mg ha-1 y-1
Losses in manual harvesting 1.35 %
Losses in mechanized harvesting 1.52 %
Real productivity of sugarcane (in field) 71.4 Mg ha-1 y-1
Reference: IDEA, (2012).The values represent the mean observed yields in sugarcane sector in São Paulo
State, for 2011/2012 harvesting season.
Each tonne of sugarcane stalks produces also about 140 kg of straw (dry basis) as leaves and
tops (HASSUANI et al., 2005). Considering the average humidity of 15% this number is 164.7 kg
per tonne of sugarcane (wet basis). Using the São Paulo state average sugarcane yield of 70.3
Mg ha-1 year-1 from IDEA (2012), the amount of sugarcane straw produced per hectare is
around 11.75 tonnes. According to the fraction of area with pre harvesting burning indicated in
Table 9, it was calculated that 2.99 tonnes of sugarcane straw are burned per hectare. The
other part, about 8.77 tonnes per hectare is left in the field.
2012
15
3 Raw materials and auxiliaries
3.1 Fertilizers
Table 11 shows fertilizer application in sugarcane production system. Values are presented in
function of the main nutrients (N, P2O5 or K2O) in fertilizer composition, according to the
sugarcane production stage and its characteristics. These amounts were based on average
experts’ recommendation for sugarcane culture. Fertilizer application must be detailed and
adjusted according to the fraction area for each production stage in terms of total area.
Table 11: Average recommended amount of nutrients for the different sugarcane stages
Sugarcane production stage Fertilizers (kg ha-1 y-1)
N P (as P2O5) K (as K2O)
Plant cane 30 150 150 Ratoon with pre-harvesting burning 100 0 100 Ratoon without pre-harvesting burning 100 0 150 Ratoon with vinasse application 67.5 0 0
In Table 12 the amount of nutrients is grouped according to the type of fertilizer applied and
given in function of the total sugarcane area. Share of fertilizer used in sugarcane culture
according to their main nutrients are based on information from 13 sugarcane mills given by
SEABRA et al. (2011) and rechecked by experts.
Table 12: Amount of used fertilizers in terms of the total production area
Fertilizer Application Unit
Ammonia 7.61 kg ha-1 y-1
Urea 140.6 kg ha-1 y-1
Ammonium nitrate 26.2 kg ha-1 y-1
Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) 6.41 kg ha-1 y-1
Simple superphosphate (SSP) 173.0 kg ha-1 y-1
Potassium chloride 130.8 kg ha-1 y-1
In Table 13 it is shown the average composition of Brazilian chemical fertilizer, in terms of their
macronutrients, according to FERTIPAR (2012). This composition is used to describe fertilizers
presented in Table 12 according to their N, P2O5 or K2O content.
2012
16
Table 13: Composition of fertilizers
Fertilizer Composition (% w/w)
N P K S Ca Mg Cl
Ammonia 82.4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Urea 45 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ammonium nitrate 34 0 0 0 0 0 0
Monoammonium phosphate 9 48 0 0 0 0 0
Single superphosphate 0 18 0 8 16 0 0
Potassium chloride 0 0 58 0 0 0 45
Note: based on FERTIPAR (2012).
3.2 Soil correctors and industrial residues
Due to soil characteristics in São Paulo state (such as low base saturation and acidity),
limestone is applied to correct soil acidity, increase saturation bases and eliminate aluminum
toxicity. The amount of limestone and gypsum application will vary depending on soil chemical
properties, and it is normally done before sugarcane planting.
Industrial residues of sugar and ethanol production processes are normally recycled and used
as nutrient source in sugarcane production system. Filter cake mud and ashes from bagasse
burning in industrial boilers are used in planting area. Vinasse is spread in the field normally
during ratoon cultivation.
The area covered with industrial residues depends on their industrial production amount and
application rate; average values considered in this study are 58.0% of planting area with filter
cake mud application, 43.5% of planting area with ashes application and 51.8% of cultivation
area with vinasse application. Table 14 presents a summary of the application rates of
industrial residues, limestone and gypsum. Values presented are the mean recommended
application rates according to information provided by experts. The fraction of total area that
receives each input is also presented.
Table 14: Application of limestone, gypsum and industrial returned residues
Limestone, gypsum and returned residues
Recommended application rate (kg ha-1 year-1)
Application area (% of total sugarcane area)
Limestone 2,000 22.8%
Gypsum 1,000 22.8%
Filter cake 5,000a 11.2%
Ashes 5,000a 8.4%
Vinasse 100 51.8% a dry basis
2012
17
3.3 Agrochemicals
Agrochemicals used in sugarcane production system were determined according to
information provided by experts. The application rates of different active principles are
presented in Table 15.
Table 15: Agrochemicals application rates for the sugarcane production system.
Active principle Application rate (kg ha-1 year-1)
Planting Reform Plant cane Ratoon
Fipronil 0.20 - - -
Carbofuran 2.10 - - -
Glyphosate - 1.30 - -
Tebuthiurom - - 0.50 -
Hexazinone - - 0.14 -
Diuron - - 0.49 -
Imazapic - - - 0.175
Trinexapac-ethyl - - 0.125 0.125
In Brazil, the PORTARIA 329, from September 2nd 1985, from Agriculture Ministry (ANVISA,
1985) prohibited the commercialization, distribution and the use in agriculture, of the
following pesticides: Aldrin, BHC, Toxafeno, DDT, Dodecacloro, Endrin and Heptacloro.
3.4 Diesel and machinery usage
The diesel consumption and machinery use were calculated for each mechanized operation
and they are summarized in Table 16. To obtain those values, all mechanized operations
related to each farm operation were taken into account.
Several factors are considered to calculate the diesel consumption: Agricultural machinery
power, machinery efficiency, specific diesel consumption and time spent for each farm
operation. Agricultural machinery usage was calculated based on their total weight, annual use
and their expected life time. Those factors were adjusted based in literature review and
consultancy to experts.
Table 16: Summary of diesel and machinery consumption in mechanized agricultural operations
Farm process Diesel use Agricultural machinery use (kg ha-1 year-1)
(kg ha-1 y-1) Harvester Tractor Implements
Pre-planting / Soil preparation 14.72 - 0.881 0.225 Planting 8.47 0.0151 0.537 0.295 Cultivation 14.29 - 0.829 0.204 Harvesting 96.08 3.495 5.581 10.927 Total 133.56 3.510 7.828 11.651
2012
18
3.5 Sugarcane transport
The transport distance of sugarcane from farm to the mill considered in this study was
calculated based on the sugarcane production area necessary to a sugarcane mill processing 2
Tg of sugarcane stalks per year. The distance was calculated with the following equation:
Where:
d transport = transport distance of sugarcane (km) f = agglomeration factor A stalks = required area to harvest de stalks (ha) A setts = required area to plant the setts (ha) The agglomeration factor reflects the sugarcane concentration in the area around the mill. According to experts, the value of 0.04 can be adopted as a good approximation for sugarcane production in São Paulo state. Areas for stalk and setts production are calculated based on sugarcane yield and setts required for planting.
Specific lorries are used to transport sugarcane in Brazil. They can be divided into three types:
Romeu e Julieta, Rodotrem and Treminhão. According to the Brazilian national department for
transport infrastructure (DNIT, 2009), these types are characterized by the number and design
of trailers, as well as the length and the weight that they can support.
Romeu e Julieta, with 19.80 m of length and up to 50 tonnes.
Figure 3: Design of a Romeu e Julieta truck
2012
19
Treminhão with seven axes, up to 30 m of length and 63 tonnes.
Figure 4: Design of a Treminhão truck
Rodotrem with 9 axes, up to 30 m of length and 74 tonnes.
Figure 5: Design of a Rodotrem truck
The sugarcane transport loading factor varies according to the harvest system. Manually
harvested sugarcane has a small bulk density, causing smaller transport capacities compared
to mechanically harvested sugarcane, as presented in Table 17.
Table 17: Sugarcane transport capacity according to harvest system
Truck Sugarcane transport capacity (Mg)
Mechanically harvested sugarcane Manually harvested sugarcane
Romeu e Julieta 32 28
Treminhão 50 45
Rodotrem 60 50
Reference: FIGUEIREDO FILHO (2011).
Sugarcane transport trucks’ life spam is about 10 years (FIGUEIREDO FILHO, 2011), and EURO 3
engines were considered. The sugarcane transport system is described in Table 18. The
transported weight was balanced according to each system considered in this inventory.
2012
20
Table 18: Sugarcane transport system
Type of harvest
Type of truck
Transported weight
Distance Transport
(t ha-1 year-1) (km) (tkm ha-1
year-1)
Manual Rodotrem (Lorry >32t) 8.0 32.3 259.7
Romeu e Julieta (Lorry 16-32t) 4.3 32.3 139.8
Mechanized Rodotrem (Lorry >32t) 57.9 32.3 1,865.3
3.6 Sugarcane inputs transportation
In Table 19 are presented the estimated transport distances for the main agricultural inputs in
the sugarcane production system. For the transportation of mineral fertilizers it was
considered both imports and inland transport.
Table 20 presents the share of production and imports of mineral fertilizers in Brazil
(2009/2010). Transport distances have been pondered according to this data to calculate the
transport amounts presented in Table 21 in tonnes-kilometers units (tkm).
Table 19: Transport distances of the main agricultural inputs
Product
Imported National
production
In the production
country (km)a
To Brazil (Santos port) (km)b
In Brazil (from Santos port to
field) (km)c
In Brazil (from plant production
to field (km)c
Ammonia 50 6628 479 469 Urea 50 11679 479 469 Ammonium nitrate 50 11857 479 469 Mono ammonium phosphate
50 10407 479 469
Single superphosphate
50 12287 479 469
Potassium chloride 50 7456 479 469 Limestone - - - 425 Gypsum - - - 2445 Filter cake - - - 32.3 Seeds - - - 30.0 a
according to FRISCHKNECHT and JUNGBLUTH (2007). b distance estimated based on weighted average according to the major exporting countries.
c distance estimated based on weighted average according to the major sugarcane producers
municipalities.
2012
21
Table 20: Brazilian production and importation of mineral fertilizers
Fertilizer National production Imports
Ammonia 78% 22%
Urea 34% 66%
Ammonium nitrate 32% 68%
Monoammonium phosphate 52% 48%
Single superphosphate 95% 5%
Potassium chloride 13% 87%
Source: ANDA (2011).
Table 21: Transport of agricultural inputs considered in this study
Product Lorry 7.5-16 t (tkm)
Lorry 16-32 t (tkm)
Transoceanic freighter (tkm)
Ammonia - 4.0 12.1 Urea - 70.9 1074.3 Ammonium nitrate - 14.2 224.2 Monoammonium phosphate - 3.2 32.0 Single superphosphate - 89.7 116.8 Potassium chloride - 68.4 854.4 Limestone - 194.1 - Gypsum - 557.7 - Filter cake - 18.1 - Seeds 43.8 - -
3.7 Vinasse distribution and application auxiliary inventories
It was assumed that the vinasse is transferred by open channels and by tanker trucks according
to MACEDO et al. (2004):
6% are directly applied by trucks, in the areas near to the mill (average distance of 7
km). Inputs considered are transport of 23.9 tkm by lorry 7.5-16t and slurry spreading
of 3.42 m³ per hectare.
31% are transferred by trucks and directly applied by aspersion system, in the
intermediate areas (average distribution distance of 12 km). Input considered is
Transport of 212.0 tkm by lorry 7.5-16t.
63% are transferred by open channels and distributed by an aspersion system.
The vinasse distribution system in open channels and its application with the system ware
calculated according to ROCHA (2009). The aspersion system lifetime was considered as 20
years.
The distribution system starts with the storage tank in the mill. This tank is made on concrete
and covered with an asphalt layer. The volume considered was 5,400 m3. Its life cycle
inventory is presented in Table 22.
2012
22
Table 22: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse storage tank
Name Value Unit
Products
Vinasse storage tank 1 p
Materials/fuels
Excavation, hydraulic digger 5,876 m³
Concrete, normal, at plant 476 m³
Steel, low alloyed, at plant 36,925 kg
Bitumen sealing V60, at plant 14,040 kg
Transport, lorry 7.5-16t, EURO3 102,952 tkm Data based on ROCHA (2009).
There is also a pumping system that connects the storage tank with two distribution tanks
located on a higher level. These tanks present the same characteristics of the storage tank in
the mill. It was considered that vinasse transport to a higher level uses a centrifugal pumps and
3,520 m of pipes made of stainless steel. In Table 23 is presented the life cycle inventory of this
pumping system.
Table 23: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse pumping system
Name Value Unit
Products
Vinasse pumping to distribution system 1 p
Materials/fuels
Iron-nickel-chromium alloy, at plant 57,989 kg
Transport, lorry 7.5-16t, EURO3 1,160 tkm Data based on ROCHA (2009).
The vinasse is them distributed by gravity by open channels. They are also built with concrete
and covered with asphalt layer. According to ROCHA (2009) each hectare of sugarcane requires
1.035 m of channel. This life cycle inventory is presented in Table 24.
Table 24: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse transport channel
Name Value Unit
Products
Vinasse transport channel 1 km
Materials/fuels
Excavation, hydraulic digger 378 m³
Concrete, normal, at plant 118 m³
Bitumen sealing V60, at plant 8,400 kg
Transport, lorry 7.5-16t, EURO3 11,124 tkm Data based on ROCHA (2009).
The aspersion system assembly consists of pump, coupling pipes, reel, sprinkler and tractor.
This life cycle inventory is showed on Table 25.
2012
23
Table 25: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse aspersion system
Name Value Unit
Products
Vinasse aspersion system 1 p
Materials/fuels
Aluminum, primary, at plant 12,600 kg
Iron-nickel-chromium alloy, at plant 1,800 kg
Steel, low alloyed, at plant 3,516 kg
Polyethylene, LDPE, granulate, at plant 39,729 kg
Tractor, production 24,509 kg
Transport, lorry 7.5-16t, EURO3 1,643 tkm Data based on ROCHA (2009).
Operation of vinasse pumping and aspersion systems requires, respectively, electricity and
diesel to the pumps. Its life cycle inventories are shown in Table 26 for vinasse pumping and
storage system operation and in Table 27 for vinasse aspersion system operation.
Table 26: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse pumping and storage system operation
Name Value Unit
Products
Vinasse pumping and storage system operation 1 m³
Materials/fuels
Electricity, medium voltage, production BR, at grid 0.686 kWh
Vinasse storage tank 1.547∙10-07 p
Vinasse pumping to distribution system 1.031∙10-07 p Data based on ROCHA (2009).
Table 27: Life cycle inventory for the vinasse aspersion system operation
Name Value Unit
Products
Vinasse aspersion system operation 1 m³
Materials/fuels
Diesel, burned in diesel-electric generating set 0.20076 kg
Diesel, at regional storage 0.032205 kg
Vinasse aspersion system 5.156∙10-08 p
Emissions to air
Carbon dioxide, fossil 1.038∙10-01 kg
Dinitrogen monoxide 2.613∙10-06 kg
Methane, fossil 5.776∙10-06 kg
Sulfur dioxide 1.650∙10-04 kg
Particulates, unspecified 5.639∙10-05 kg
Nitrogen oxides 1.224∙10-03 kg
Carbon monoxide, fossil 4.401∙10-07 kg
Hydrocarbons, unspecified 1.169∙10-04 kg Data based on ROCHA (2009).
2012
24
4 Natural resources
4.1 Land use
In Table 28 the accounted amounts of land use are given. The occupation was calculated as
permanent for five and a half years (in a 6 years cycle). Expansion area of sugarcane crop was
based on CONAB (2012).
Table 28: Amounts of land use for the cultivation of sugarcane
Land Use Amount Unit
Expansion area
From pasture 89 %
From annual crop 5 %
From permanent crop 6 %
Occupation and transformation
Occupation, arable, not irrigated 9167 m2 ha-1 y-1
Transformation from pasture 402.9 m2 ha-1 y-1
Transformation from permanent crop 27.16 m2 ha-1 y-1
Transformation from arable land 22.64 m2 ha-1 y-1
Transformation to arable land 452.71 m2 ha-1 y-1
Reference: CONAB (2012).
4.2 CO2-uptake and biomass energy
The uptake of CO2 from sugarcane culture adopted was 653 kgCO2 per tonne of sugarcane
(CGEE, 2008). In terms of the functional unit, it corresponds to 45.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide
per hectare.
5 Emissions to air
The emissions to air were estimated by their source, such as: from diesel, from fertilizers, from
trash burning in the field, from industrial residues used in the field and from limestone.
5.1 Diesel use in agricultural machinery
Emissions from diesel combustion in agricultural machinery were calculated based on
emissions factors by NEMECEK and KAGI, (2007). The emission factor for hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide (fossil) and nitrogen oxides were calculated as an average from different operations
(NEMECEK and KAGI, 2007). These emission factors adopted in this study are presented in
Table 29.
2012
25
Table 29: Emission factors for diesel combustion in agricultural machinery
Emission Emission factor Unit
Carbon dioxide (fossil) 3.12 ∙ 103 g kg-1diesel
Methane (fossil) 1.29 ∙ 10-1 g kg-1diesel
Dinitrogen monoxide 1.20 ∙ 10-1 g kg-1diesel
Ammonia 2.00 ∙ 10-2 g kg-1diesel
Sulfur dioxide 1.01 g kg-1diesel
Benzene 7.30 ∙ 10-3 g kg-1diesel
Cadmium 1.00 ∙ 10-5 g kg-1diesel
Chromium 5.00 ∙ 10-5 g kg-1diesel
Copper 1.70 ∙ 10-3 g kg-1diesel
Nickel 7.00 ∙ 10-5 g kg-1diesel
Selenium 1.00 ∙ 10-5 g kg-1diesel
Zinc 1.00 ∙ 10-3 g kg-1diesel
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.00 ∙ 10-5 g kg-1diesel
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 3.29 ∙ 10-3 g kg-1diesel
Benz(a)-Anthracene a 8.00 ∙ 10-5 g kg-1diesel
Benzo(b)-Fluor-anthracene a 5.00 ∙ 10-5 g kg-1diesel
Chrysene a 2.00 ∙ 10-4 g kg-1diesel
Dibenzo(a,h)-Antracene a 1.00 ∙ 10-5 g kg-1diesel
Fluoranthracene a 4.50 ∙ 10-4 g kg-1diesel
Phenanthrene a 2.50 ∙ 10-3 g kg-1diesel
Hydrocarbons 3.00 g kg-1diesel
Carbon monoxide (fossil) 5.40 g kg-1diesel
Nitrogen oxides 4.25 ∙ 101 g kg-1diesel
a Emissions grouped into Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
5.2 Chemical fertilizers
Ammonia volatilization from urea application in sugarcane fields can reach 50% of total
applied nitrogen, depending on climate conditions and agricultural practices (TRIVELIN and
FRANCO, 2011; COSTA et al., 2003). In this study it was considered that 30% of the total
applied nitrogen as urea is emitted as ammonia in Brazilian conditions of sugarcane
production, instead of the default figure of 10% considered by IPCC (2006).
Other nitrogen fertilizers such as ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, monoammonium
phosphate (MAP) and diammonium phosphate (DAP) have lower volatilization than urea in
Brazilians pH acid soils (TRIVELIN and FRANCO, 2011). For these fertilizers, emissions factor
from NEMECEK and KAGI (2007) were considered: ammonia volatilization of 8% for nitrogen
applied as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate and of 4% for nitrogen applied as MAP
and DAP.
For dinitrogen monoxide emissions it was considered that 1% of the total applied nitrogen,
plus 1% of the nitrogen volatilized as ammonia and plus 0.75% of the nitrogen leached are
2012
26
emitted to air as N2O (IPCC, 2006).As carbon present in urea has a fossil origin, all carbon
content in urea was considered as carbon dioxide emission to air (IPCC, 2006). It was
considered that phosphoric and potassium fertilizers have no emissions to air. Table 30 shows
the emissions factors considered in this study for chemical fertilizers.
Table 30: Airborne emission factors from chemical fertilizers use
Fertilizer Emissions factors (g kg-1
fertilizer)
NH3 N2O CO2
Urea 170 9.83 733
Ammonium nitrate 8.26 5.45 -
Ammonium sulfate 19.43 0.34 -
Monoammonium phosphate 4.37 1.47 -
Diammonium phosphate 8.26 2.78 -
5.3 Limestone
It was considered that all carbon content in limestone is converted into fossil carbon dioxide
emissions to air. It was used the emission factor from IPCC (2006), assuming a carbon content
of 0.13 kg of carbon per kilogram of limestone. It corresponds to 0.48 kg CO2 per kg limestone.
5.4 Returned industrial residues (vinasse, filter cake and ash)
The dinitrogen monoxide emissions from returned industrial residues – vinasse and filter cake
mud – were also considered. The values in Table 31 were based on (IPCC, 2006) which
considers that 1.225% of the total nitrogen present in biomass residues is emitted as N2O. It is
important to observe that no emissions ware considered for ashes application in sugarcane
field. Nitrogen content is 0.36 kg per cubic meter of vinasse and 12.5 kg per tonne of filter cake
(dry basis) (MACEDO, 2005).
Table 31: Nitrogen content and dinitrogen emission factors of industrial residues
Residue Unit Nitrogen content
N2O Emissions kg N
Vinasse m³ 0.36 0.00693 kg N2O/m3 of vinasse
Filter cake mud Mg (db) 12.5 0.241 kg N2O/ tonne of filter cake (db)
Unburned trash Mg (db) 4.77 0.0918 kg N2O/ tonne of unburned trash (db)
2012
27
5.5 Trash burning
The emissions factors from trash burning before harvesting are based on GREET (2010). These
values are given in Table 32. The emission factors are given in kilograms per tonne of
sugarcane straw burnt (dry basis). Calculation of emissions of straw burning takes into account
the amount of straw of 140 kg (db)/tonne of sugarcane, according to SEABRA et al. (2010). The
percentage of the sugarcane area with pre harvesting burning is 24.0% as shown in Table 9.
The total amount of burned trash is 2.818kg ha-1 year-1.
Table 32: Emissions factors from the straw burning in the field
Substance Emission factor (in kg per tonne of trash)
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 7
Carbon monoxide (biogenic) 92
Nitrogen oxides 2.5
Particulates, < 10 μm and > 2.5 μm 7.8
Particulates, < 2.5 μm 3.9
Sulfur dioxide 0.4
Dinitrogen monoxide 0.070
Methane (biogenic) 2.70
5.6 Unburned trash
According to the calculation presented in the section 5.5, the amount of unburned trash is
8.937 kg ha-1 year-1. Emissions of unburned trash are estimated according to IPCC (2006),
considering that 1.225% of nitrogen content is emitted as N2O in the air. The nitrogen content
of unburned trash is 0.477% (dry basis) (FRANCO, 2008).
5.7 Root system
Sugarcane root system is renewed each year by re-growth of ratoon. Emissions of root system
were estimated as 1.225% of root’s nitrogen content is emitted to air as dinitrogen monoxide
according to IPCC (2006). The amount of root system was calculated with a root:shoot ratio of
0.2 (SMITH et al., 2005). The root nitrogen content was considered 0.514% (FRANCO, 2008).
5.8 Emissions from land use change
The carbon dioxide emissions caused by the carbon loss from soil by land use change was
estimated according to EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2009; 2010). The types and percentages of
land use replaced by sugarcane were adopted from CONAB (2012): 89% from pasture; 5% from
annual crop; 6% from permanent crop. The parameters presented in Table 33 were used in the
European Commission model.
2012
28
Table 33: Parameters defined for calculation of carbon dioxide emissions from land use change in the European Commission model
Parameter Sugarcane Pasture Annual crop Permanent crop
Land use type Cropland Grassland Cropland Perennial crop
Climate region Tropical moist Tropical moist Tropical moist Tropical moist
Soil type Low Activity Clay Low Activity Clay Low Activity Clay Low Activity Clay
SOCST (t.ha-1) 47 47 47 47
Management Full-tillage Moderately degraded
No till Full tillage
Input Medium Medium Medium Low
FLU 0.48 1 1 1
FMG 1 0.97 1.22 1
FL 1 1 1 0.92
Cveg (t.ha-1) 5 8.1 0 14.4
Reference: EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2009; 2010).
The carbon stock (CS) in the soil for a land use type (i) is calculated as:
Eq. 1 In tonne of carbon per hectare. From the Eq. 1, the carbon dioxide emission from carbon stock
changes is calculated by Eq. 2:
Eq. 2
In kilograms of carbon dioxide per replaced hectare.
Combining Eq. 2 with the types and percentages of land use replaced by sugarcane considering
the 2010 to 2011 time frame, the emission of carbon dioxide, per hectare replaced, was
calculated as 5.002.54 kg. According to IBGE (2012), the increased area in the last 20 years was
3.37∙106 ha. So, the total of CO2 emissions in this period was estimated as 1.64∙1010 kg.
According to IBGE (2012), the area cultivated with sugarcane in 2011 was 5.84∙106 ha, and the
carbon dioxide emissions per ha was finally estimated as 2.81 Mg ha-1 y-1.
2012
29
6 Emissions to water
6.1 Chemical fertilizers
It was assumed that 5% of the total nitrogen applied as urea or as ammonia leach to
groundwater, being converted into nitrate (TRIVELIN and FRANCO, 2011). Since Brazilians soils
have acid pHs, there is no evidence of potassium, phosphorous or nitrogen (applied as nitrate)
leaching to groundwater.
6.2 Agrochemicals
In this study was considered that 1.5% of applied agrochemicals in sugarcane were emitted to
surface water, via runoff, according to RENOUF et al. (2010). This last study represents the
production of sugarcane at Australia, which is a different environment from what is being
considering in this inventory. However, it was used in this study due lack of specific data for
pesticides emissions from sugarcane production systems in Brazil. Other consideration is that
the remaining amount of pesticides (98.5%) was assumed to be emitted to agricultural soil.
The degradation or the absorption of the pesticides are not being considered, either their
leaching potential or emissions to air.
7 Emissions to soil
7.1 Agricultural machinery
Emissions due to tires degradation by agricultural machinery use were based on NEMECEK and
KAGI (2007). It was considered a tire/machinery weight relation of 0.0275 and the emissions
factors presented in Table 34.
Table 34: Soil emission factors for tire degradation in agricultural machinery
Emission Emission factor Unit
Zink 8.96 g.kg-1tire
Lead 1.456 g.kg-1 tire
Cadmium 0.336 g.kg-1 tire
Reference: NEMECEK and KAGI (2007).
7.2 Agrochemicals
According to section 6.2, 98.5 % of the applied pesticides were assumed to be emissions to
soil.
2012
30
7.3 Chemical fertilizers
The inputs of heavy metal contained in mineral fertilizers, limestone and gypsum were also
assumed to be emissions to soil. For this calculation, the following assumptions were taken:
The harvested sugarcane absorbs a fraction of the total heavy metal input. The other
part goes to the soil;
At the industrial processing plant, heavy metals present in sugarcane might be
incorporated into the outputs (ethanol, sugar, ash, vinasse and filter cake);
Sugar and ethanol contain negligible amounts of heavy metals in their composition
(NEPA, 2011);
Once ashes, vinasse and filter cake are returned in the sugarcane cultivation, the heavy
metal contained in these products are considered emissions to soil;
Considering all the above assumptions, all the heavy metals contained in mineral fertilizers,
limestone and gypsum were considered as emissions to soil.
The heavy metal content in each mineral fertilizer is described in Table 35 and Table 36 for
Brazilian products and for imported fertilizers, respectively. Brazilian national production and
imports are shown in Table 20.
Table 35: Heavy metal content of Brazilian agricultural products (in mg per kg of input)
Input Cd Pb Ni Cu Zn Cr
Ammonia a - - - - - -
Urea a - - - - - -
Ammonium nitrate a - - - - - -
Monoammonium phosphate b
2.5 9 4 12 16 12
Single superphosphate b 3 86 47 27 173 29
Potassium chloride a - - - - - -
Limestone b - - - 6 7 9.9
Gypsum b 0.8 9.9 4.9 10 5 9.9 a RODELLA (2011).
b GABE and RODELLA (1999).
2012
31
Table 36: Heavy metal content of imported agricultural products (in mg per kg of input)
Input Cd Pb Ni Cu Zn Cr
Ammonia 0.172 4.403 14.079 18.245 99.573 6.404
Urea 0.051 1.099 2.001 5.998 43.999 2.001
Ammonium nitrate 0.050 1.900 12.999 6.999 50.001 4.001
Monoamoniumm phosphate
24.634 23.722 48.221 56.746 360.364 282.941
Single superphosphate 10.000 110.001 19.999 23.000 162.000 65.001
Potassium chloride 0.060 5.502 2.100 4.998 46.002 1.998
Reference: NEMECEK and KAGI (2007).
So, after combining the amounts of applied inputs (section 3.1) with the values from Table 35
and Table 36, the heavy metals emissions to soil were calculated as indicated in Table 37.
Table 37: Heavy metal emissions to soil (mg.ha-1
)
Input Cd Pb Ni Cu Zn Cr
Ammonia 0.3 8.0 25.7 33.4 182.0 11.7
Urea 4.7 101.1 184.1 551.7 4,047.2 184.1
Ammonium nitrate 0.9 35.9 245.8 132.3 945.4 75.7
Monoamoniumm phosphate
84.2 103.1 161.8 214.8 1,163.9 911.3
Single superphosphate 636.8 16,575.9 8,677.6 5,094.4 32,781.1 5,854.8
Potassium chloride 5.75 528 201 479 4,410 192
Limestone - - - 2,737.3 3,193.5 4,516.6
Gypsium 182.5 2,258.3 1,117.7 2,281.1 1,140.5 2,258.3
Total 915.15 19,610.3 10,613.7 11,524 47,863.6 14,004.5
2012
32
8 Life cycle inventory of the sugarcane production system
Table 38 summarizes the life cycle inventory for sugarcane production system.
Table 38: Life cycle inventory of Sugarcane/ CTBE BR U
Yield
Sugarcane 70,300.0 kg Product
Inputs
From nature
Occupation, arable, non-irrigated 0.92 ha a
Transformation, from pasture and meadow, extensive 2.19∙10-2 ha
Transformation, from arable, non-irrigated 5.2∙10-3 ha
Transformation, from shrubland, sclerophyllous 2.74∙10-4 ha
Transformation, to arable, non-irrigated 2.74.10-
21.00 ha
From technosphere
Vinasse 56.99 m³ Industrial
waste Filter cake 558.9 kg(dry basis)
Ammonia, as N, at regional storehouse 8.31 kg
Fertilizers
Urea, as N, at regional storehouse 80.572 kg
Ammonium nitrate, as N, at regional storehouse 8.92 kg
Monoammonium phosphate, as P2O5, at regional storehouse
3.08 kg
Monoammonium phosphate, as N, at regional storehouse 0.58 kg
Single superphosphate, as P2O5, at regional storehouse 41.06 kg
Potassium chloride, as K2O, at regional storehouse 74.68 kg Limestone, milled, loose, at plant 456.22 Kg
Gypsum, mineral, at mine 228.11 Kg
Glyphosate, at regional storehouse 0.26 kg
Agro-chemicals
Diuron, at regional storehouse 0.11 kg
Carbofuran, at regional storehouse 0.48 kg Growth regulators, at regional storehouse 0.10 kg Insecticides, at regional storehouse 0.05 kg
Herbicides, at regional storehouse 0.28 kg
Harvester, production 3.51 kg
Machinery Tractor, production 7.83 kg
Agricultural machinery, general, production 11.65 kg
Diesel, at regional storehouse 133.6 kg
Transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO3 139.8 tkm Sugarcane transport Transport, lorry >32t, EURO3 2125.0 tkm
Transport, lorry 7.5-16t, EURO3 43.8 tkm Inputs transport Transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO3 1020.3 tkm
2012
33
Transport, transoceanic freight ship 2313.8 tkm
Transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO3 235.9 tkm Vinasse
transport
Slurry spreading, by vacuum tanker 3.42 m³
Vinasse application
Vinasse transport channel 5.18∙10-5 km Vinasse pumping and storage system operation 35.91 m³
Vinasse aspertion system operation 53.57 m³
Emissions
To air
Carbon dioxide 3.53∙103 kg LUC
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 20.93 kg
Straw burning
Carbon monoxide (biogenic) 275.08 kg
Nitrogen oxides 7.48 kg
Particulates, <10um 23.32 kg
Particulates, <2,5um 11.66 kg
Sulfur dioxide 1.20 kg
Dinitrogen monoxide 0.21 kg
Methane (biogenic) 8.07 kg
Dinitrogen monoxide (Nitrogen fertilizer) 1.92 kg
Fertilizers and waste
Ammonia (Nitrogen fertilizer) 32.0 kg
Carbon dioxide (Urea) 126.6 kg
Carbon dioxide (Lime) 217.46 kg
Dinitrogen monoxide (Vinasse) 0.40 kg
Dinitrogen monoxide (Filtercake) 0.13 kg
Dinitrogen monoxide (Unburned Trash) 0.82 kg
Dinitrogen monoxide (Sugarcane roots) 0.66 kg
Carbon dioxide (fossil) 416.7 kg
Burning of diesel
Methane (fossil) 17.23 g
Dinitrogen monoxide 16.03 g
Ammonia 26.71 g
Sulfur dioxide 134.9 g
Benzene 0.975 g
Cadmium 0.0013 g Chromium 0.0067 g
Copper 0.227 g
Nickel 0.0093 g
Selenium 0.0013 g
Zink 0.134 g
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.004 g
PHA, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 0.439 g
Carbon monoxide (fossil) 712.2 g
Nitrogen oxides 5,676.0 g
NMVOC, non-methane volatile organic compounds 400.7 g
Particulates, < 2.5 μm 1,301.5 g
To water (groundwater)
Nitrate 19.35 kg Fertilizers
To water (river)
2012
34
Carbofuran 7.19∙10-3 kg
Emission of pesticides
Diuron 1.67∙10-3 kg
Fipronil 6.84∙10-4 kg
Glyphosate 3.90∙10-3 kg
Hexazinone 4.86∙10-4 kg
Imazapic 2.03∙10-3 kg Tebuthiuron 1.71∙10-3 kg
Trinexapac-ethyl 1.45∙10-3 kg
To soil
Carbofuran 4.72∙10-1 kg
Emissions of pesticides
Diuron 1.10∙10-1 kg
Fipronil 4.49∙10-2 kg
Glyphosate 2.56∙10-1 kg
Hexazinone 3.19∙10-2 kg
Imazapic 1.33∙10-1 kg
Tebuthiuron 1.12∙10-1 kg
Trinexapac-ethyl 9.50∙10-2 kg
Cadmium 1.05E∙10-3 kg Metal
emission from the use of fertilizers corrective
Copper 1.28∙10-2 kg
Zinc 5.62∙10-2 kg
Lead 2.31∙10-2 kg
Nickel 1.24∙10-2 kg
Chromium 1.53∙10-2 kg
Zinc 25.48 g Emission of tire
(machinery) Lead 4.14 g
Cadmium 0.96 g
9 Final remarks
For further work more studies about transport should be included. Other research should be
done to deepen the knowledge in other areas, such as: previous land uses to the sugarcane
culture and also refined modeling about pesticides emissions to the various compartments.
2012
35
10 References
ANDA, 2011 ANDA, (2011). Associação Nacional para a Difusão de Adubos. Setor de fertilizantes: Anuário estatístico 2010. São Paulo.
ANVISA, 1985 ANVISA, (1985). Agencia Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, Proibição do Aldrin e outros pesticidas, portaria n° 329, 2 de setembro.
CAMARGO, 1990 CAMARGO, C. A., (1990). Conservação de energia na indústria do açúcar e do álcool – Manual de recomendações. São Paulo: IPT.
CGEE, 2008 CGEE, (2008). Bioetanol de cana-de-açúcar: energia para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Org: BNDES e CGEE. Rio de Janeiro: BNDES, 316 p.
CONAB, 2011 CONAB, (2011). Acompanhamento de safra brasileira: cana-de-açúcar, terceiro levantamento, dezembro/2011. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Brasília: CONAB.
CONAB, 2012 CONAB, (2012). Perfil do Setor do Açúcar e do Álcool no Brasil – Edição para a safra 2009/2010. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Brasília: CONAB.
COSTA et al.,2003 COSTA M. C. G., Vitti G. C., Cantarella H., (2003). Volatilização de N-NH3 de fontes nitrogenadas em cana-de-açúcar colhida sem despalha a fogo. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 27: 631-637.
DNIT, 2009 DNIT, (2009). Departamento Nacional de Infraestrutura de Transporte. INSTRUÇÃO DE SERVIÇO/DG N° 09, DE 21 DE JULHO DE 2009.
EMBRAPA, 1997 EMBRAPA, (1997). Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Embrapa Monitoramento por Satélite, CNPM. Agroecologia da cana de açúcar.
EMBRAPA, 2007 EMBRAPA, (2007). Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Pré-produção da Cana-de-açúcar – Características.
ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO, 2002
ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO, (2002). Lei N. 11241, de 19 de setembro de 2002. Dispõe sobre a eliminação do uso do fogo como método despalhador e facilitador do corte de cana-de-açúcar (Vol. 11241, PP. 4): O Governo do Estado de São Paulo.
EUROPEAN COMISSION, 2009
EUROPEAN COMISSION, (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of The European Union.
EUROPEAN COMISSION, 2010
EUROPEAN COMISSION, (2010). Commission Decision of 10 june 2010 on guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC. Official Journal of The European Union.
2012
36
FAGERIA et al., 1997 FAGERIA, N. K., et al., (1997). Growth and Mineral Nutrition of Field Crops, 2 ed., New York: Dekker.
FAO, 2010 FAO, (2010). Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations. Faostats.
FERTIPAR, 2012 FERTIPAR, (2012). Brazilian fertilizers composition.
FIQUEIREDO FILHO, 2011
FIGUEIREDO FILHO, (2011). Os desafios da mecanização em cana-de-açúcar. II Simpósio Paulista de Mecanização em Cana-de-açúcar. UNESP. Jaboticabal.
FRANCO, 2008 FRANCO, H. C. J., (2008). Eficiência agronômica da adubação nitrogenada de cana planta. Tese (Doutorado). Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiros. Universidade de São Paulo. Piracicaba.
FRISCHKNECHT and JUNGBLUTH, 2007
FRISCHKNECHT, R., JUNGBLUTH, N., (2007). Overview and Methodology. Ecoinvent Report N.1. Data v2.0.
GABE and RODELLA, 1999
GABE, U., RODELLA, A. A., (1999). Trace elements in Brazilian agricultural limestones and mineral fertilizers. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 30:5-6, 605-620.
GREET, 2010 GREET, (2010). Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation, version 1.8d,. Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, Illinois, USA.
HASSUANI et al., 2005 HASSUANI, S. J., LEAL, M. R. L. V., MACEDO, I. C., (2005). Biomass Power generation, sugarcane bagasse and trash. PNUD Brasil and Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, Piracicaba.
IBGE, 2012 IBGE, (2012). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (LSPA).
IDEA, 2012 IDEA (2012) Indicadores de Desempenho da Agroindústria Canavieira – Safras 2010/11 e 2011/12. Ribeirão Preto, Brasil.
IPCC, 2006 IPCC, (2006). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Vol. 4 – Agriculture, forestry and other land use, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
MACEDO, 2005 MACEDO I. C., (2005). Sugarcane’s energy – Twelve studies on Brazilian sugarcane agribusiness and its sustainability. Berlendis & Vertecchia: UNICA, São Paulo.
MACEDO et al., 2004 MACEDO, I.C., LEAL, M.R.L.V., SILVA, J.E.A.R., (2004), Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in the production and use of fuel ethanol in Brazil.
NEMECEK and KAGI, 2007
NEMECEK T., KAGI T., (2007). Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems – Data v2.0, Zurich and Dubendorf: 2007.
NEPA, 2011 NEPA, (2011). Tabela Brasileira de Composição de Alimentos – TACO. 4 ed. revisada e ampliada.
2012
37
RENOUF et al., 2010 RENOUF M. A., WEGENER M. K., PAGAN R. J., (2010). Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane production with a focus on sugarcane growing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15: 927-937.
ROCHA, 2009 ROCHA, M., (2009). Uso da análise do ciclo de vida para comparação do desempenho ambiental de quatro alternativas para tratamento da vinhaça. Dissertação (mestrado). Itajubá.
RODELLA, 2011 RODELLA, A. A. (2011). Personal Communication. Retired professor from Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ/USP).
SEABRA et al., 2011 Seabra, J. E. A., Macedo, I. C., Chum, H. L., Faroni, C. E., Sarto, C. A., 2011, Life cycle assessment of Brazilian sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use, Biofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining, DOI: 10.1002/bbb.289.
SEABRA et al., 2010 SEABRA J. E. A., TAO L., CHUM H. L., MACEDO I. C. (2010). A techno-economic evaluation of the effects of centralized cellulosic ethanol and co-products refinery options with sugarcane mill clustering. Biomass Bioenerg 34: 1065-1078.
SMITH et al., 2005 SMITH D. M., INMAN-BAMBER N. G., THOBURN P.J., (2005). Growth and function of the sugarcane root system. Field Crops Res 92: 169-183.
TRIVELIN and FRANCO, 2011
Trivelin P. C. O., Franco H. C. J., (2011). Balanço de nitrogênio de fertilizantes e a sustentabilidade de agrossistemas: o estado da arte e necessidade de pesquisas. Congresso Brasileiro de Ciência do Solo 32.
