Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Energy-economic and life cycle assessment of sugarcane production in

different tillage systems
Hakim Naseri, Mohammad Gholami Parashkoohi*, Iraj Ranjbar,
Davood Mohammad Zamani
Department of Biosystem Engineering, Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sugarcane cultivation areas in the world are mostly done in light and medium texture as well as wet
Received 4 September 2020 conditions. This study investigated energy, environmental and economic indicators for conventional and
Received in revised form conservation tillage methods in sugarcane cultivation in arid and heavy land. Assessing the emission of
9 October 2020
agricultural inputs, improving energy efficiency and controlling costs in sugarcane production are among
Accepted 5 November 2020
Available online 10 November 2020
the concerns of this research. Calculations in sugarcane production were done using four tillage
methods: T1-first-time subsoiler (D8 bulldozer) þ second-time subsoiler (D8 bulldozer) (conventional
operation), T2- Alpego tillage tool, T3- Nardi tillage tool, T4-subsoiler for the first time (D8
Keywords:
Cumulative exergy demand
bulldozer) þ subsoiler five Sheng. Sugarcane energy and economic indices registered. Electricity has the
Economic indices highest amount of energy inputs in the sugarcane production of different tillage systems. This large
Life cycle assessment amount also leads to the release of energy in renewable, biomass, and renewable, water forms. Energy
Sugarcane farms and economic indicators were calculated. The results between the four systems due to low production
Tillage costs showed that the T2 system is more suitable than the others. Economic analysis showed that the
total value and cost of T2 were 2255.55 $ ha1 and 689.60 $ ha1, respectively. Results of environmental
impacts showed the largest emissions were related to marine aquatic ecotoxicity (42830.62 kg 1,4-DB
eq.), abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) (1715.13 MJ) and global warming potential (155.29 kg CO2 eq.) in T1.
The results of cumulative exergy demand showed that the amount of non-renewable, fossil is mainly due
to sugarcane cutting plant for T1 (60.90%), T2 (59.30%), T3 (59.27%) and T4 (56.06%) systems.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction sugarcane is also considered an important source to produce

As a strategic product, sugar has a special place in the country’s
macro-policies. More than 60% of sugar that produces in the world
comes from sugarcane and about 40% is from sugar beet [1]. Sugar
also is the most important product of sugarcane and sugar beet in
Iran. Sugarcane can absorb a lot of solar energy to perform the
biological chemistry process [2]. In general, sugarcane production
system is divided into two categories: plant and ratoon farms. In
planted farms, several operations have been carried out, including
tillage, planting, etc. However, there is no similar operation in
ratoon farms, but only ratooning operations, which include culti-
vating and plowing between the farrows. Overall, cultivated in the
first year are called planted farms, and following farms are called
ratoon farms [3]. In recent years, in some countries such as Brazil,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gholamihassan@yahoo.com (M.G. Parashkoohi).
alcohol that can be used as an alternative to petroleum products [4].
60% of the sugarcane produced in the world belongs to Brazil and
India. China, Thailand, Mexico, Pakistan, Australia, and Iran are
other important countries which produce sugarcane [5,6]. Its global
production was 1,907, 024, 730 tones according to the World Food
Organization (FAO) statistics, reaching 26, 269, 819 ha [1]. Iran, with
its annual production of 8,114,804 tons of 101,191 ha [7].
Depending on the amount of surface area remaining in the soil
surface, several tillage systems can be defined. Conservation tillage
is a tillage system that creates a suitable soil environment for
growing a crop and that conserves soil, water and energy resources
mainly through the reduction in the intensity of tillage, and
retention of plant residues. Conservation tillage systems leave more
than 30% of the soil surface covered with crop residue. This amount
of surface residue cover is considered to be at a level where erosion
is significantly reduced [8]. Reducing wind and soil erosion is one of
the most important benefits of using a reduced tillage system. In

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119252
0360-5442/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al.
this system, a percentage of crop residues are released on the soil
surface and soil contamination is minimized. It means less in-
tensity, shallower depth, and less area disturbed, either in the bed,
field or across the farm. Reducing tillage operations can save time,
reduce costs, labor, energy consumption, and machine traffic.
Conservation tillage systems with a cover of plant residues left on
the soil surface can prevent erosion and improve physical proper-
ties by increasing the organic matter of the soil in the long run. They
can also have a positive effect on increasing crop yield by main-
taining and storing soil moisture for a more extended time [9].
In the developing countries, the crop yield has been increased
mainly due to an increase in the input energy; therefore, more
attention should be paid to energy efficiency and using new en-
ergies in production [10]. Reducing or optimizing energy con-
sumption can help improve yields of sugarcane. Energy, as one of
the most consequential principles in advanced agriculture system,
should be taken into consideration as it relies heavily on fossil fuels.
In agriculture, energy consumption has been enhancing in response
to the finite resources and arable field, technological changes, a
population increase of population and desire a higher modulus of
living [11,12]. The performance of an economy is usually evaluated
in terms of the achievement of economic objectives. These goals
can respond to unpredictable events in the field of economics and
contribute to further growth and development [13].
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool is commonly used to check out
the carbon footprint breakdown. This procedure is described by ISO
14040 and 14,044 [14]. Protecting the environment and its re-
sources is one of the most important aspects of sustainable
development. Excessive use of chemicals and neglect of their
proper use has led to unhealthy agricultural products, environ-
mental pollution and high energy consumption. Therefore, energy
must be used effectively and correctly in all sectors of consumption
in agriculture. Special attention to energy management is necessary
to achieve this goal [15]. LCA, as an environmental management
tool, is generally applied to estimate all direct and indirect GHG
emissions of production systems [16]. Global Warming Potential
(GWP) is one of the main environmental indicators that result from
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Also, an aggregated indicator
such as cumulative exergy demand (CExD) can be the right crite-
rion to depict total exergy removal from nature to provide a product
and identify possibilities for product improvement [17]. The LCA
framework can be used to CExD for each specific process within the
system [18].
Various studies on input-output energy, economic performance
and carbon footprint analysis using LCA tool as a method to man-
ifest the hotspots or environmentally amicable remedies in a chain
of production have been focused universally on global production
of farm crops such as sugarcane in Morocco [19], citrus [20], tomato
[21], and sugarcane in Iran [2,22,23], canola [24], sugar beet in
Turkey [25], sugarcane production [26], saffron [27], plum [28],
sunflower [29], wheat [30,31], soybean [32], maize production [33]
etc.
Nasseri [34] evaluation energy and economical in two different
systems of wheat production (T1: surface irrigation with conven-
tional tillage and T2: sprinkler irrigation with conservation tillage)
was conducted by, the results showed that the energy consumption
in T1 and T2 was 16.36 and 14.07 GJ ha1, respectively. Energy
indices comparison indicated that T1 performed better than T2;
therefore, it can be suggested as an applicable and appropriate
system in semi-arid areas for wheat cultivation.
Mohammadi et al. [15] showed that calculations related to the
environmental effects of summer rice are more than spring rice.
These values were very noticeable in categories acidification, global
warming, eutrophication, water depletion and non-renewable en-
ergy demand. Yodkhum et al. [35] applied the LCA method to
2
Energy 217 (2021) 119252
evaluate the environmental aspect of organic paddy farms in
Thailand. The results indicated that about 83% of GHG emissions
were related to field emissions; results also showed that GHG
emissions of conventional cultivation systems were significantly
higher than the organic cultivation system. Taki et al. [36] analyzed
the environmental effects and energy consumption of wheat pro-
duction in rain-fed and irrigated farms. The results indicated that
rain-fed farms consumed less energy compared to irrigated farms.
Also, LCA results showed that the environmental pollution of irri-
gated farms was lower than rain-fed farms due to higher yield in
hectors. Saber et al. [37] conducted a study on the external aspects
of the environment in various paddy production systems in Iran.
Calculations have shown that diesel fuel has the greatest impact on
forms of energy in agricultural systems (conventional, low external
input and organic systems). Energy consumption can also be
reduced by reducing non-renewable fossil fuels.
Conservation tillage systems can prevent erosion by covering
the plant residue left on the soil surface and improve its physical
properties by increasing the soil’s organic matter in the long run.
They can also have a positive effect on increasing crop yield by
maintaining and storing soil moisture for a more extended of time.
No-tillage has many benefits, include maintaining soil moisture,
increasing soil organic matter, reducing labor costs, reducing soil
compaction and hardness, reducing environmental impact, optimal
nutrition and increasing production. The distinguishing feature of
this paper is that to prove the differences between no-tillage and
conventional tillage, energy, economic and environmental analysis
of sugarcane production has been used. However, by reducing the
movement of agricultural implements on the soil to prevent soil
compaction, it is possible to help reduce energy consumption and
environmental impacts and reduce the cost of sugarcane produc-
tion. By comparing each of the methods discussed in the article and
selecting the best option, this method can be promoted and
developed in the study area to achieve the best farm management
with the most efficiency. Sugarcane is mostly grown in wet and
swampy soils and light or medium texture in the world, and its
evaluation of energy, environmental and economic issues has often
been done in these conditions. However, the study of these factors
in arid climate and heavy lands, the conditions of this study, less
attention has been paid. Therefore, for this crop, evaluation of en-
ergy, environmental and economic indicators of intensive con-
ventional tillage method and conservation tillage methods in arid
climate and heavy lands can be a new.
In order to achieve acceptable performance and determine the
appropriate boundary for the use of inputs in different tillage sys-
tems of sugarcane production, in arid climate and heavy lands, the
following objectives have been considered to help the problems:
 Evaluation of energy use, energy indices, and energy forms with
CExD in different tillage systems.
 Assessment of economic performance in different tillage sys-
tems of sugarcane production.
 LCA of sugarcane production and survey of environmental
pollution in different tillage systems.
 Comparison of analysis energy use, economic performance, and
environmental issue in different tillage systems of sustainability
in sugarcane production.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site and soils of the experimental area
This research was done at Hakim Farabi Sugarcane Agro-
Industrial Company (HFSAIC) in Khuzestan province of Iran,
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Fig. 1. The location of Hakim Farabi Sugarcane Agro-Industrial Company, Khuzestan, Iran.

which is located a latitude from 30 570 to 46 50 North and
longitude from 48 340 to 53 70 East. The long term statistical
weather information of the county indicated that the average
annual rainfall is 202 mm, evaporation is 2985 mm, the monthly
average maximum temperature is 33.4 ; the maximum absolute
temperature is 53.7 and the minimum absolute temperature
is 1.2 [7]. So the area of study is located in a hot and dry climate.
The texture of soil of the land included 24% of sand, 44% of clay and
32% of silt. Then the soil of the area has a heavy texture. Fig. 1 shows
the case study region. Table 1 indicated the soil properties of the
test site extracted from the present study.
2.2. Experimental design and data collection
bulldozer) þ subsoiler five Sheng. Perform pre-leveling operation
with disk and leveler, leveling with laser scraper machine, speci-
fying treatments, performing tillage operations for each treatment,
fertilization operation, specifying farm of preparing and writing
this operation, manual cultivation, cutting machine cover, pre-
growing spraying, preparing the irrigation route by the grader,
irrigation and product control against pests and weeds, hilling-up
and fertilizing, and harvesting. The data collected from all agri-
cultural practices, such as the amount of equipment and machinery,
fertilizers, biocides, the yield of sugarcane farms, sugarcane cutting
plant, areas of cultivation land in HFSAIC of different tillage systems
in sugarcane production. The full data amounts is attached in the
appendix.

This design was at S3-24 sugarcane farm with CP-69 variety by
three replications. Each treatment dimension is 80 m wide and
247 m long, with a total of 44 rows and a working width of 1.83 m
(row spacing) and is cultivated with a total area of 2 ha. Therefore,
24 ha are assigned for the 12 existing treatments. Factors in this
study were T1-first-time subsoiler (D8 bulldozer) þ second-time
subsoiler (D8 bulldozer) (conventional operation), T2- Alpego
tillage tool, T3- Nardi tillage tool, T4-subsoiler for the first time (D8
2.3. Evaluating energy implications
Energy, as one of the most critical factors of production, com-
modity, and services required for final consumption has significant
economic effects [38,39]. The energy sector is the primary basis of
development, and the amount of energy consumption plays a vital
role in the industry [40]. The inputs used in the production of
sugarcane in the target area include human labor, machinery

Table 1
Soil properties at 0e30 and 30e60 cm in different tillage systems before starting the experiment (Present study).

Soil properties Treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

0e30 30e60 0e30 30e60 0e30 30e60 0e30 30e60

EC (ds m1) 3.59 3.86 3.74 3.90 3.83 4.05 3.99 4.36
Bulk density (gr cm3) 1.78 1.7 1.74 1.68 1.68 1.64 1.78 1.66
Soil cone index (mg m3) 3.01 2.92 2.83 2.75 2.85 2.82 2.93 2.9
Mean weight diameter (mm) 67 72 45 47 38 36 54 55
Soil profile (cm2) 1775.28 1795.63 2532.25 2636.20 1175 1187 1225.42 1245.32
Organic Carbon (%) 0.18 0.24 0.18 0.24 0.18 0.24 0.18 0.24
pH 8.11 8.00 8.11 8.00 8.11 8.00 8.11 8.00
Ava N (%) 0.74 0.80 0.74 0.80 0.74 0.80 0.74 0.80

3
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Table 2
Energy coefficients and energy inputs-output in various operations of sugarcane production.

Items Unit Energy equivalent (MJ unit1) References

A. Inputs
1. Human labor h 1.96 [41]
2. Machinery kg yra
(a) Tractors and self-propelled implements 9e10 [42]
(b) Harvesters 8e10 [42]
3. Diesel fuel L 56.31 [43]
4. Chemical fertilizers kg
(a) Nitrogen 78.10 [44]
(b) Phosphate (P2O5) 17.40 [44]
5. Biocides kg 250 [20]
6. Electricity kWh 12 [20]
7. Sugarcane cutting plant kg 1.20 [45]
B. Output
1. Sugarcane kg 1.20 [45]
a
The economic life of the machine (year).

Table 3
Energy flow calculations in sugarcane production [46]. Net energy ¼ Output energy ðMJÞ  Input energy ðMJÞ
Indicator Unit Definition (6)
Equivalent energy MJ
Einput ¼ Iconsumption  ecinput (1)

Machinery energy MJ ha1 2.4. Evaluating economic implications

ME ¼ ðG  MP  tÞ = T
(1): Einput is equivalent to consumption inputs, Iconsumption is the amount of input
consumption and ecinput is the energy content of inputs.
(2): G is the total weight of the machine (kg), MP is machine energy (MJ kg1), t is
time machine used per unit area (h ha1), and T is the economic lifetime of the
machine (h).
(tractors and self-propelled implements and harvesters), diesel fuel
(chemical fertilizers, nitrogen, and phosphate), biocides, electricity
and sugarcane cutting plant. Table 2 shows the coefficients for in-
puts and sugarcane. These coefficients can be used to determine the
equivalent amount of energy in four different tillage systems.
Therefore, the equivalent energy of each input and machine
energy were examined. Based on inputs and outputs, calculate their
energy equivalent and energy for machinery and equipment per
hectare is estimated according to Table 3.
To compare different tillage systems, it is necessary to calculate
energy indices, one of the most important measures in the process
of energy analysis [39]. These indicators are; energy use efficiency
(it represents the ratio between the calorific value of the output
products and the total energy expended in the factors of produc-
tion), energy productivity (indicates the amount of product per unit
of energy consumed), specific energy (indicates the amount of
energy consumed per unit of product) and net energy (the differ-
ence between the gross energy produced and the total energy
required to produce), which were calculated from Eqs. (3)e(6) [47].
Output energy ðMJ Þ
Energy use efficiency ¼
Input energy ðMJ Þ
Production ðkgÞ
Energy productivity ¼
Input energy ðMJÞ
Input energy ðMJÞ
Specific energy ¼
Production ðkgÞ
(2)
Energy supply is always costly, so we must pay attention to
energy consumption and its impact on various economic sectors
[48]. Economic analysis for different tillage systems of HFSAIC,
Khuzestan, Iran was examined. Eqs. (7)e(9) for economic indices,
including net return values, benefit to cost ratio and productivity
were calculated [15]. To perform calculations, an Excel-based tool
has been used for economic modeling of various models of the
sugarcane tillage system so that users can analyze the revenues and
expenses related to their sugarcane tillage systems [29,49].
$
Net return ¼ Gross production value
ha
$
 Production costs (7)
ha
 
Gross production value $ ha1
Benefit to cost ratio ¼   (8)
Production costs $ ha1
Yeild ðkgÞ
Productivity ¼ (9)
Production cost ð$ Þ
2.5. Methodological selection for this study
LCA is selected because it can determine the potential envi-
ronmental impacts associated with products and processes
(3) throughout their lifetime [50e52]. LCA is one of the most efficient,
widespread, and integrated methods to demonstrate sustainable
activities and compare strategies to reduce environmental impact
in several sectors [53,54]. LCA goals can be helped by comparing
(4) alternative products, changing processes, and using the right ser-
vices [55,56]. In this regard, attention to resource consumption and
environmental protection can be considered important issues [57].
By evaluating LCA indicators (one-ton sugarcane harvested) can be
(5) counted as GHG emissions, non-renewable energy consumption,
etc. According to ISO 14040 guidelines for performing an LCA of a
product or activity, there are four steps: determining the goal and
4
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al.
scope of action, inventory and system boundary, life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA), and interpreting the results [14]. The study was
carried out in the tillage systems of HFSAIC. Many environmental
issues are the indirect result of energy production and consump-
tion. In the following, the analyzes performed on sugarcane, the
assessment of emission and its effects on water, air and soil are
discussed [2]. In the following, the issues related to the publications
of different categories and their effects on the environment are
discussed [52].
2.5.1. Defining the goal, boundary, FU, and LCI
Goal definition and scoping define the purpose, boundaries of
the system, and functional unit (FU), assumptions of the study. They
are consistent with the intended application of the research [58].
The present study aims to minimize emissions related to environ-
mental categories from the use of inputs to sugarcane harvesting in
different tillage systems. This step involves obtaining data on the
adverse environmental effects associated with the FU [59]. FU is
used to connect the inputs to the product, which measures the
performance of the system [60]. The FU of comparison used here
was one ton of sugarcane production. LCA is a “cradle to grave”
approach, but system boundaries limit the system under study
using and excluding single processes [61]. After defining the
framework of each study, it is necessary to collect sources and
emissions of inputs and outputs to water, air and soil [62]. Fig. 2
shows the system boundary of sugarcane cultivation and the sum
of figures about different tillage systems. The system inputs and
outputs are plotted in a general diagram that forms the boundary of
the system. At the intended border, activities and energy sources
are also visible. The life cycle inventory (LCI) of agricultural pro-
duction systems is an essential prerequisite for LCA [63]. Details of
the inventory analysis data collection steps are provided in Section
Fig. 2. System boundaries of sugarcane production in Hakim Farabi Sugarcane Agro-Industrial Company, Khuzestan, Iran.
5
Energy 217 (2021) 119252
3.3, while consists of emissions related to the consumable input
production. On-farm emissions are related to diesel fuel, chemical
fertilizers, and N2O to air and water. In other words, it is necessary
to pay more attention to the emissions of heavy metals from the
fertilizers used into the soil. There is an On-Farm category, the CO2
emissions from human labor activity into the air. It is obtained by
multiplying 0.7 in the total human activity based on hours [64].
2.5.2. LCIA and CML-IA method
The LCA was performed using the SimaPro software [65,66]. To
solve environmental problems, acceptable factors for greenhouse
gas emissions related to the FU and input of raw materials must be
considered [67]. The scope of application, including the system
boundary and the level of detail in an LCA, depends on the subject
and the intended use in the study. The depth and breadth of LCA
can vary, depending on the specific purpose of the LCA. In this
study, the FU is considered as one ton of product, which means that
all pollutants released are calculated and reported based on the
inputs used to produce one ton of product. So, the results from LCI
were categorized in the different environmental impact categories.
Impacts were assessed following CML-IA method. The CML-IA
method [66] was used to carry out the impact evaluation consid-
ering the following main categories of this study: abiotic depletion
(AD), abiotic depletion of fossil fuels (ADF), global warming po-
tential (GWP), ozone depletion (OD), human toxicity (HT), fresh-
water aquatic ecotoxicity (FE), marine aquatic ecotoxicity (ME),
terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), photochemical oxidation (PO), acidifi-
cation (AC) and eutrophication (EP).
2.5.3. Interpretation of results
In the last stage, the potential environmental effects of sugar-
cane production in the HFSAIC are calculated. The following are the
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

proposed solutions for correcting important environmental points
based on the results of the study.
2.6. CExD approach
Exergy is the energy available for use [68]. Exergy can be
considered as a measure of useful energy, while energy is the ability
to produce motion; in other words, it is the energy of labor or the
ability to produce labor [69]. The CExD index is expressed as the
total exergy of all the resources needed to produce a crop or provide
a service. It is specified in MJ eq. [17]. The CExD index is similar to
the more common index, CExD, except that cumulative energy
demand (CED) measures the quality of energy sources as well as
non-energy sources such as minerals and metals [70]. The CExD
method for LCA was developed following an approach published by
the EcoInvent center [71]. In this study, seven influential groups
have the CExD process. Such as:1) non-renewable, fossil, 2)
renewable, potential, 3) non-renewable, primary, 4) renewable,
biomass, 5) renewable, water, 6) non-renewable, metals, 7) non-
renewable, minerals.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Interpretation of energy and economic analysis
The results of the energy analysis of sugarcane production are
presented in Table 4. The total energy requirement for the T2 sys-
tem of sugarcane production was 122837.02 MJ ha1, which was
less than T3 (23.29%), T4 (25.43%), and T1 (29.22%) systems. These
values were slightly higher than the results calculated by Mrini
et al. [19]. Therefore, identifying proper tillage performance re-
duces energy input. The results of a Slovenian study concluded that
a tillage system consumes 85% less energy than a conventional
tillage system [72]. The results also revealed that machinery and
biocides were the least demanding energy inputs for tillage sys-
tems of sugarcane production. Furthermore, energy needs from
electricity and chemical fertilizers were relatively high. Fumagali
et al. [73] reported that fossil energy ranged from 11.2 to
46.0 GJ ha1, mainly depending on machinery and chemicals. The
results of consumption and comparison between energy inputs in
different tillage systems of sugarcane production are shown in
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively. Electricity has a larger share with
values between 60.57% in the T2 system to 64.11% in the T1 system.
Kaab et al. [2] investigated energy consumption for sugarcane
production in planted and ratoon farms that electricity with 49%
and 55% has the largest share in the total input energy, respectively.
Fuel consumption for land preparation varies with different tillage
machines. Amongst different tillage treatments, T1
(11054.78 MJ ha1) and T4 (8371.61 MJ ha1) had significantly
higher fuel consumption than other treatments. Also, there is a
significant difference between the four systems in the amount of
diesel fuel consumption. Lafond et al. [74] stated that machinery
used in CT1 (conventional tillage) and CT2 leads to higher diesel fuel
consumption. In T1 and T4 systems, the fuel consumption is more
than T3 and T2 systems. The reason for this higher amount is the
increase in operations in these systems. In other words, it can be
said that the lowest consumption of inputs is related to diesel fuel
in system T2. These results are in line with those previously re-
ported by Zarei-Shahamat et al. [75]. On the other hand, nitrogen
(27,335 MJ ha1) from the T1 system presented the highest value.
There is a report on agricultural systems, especially rice fields,
which shows that the fertilizers used are the main inputs [76]. After
chemical fertilizers and electricity, the sugarcane cutting plant in T1
(5.53%), T2 (7.33%), T3 (6.93%) and T4 (6.35%) systems had the largest
share in the input energy consumption in different tillage systems;
but according to the results Taghinezhad et al. [77], the sugarcane
cutting plant for sugarcane production was estimated at 12.2%. The
comparison of different tillage technologies in sugarcane produc-
tion showed that the highest total energy inputs were in the control
treatment T1. The difference in the amounts of nitrogen, phosphate,
biocides, and sugarcane cutting plant in four systems is not sig-
nificant, but in the amount of diesel fuel, machinery, biocides and
human labor consumption are meaningful. However, the T2 system
is in a better position in terms of energy consumption. If we reduce
the difference in the use of nitrogen, phosphate, biocides, and
sugarcane cutting plant, the T2 system becomes even more ideal.
3.2. Energy and economic assessment indicators
The first part of Table 5 analyzes energy and its indicators and
the next part analyzes economic indicators. According to the cal-
culations made in the previous section, T1 system has the lowest
energy output (123,600 MJ ha1) whereas T2 system has the
highest energy output (139,200 MJ ha1) and this was followed by
T3 and T4 systems. These values were slightly lower than the results
calculated by Sundara and Subramanian [78]. So, the high energy
use efficiency in T2 (1.13) and T3 (1.04) were due to low energy input
and higher energy output in these treatments. Ali et al. [79], who
has calculated the effect of tillage on energy efficiency indicators,
stated that energy efficiency increases as the intensity of tillage

Table 4
Average of energy inputs and output in different tillage systems of sugarcane production.

Items Treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

Unit per ha Energy use (MJ ha1) Unit per ha Energy use (MJ ha1) Unit per ha Energy use (MJ ha1) Unit per ha Energy use (MJ ha1)

A. Inputs (unit)
1. Human labor (h) 220.83 432.83 140.37 275.13 160.32 314.23 190.12 372.64
2. Machinery (kg) 420.36 3783.24 226.32 2036.88 302.11 2718.99 380.36 3423.24
3. Diesel fuel (L) 196.32 11054.78 52.30 2945.01 56.89 3203.48 148.67 8371.61
4. Chemical fertilizers (kg)
(a) Nitrogen 350.00 27335.00 350.00 27335.00 350.00 27335.00 350.00 27335.00
(b) Phosphate (P2O5) 300.00 5220.00 300.00 5220.00 300.00 5220.00 300.00 5220.00
5. Biocides (kg) 6.50 1625.00 6.50 1625.00 6.50 1625.00 6.50 1625.00
6. Electricity (kwh) 8700.00 104400.00 6200.00 74400.00 6700.00 80400.00 7200.00 86400.00
7. Sugarcane cutting plant (kg) 7500.00 9000.00 7500.00 9000.00 7500.00 9000.00 7500.00 9000.00
Total energy use (MJ) - 162850.85 - 122837.02 - 129816.69 - 141747.48
B. Output (kg)
1. Sugarcane 103000.00 123600.00 116000.00 139200.00 112000.00 134400.00 106000.00 127200.00

6
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Fig. 3. Shares of energy sources in treatments tillage system of sugarcane production.

Fig. 4. Comparison between energy inputs in different tillage systems of sugarcane production.

7
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Table 5
Energy indices and economic analysis of sugarcane production in different tillage systems.

Items Treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

A. Energy indices (unit)

Energy use efficiency (ratio) 0.76 1.13 1.04 0.90
Energy productivity (kg MJ1) 0.63 0.94 0.86 0.75
Specific energy (MJ kg1) 1.58 1.06 1.16 1.34
Net energy gain (MJ ha1) 39250.85 16362.98 4583.31 14547.48
B. Economic indices
Total value from sugarcane production ($ ha1) 2002.77 2255.55 2177.77 2061.11
Total cost from sugarcane production ($ ha1) 844.20 689.60 735.20 799.50
Net return ($ ha1) 1158.60 1566.00 1442.60 1261.60
Benefit to cost ratio (ratio) 2.40 3.27 2.96 2.57
Productivity (kg $1) 122.00 168.21 152.33 132.57

operations decrease. Energy productivity in T2 (0.94 kg MJ1) and
T3 (0.86 kg MJ1) was higher than the others, but specific energy
values for these two treatments were lower than T1 (1.58 MJ kg1)
and T4 (1.34 MJ kg1). Net energy gain was obtained positive for T2
(16362.98 MJ ha1) and T3 (4583.31 MJ ha1) treatments, while net
energy gain was negative for T1 (39250.85 MJ ha1) and T4
(14547.48 MJ ha1) treatments due to low energy output. The
results are in line with the results reported by some previous
studies [19,80].
From an economic point of view, the results in Table 5 showed
that the total production cost was 689.60 $ ha1 for the T2 system,
which costs less than other systems. The highest costs are related to
the T1 (27.51%) system, followed by T4 (26.05%) and T3 (23.95%)
systems. The results reported by Fathollahi et al. [81] showed that
the total production cost for alfalfa hay was 513.50 $ ha1 more
than the T1 system and 668.10 $ ha1 more than T2 system. Also, the
total cost of producing corn silage is obtained in the same way. It
cost 227.60 $ and 382.20 $ per hectare more than the T1 and T2
system, respectively. Net returns for tillage systems range from
1158.60 $ ha1 to 1566.00 $ ha1. Sugarcane production was more
profitable in T2 because benefit to cost ratio was 3.27, which was
higher than the other results. In other words, we can produce
168.21 kg of sugarcane per dollar in the T2 system. Similar reports of
different products can be found in the literature. For example,
Lawrence et al. [82] showed that no-till had a higher wheat yield
than reduced or conventional tillage. Hart et al. [83] reported that
the no-till system studied increased cotton yield compared to a
conventional system. Fig. 5 shows a comparison of economic
analysis in different tillage systems of sugarcane production. Ac-
cording to this, the amount of rent of land, sugarcane cutting plant,
biocides, phosphate, and nitrogen in all four systems are equal. The
lowest costs are related to electricity, diesel fuel, machinery and
human labor in the T2 system. Economically, the highest net profit
is obtained by reducing fixed and variable costs. The optimal use of
nitrogen, phosphates and biocides will lower product prices and
ultimately economic constancy as well as increase profits in the T2
system. In Thailand, a study was conducted to analyze the input
cost of sugarcane production. The lowest fuel and labor costs were
for minimum tillage treatments (T2 to T4) and no-tillage (T5). Also,
T2 earned better net profit using moderate values performance
[84].
3.3. Interpretation of life cycle analysis
Table 6 shows the LCI estimated resource inputs for sugarcane
production under different tillage systems. As stated in section
2.5.1. The results showed that the amount of CO2 emissions due to
the use of diesel fuel in T1, T4, T3 and T2 systems from maximum to
minimum are about 823.58 kg ha1, 623.68 kg ha1, 238.65 kg ha1
and 219.40 kg ha1. Calculations in the production of sugar beet
showed that total emissions of 1097 kg CO2eq ha1 under conven-
tional tillage on small farms and 826 kg CO2eq ha1 under no-tillage
[85]. On the other hand, human labor emissions into the air for
systems mentioned (T1, T4, T3, and T2) were 154.58 kg CO2 ha1,

Fig. 5. Comparison between economic performance in different tillage systems of sugarcane production.

8
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Table 6
On-Farm emissions for the data in different tillage systems of sugarcane production (FU 1 ha).

Items Treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

1. Emissions by diesel fuel to air (kg)

(a). Carbon dioxide (CO2) 823.58 219.40 238.65 623.68
(b). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 0.26 0.07 0.07 0.20
(c). Methane (CH4) 0.03 0.009 0.009 0.02
(d). Benzene 0.0019 0.0005 0.0005 0.001
(e). Cadmium (Cd) 0.00000 7.03857E-07 7.65E-07 2.00E-06
(f). Chromium (Cr) 0.00001 3.50E-06 3.81E-06 9.96E-06
(g). Copper (Cu) 0.00045 0.00011 0.00013 0.00033
(h). Dinitrogen monoxide (N2O) 0.03 0.008 0.009 0.02
(i). Nickel (Ni) 0.00002 4.91E-06 5.34E-06 1.39E-05
(j). Zink (Zn) 0.00026 7.03E-05 7.65E-05 0.0002
(k). Benzo (a) pyrene 0.00001 2.10E-06 2.29E-06 5.99E-06
(l). Ammonia (NH3) 0.0052 0.001 0.001 0.003
(m). Selenium (Se) 0.000002 7.03E-07 7.65E-07 2.00E-06
(n). PAH (polycyclic hydrocarbons) 0.0008 0.000231183 0.000251473 0.000657171
(o). Hydro carbons (HC, as NMVOC) 0.75 0.20 0.21 0.56
(p). Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 11.71 3.12 3.39 8.87
(q). Carbon monoxide (CO) 1.65 0.44 0.48 1.25
(r). Particulates (b2.5 mm) 1.18 0.31 0.34 0.89
2. Emissions by fertilizers to air (kg)
(a). Ammonia (NH3) 42.50 42.50 42.50 42.50
3. Emissions by fertilizers to water (kg)
(a). Nitrate 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50
(b). Phosphate 6.55 6.55 6.55 6.55
4. Emission by N2O of fertilizers and soil to air (kg)
(a). Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 73.50 73.50 73.50 73.50
5. Emission by human labor to air (kg)
(a). Carbon dioxide (CO2) 154.58 98.25 112.22 133.08
6. Emission by heavy metals of fertilizers to soil (mg)
(a). Cadmium (Cd) 29250.00 29250.00 29250.00 29250.00
(b). Copper (Cu) 71200.00 71200.00 71200.00 71200.00
(c). Zink (Zn) 647950.00 647950.00 647950.00 647950.00
(d). Lead (Pb) 1939350.00 1939350.00 1939350.00 1939350.00
(e). Nickel (Ni) 67915.00 67915.00 67915.00 67915.00
(f). Chromium (Cr) 400765.00 400765.00 400765.00 400765.00
(g). Mercury (Hg) 245.00 245.00 245.00 245.00

133.08 kg CO2 ha1, 112.22 kg CO2 ha1 and 98.25 kg CO2 ha1, 16.4% of the total emission and potassium chloride with 20.4% were
respectively. The emission of fertilizers to air and water in four involved. The total value of emissions was 96.5 kg CO2 eq. per
systems is equal. The highest amount is related to nitrate (46.50 kg), hectare year1 [87]. Accordingly, emissions are reduced by
and the lowest amount is related to phosphate (6.55 kg). The results reducing chemicals and diesel fuel consumption.
obtained in this section were in line with Soltanali et al. [86] results, The values of the environmental impact of sugarcane produc-
which considered diesel fuel and fertilizer as the main cause of high tion are presented in Table 7. The impact categories of ME and AD
field emissions for agricultural products. In a study on the sus- (fossil fuels), sugarcane production release, has the largest share in
tainable strengthening of sugarcane fertilizers, 63.2% (61 kg CO2 eq.) four tillage systems. ME values in T1 (31.34%), T4 (25.46%), T3
was due to the production process and urea. Superphosphate with (22.81%) and T2 (20.37%) systems have reached the highest to the
lowest, respectively. The values obtained for ME in sugarcane
cultivation are close to the values calculated by kaab et al. [2] they
cited ME levels for plant farms (51636.91 kg 1,4-DB eq.) and ratoon
farms (35448.06 kg 1,4-DB eq.) as the most substantial impacts to
Table 7
Values of the environmental impact per ton of sugarcane production in different this section. Also, ADF values in T1 (28.79%), T4 (26.22%), T3 (23.57%)
tillage systems. and T2 (21.39%) systems have reached the highest to the lowest,
respectively. ODP publications are insignificant compared to the
Impact categories Unit Treatments
publications of other categories. LCA model in wheat tillage systems
T1 T2 T3 T4
shows that the performance of no-tillage farm machines is lower
AD kg Sb eq. 0.0007 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 than other systems with ADF and ODP. However, it has more AD
ADF MJ 1715.13 1114.98 1248.27 1393.44 than reduced tillage [88].
GWP kg CO2 eq. 155.29 103.81 115.52 130.47
ODP kg CFC-11 eq. 1.31E-05 8.47E-06 9.41E-06 1.06E-05
Contribution of inputs to environmental impact categories
HT kg 1,4-DB eq. 65.63 44.12 50.82 58.86 indicated in Fig. 6. Environmental emissions resulted from sugar-
FE kg 1,4-DB eq. 16.25 13.98 14.58 15.45 cane cutting plants, agricultural machinery, and the application of
ME kg 1,4-DB eq. 42830.62 31830.64 35073.28 39007.22 nitrogen, especially phosphate. On the other hand, four systems, in
TE kg 1,4-DB eq. 2.73 2.31 2.43 2.58
which there are no biocides, used the chemical fertilizers is related
PO kg C2H4 eq. 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03
AC kg SO2 eq. 1.80 1.44 1.53 1.66 to the effects of AD and ME. These indicators have a great impact on
EP kg P3
4 eq. 0.52 0.44 0.46 0.49 the T2 system, with about 79% and 57%, respectively. Aparecida

9
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al.
Fig. 6. Contribution of inputs to emit environmental impact categories in T1, T2, T3, and T4 treatments of sugarcane production.
Nunes et al. [89] evaluated the highest effect of chemical fertilizers
in TE (55.6%), EP (53%), ME (48%), HT (45.3%) and AP (22.7%) groups.
Venkat [88], showed that 31% of greenhouse gas emissions were
related to the use of nitrogen fertilizer on conventional farms. The
same results were obtained with 40% publications by Aguilera et al.
[89]. The best time to apply fertilizer has a big impact on crop
performance. Using chemical fertilizers at the wrong time may
cause the fertilizer to disappear and even damage the crop. Green
manure is also a good alternative to chemical fertilizers, especially
for nitrogen and soil protection. On-farm emissions have no share
in the AD, ADF, and ODP indices. It has the most impact on EP
(70.19%) and AC (63.46%) indexes of the T2 system, while in T1
system, these indexes have decreased to 69.12% and 59.66%,
respectively. Fathollahi et al. [81] calculated on-farm emissions of
corn silage to EP whose value was equal to 2.73 kg PO4eq t1 (84.3%).
As a result, EP related to releases come from on-farm emissions. The
highest emissions of the T1 system are related to HT and PO with
values of 42.07% and 40.32%. These indicators in T4 system have
doubled by 41.25% and 41.28%, respectively. Agricultural machinery
has the lowest level of pollution in the FE (0.6%) index of the T2
system. However, minimizing the use of agricultural machinery or
using them properly can be effective. As a result, it can be said that
10
Energy 217 (2021) 119252
in the sugarcane production systems where more tillage operations
have been done, the amount of diesel fuel consumption has
reached its maximum. Due to the higher consumption of diesel fuel
based on the greater use of machinery in T1 system, the values of
ODP (7.55%) and ADF (4.48%) had the greatest effects. The effect is
related to the combustion of diesel by agricultural machinery and
the cultivation stage in rice produced under organic and minimal
tillage cultivation systems due to the release of nitrogen oxides
(NOX). The use of new tillage methods such as minimal tillage and
no-tillage are possible ways to reduce diesel fuel consumption and
GHG emissions [89]. These results were the same as Wang and
Dalal [90] calculations that the amount of emissions related to
diesel fuel consumption was more under conventional tillage than
no-tillage. Timely service and maintenance of agricultural ma-
chinery and the determination of a reasonable framework for diesel
fuel consumption in each of the treatments can be managed. The
amount of electricity has a big effect on FE. This emission has been
maximized in T2 (48.11%) system. In this system, ODP (2.03%) has
the lowest value. On average, sugarcane production leads to the
release of 30.74% kg CO2 eq. from GWP index in T1 system. For the
GWP, sugarcane cutting plant (46.10%) in T1 system has further
increased the emissions, resulting in higher emissions. Other
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Fig. 6. (continued).

Fig. 7. Comparison between total environmental impacts in different tillage systems of sugarcane production.

11
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Table 8 cuts in the sugarcane cycle, consequently decrease GHG emissions,

The energy forms results of CExD analysis for one ton in different tillage systems fossil fuel depletion, and AC of 43%, 24%, and 44%, respectively.
of sugarcane production.
Overall, there were important differences in environmental
Energy form Unit Treatments impacts between the tillage systems (Fig. 7). The highest emissions
T1 T2 T3 T4 by operations in T1 system and also the lower profitability
1 compared to T2 or even T3 systems should be taken with caution.
Non-renewable, fossil MJ ton 1822.83 1184.60 1326.50 1481.90
Renewable, potential MJ ton1 45.88 29.88 34.11 38.21 The emission rate in T2 system in AD, ADF, ODP, HT, FE, ME, TE, PO,
Non-renewable, primary MJ ton1 4.43 3.86 4.02 4.28 AC and EP impact categories decreased by about 21.79%, 34.99%,
Renewable, biomass MJ ton1 399.40 351.85 365.48 387.29 33.14%, 35.53%, 32.77%, 14.02%, 25.68%, 15.10%, 37.28%, 19.93%, and
Renewable, water MJ ton1 161.17 144.64 148.86 156.07
15.21% compared to T1 system. The no-till grain crop system (corn-
Non-renewable, metals MJ ton1 43.80 28.99 33.87 39.83
Non-renewable, minerals MJ ton1 29.06 25.21 26.32 28.03 soybean-wheat) is environmentally beneficial compared to the
tilled system [91].

indicators with the largest share of emissions include ODP and ADF,
which have the lowest share in T4 system with values of 57.65% and
56.44%, respectively. Chagas et al. [57] stated environmental im-
pacts depend on agricultural systems and cultivation patterns.
Better agricultural management allows to maximize the number of
3.4. Interpretation of CExD
Table 8 presents the results of CExD analysis for 1 ton of sug-
arcane production under different tillage systems. In this table,
non-renewable, primary is the best energy consumers in all forms
of energy. The values of this form of energy are equal to 26.70% in T1

Fig. 8. Contribution of inputs to consume energy forms in T1, T2, T3 and T4 treatments of sugarcane production.

12
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al.
Fig. 8. (continued).
system, 25.79% in T4 system, 24.23% in T3 system and 23.27% in T2
system. Among the calculated forms of energy, non-renewable,
fossil has the highest amount. Especially in T1 (31.34%) system,
this value has reached its maximum. Zarei et al. [92] studied the
environmental effects of cucumber and tomato production in open-
field (OF) and greenhouse (GH). The OF (0.00046 MJ ton1 and
0.0002 MJ ton1) and GH (0.0012 MJ ton1 and 0.001 MJ ton1)
values for cucumber and tomato in form non-renewable primary
were minimal, respectively. The values for OF (1629.42 MJ ton1
and 647.98 MJ ton1) and GH (1334.51 MJ ton1 and 1210.45 MJ
ton1) in the form of the non-renewable fossil were maximum for
mentioned products.
The contribution of inputs to consume energy forms is shown in
Fig. 8. The descriptions for this form are as follows:
Non-renewable, fossil: The reason for more energy is the high
consumption of sugarcane cutting plant. In T1 (60.90%) system, it
has the highest value, but in T4 (56.06%) system it has a lower value
than other systems.
Renewable, potential: Sugarcane cutting plant and agricultural
machinery make up a large share of the form of energy. The highest
13
Energy 217 (2021) 119252
amount of sugarcane cutting plant is in T1 (51.31%) system, while
the highest amount of agricultural machinery is in T4 (26.61%)
system.
Non-renewable, primary: Due to a large amount of chemical
fertilizers, this form has less energy than the others. In T2 System,
due to less use of machines, more chemical fertilizers are used.
81.03% is related to nitrogen and only 15.03% is related to phos-
phate in this system.
Renewable, biomass and renewable, water: The share of
electricity in renewable biomass with 81.08% is the highest in T2
system. In this system, the share of electricity with 78.63% has its
lowest limit. Agricultural machinery has a positive effect on this
form of renewable water and the amount of energy calculated has
reached less than zero.
Non-renewable, metals: A large amount of agricultural ma-
chinery and chemical fertilizers increase energy in this form. A
significant amount of energy is related to agricultural machinery
(50.81%) in T1 system, nitrogen (41.22%) in T2 system, and phos-
phate (12.15%) in T2 system.
Non-renewable, minerals: In the form of non-renewable
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

Fig. 9. Comparison between energy forms in different tillage systems of sugarcane production.

minerals, phosphate with amounts of about 68% plays the most 155.29 kg CO2 eq., 103.81 kg CO2 eq., 115.52 kg CO2 eq. and 130.47 kg
important role in systems. Diesel fuel consumption has the least CO2 eq. in T1, T2, T3, and T4 systems. According to the results of this
impact, especially in T2 system. research, environmentally and economically, T2 system (conserva-
Fig. 9 shows that less use and no use of electricity in renewable tion tillage methods) can be highly recommended.
biomass and renewable water can store total CExD in sugarcane
production. In order to be able to reduce the amount of energy in
non-renewable primary, we must manage the use of chemical Credit author statement
fertilizers. The energy rate in T2 system in non-renewable fossil,
renewable potential, non-renewable primary, renewable biomass, Hakim Naseri: Data curation, Methodology, Writing - original
renewable water, non-renewable metals, and non-renewable draft preparation, Writing-Reviewing and Editing. Mohammad
minerals forms decreased by about 35.01%, 34.88%, 12.87%, 11.90%, Gholami Parashkoohi: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Super-
10.25%, 33.81%, and 13.25% compared to T1 system. vision, Validation. Iraj Ranjbar: Investigation, Writing-Reviewing
and Editing. Davood Mohammad Zamani: Resources, Software.
4. Conclusion
Declaration of competing interest
In recent times, agriculture is compressed with energy and has a
high impact on the environment. Also, tillage plays a significant role
The authors declare that they have no known competing
in energy consumption. Reducing the number of farm operations
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
leads to reduced input energy, costs, and recommended GHG
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
emissions. The analysis of energy efficiency and pollution in this
study has led to very important findings: T2 method has more
potential for environmental adaptation in agriculture, at the same Acknowledgments
time, improves energy efficiency. Total energy consumptions of T1
and T2 systems are computed as 162850.85 and 122837.02 MJ ha1, The authors wish to thank the personnel of the Hakim Farabi
respectively. In T1, electricity (64.11%) has the highest share of en- Sugarcane Agro-Industrial Company in Khuzestan province of Iran,
ergy inputs. Reducing the consumption of non-renewable sources and Department of biosystem engineering, Takestan Branch, Is-
such as electricity and diesel fuel will help increase energy effi- lamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran for financial support.
ciency and ultimately develop cleaner production systems. The
sugarcane cutting plant had the most elevated portion in non-
renewable, fossil in CExD. These amounts were related to chemi- Appendix A
cal fertilizer for non-renewable, primary and non-renewable,
minerals. Also, the average net return was estimated to 1566 $ The amounts of data collected in different tillage systems with three
ha1 in T2, 1442.60 $ ha1 in T3, 1261.60 $ ha1 in T4, and 1158.60 $ replications in sugarcane production
ha1 in T1. On-Farm emissions from sugarcane had the highest
share in EP and AC categories. GWP after ME and ADF has values of

14
 Items Treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

R1 R2 R3 Average SD R1 R2 R3 Average SD R1 R2 R3 Average SD R1 R2 R3 Average SD

A. Inputs (unit)
1.Human 221.83 229.36 211.31 220.83 7.40 150.29 125.62 145.22 140.37 10.63 169.32 154.77 156.87 160.32 6.42 190.11 187.13 193.12 190.12 2.44
labor (h)
2. Machinery 412.52 416.36 432.21 420.36 8.52 227.32 217.36 234.28 226.32 6.94 301.23 302.27 302.85 302.11 0.67 394.10 371.49 375.49 380.36 9.85
(kg)
3. Diesel fuel 209.23 197.36 195.29 196.32 6.14 52.45 53.19 51.36 52.30 0.75 58.98 55.99 55.70 56.89 1.48 138.89 146.43 160.69 148.67 9.04
(L)
4. Chemical fertilizers (kg)
(a) Nitrogen 343.00 354.00 353.00 350.00 4.97 343.00 354.00 353.00 350.00 4.97 343.00 354.00 353.00 350.00 4.97 343.00 354.00 353.00 350.00 4.97
(b) Phosphate 297.00 303.00 300.00 300.00 2.45 297.00 303.00 300.00 300.00 2.45 297.00 303.00 300.00 300.00 2.45 297.00 303.00 300.00 300.00 2.45
(P2O5)
5. Biocides 6.10 7.10 6.30 6.50 0.43 6.10 7.10 6.30 6.50 0.43 6.10 7.10 6.30 6.50 0.43 6.10 7.10 6.30 6.50 0.43
(kg)
6. Electricity 8820.00 8550.00 8730.00 8700.00 112.25 5923.00 6236.00 6441.00 6200.00 213.00 6667.00 6964.00 6469.00 6700.00 203.43 7832.00 6484.00 7284.00 7200.00 553.51
15

(kwh)
7. Sugarcane 8561.00 7443.00 6496.00 7500.00 844.00 8561.00 7443.00 6496.00 7500.00 844.00 8561.00 7443.00 6496.00 7500.00 844.00 8561.00 7443.00 6496.00 7500.00 844.00
cutting
plant (kg)
B. Output (kg)
1. Sugarcane 104420.00 108330.00 96250.00 103000.00 5032.82 117316.00 112329.00 118355.00 116000.00 2630.22 110471.00 107248.00 118281.00 112000.00 4632.15 106410.00 103188.00 108402.00 106000.00 2148.26
C. Economic ($)
1.Human 195.28 201.91 186.02 194.40 6.52 126.45 105.69 122.18 118.10 8.95 146.70 134.09 135.91 138.90 5.56 166.69 164.08 169.33 166.70 2.14
labor
2. Machinery 68.11 68.74 71.36 69.40 1.41 20.69 19.78 21.32 20.60 0.63 24.93 25.01 25.06 25.00 0.06 60.41 56.94 57.55 58.30 1.51
3. Diesel fuel 3.52 3.32 3.28 3.30 0.10 0.90 0.92 0.88 0.90 0.01 0.93 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.02 2.34 2.46 2.70 2.50 0.15
4. Chemical fertilizers
(a) Nitrogen 5.68 5.87 5.85 5.80 0.08 5.68 5.87 5.85 5.80 0.08 5.68 5.87 5.85 5.80 0.08 5.68 5.87 5.85 5.80 0.08
(b) Phosphate 9.90 10.10 10.00 10.00 0.08 9.90 10.10 10.00 10.00 0.08 9.90 10.10 10.00 10.00 0.08 9.90 10.10 10.00 10.00 0.08
(P2O5)
5. Biocides 23.74 27.64 24.52 25.30 1.68 23.74 27.64 24.52 25.30 1.68 23.74 27.64 24.52 25.30 1.68 23.74 27.64 24.52 25.30 1.68
6. Electricity 29.40 28.50 29.10 29.00 0.37 2.01 2.11 2.18 2.10 0.07 22.19 23.18 21.53 22.30 0.68 26.11 21.61 24.28 24.00 1.85
7. Sugarcane 166.43 144.69 126.28 145.80 16.41 166.43 144.69 126.28 145.80 16.41 166.43 144.69 126.28 145.80 16.41 166.43 144.69 126.28 145.80 16.41
cutting
plant
8. Rent of land 326.32 388.19 368.81 361.10 25.84 326.32 388.19 368.81 361.10 25.84 326.32 388.19 368.81 361.10 25.84 326.32 388.19 368.81 361.10 25.84
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al. Energy 217 (2021) 119252

References Region. Energy 2018;149:279e85.

[30] Yuan S, Peng S, Wang D, Man J. Evaluation of the energy budget and energy
use efficiency in wheat production under various crop management practices
[1] FAO. Food and agricultural organization statistical yearbook. 2018. http://
in China. Energy 2018;160:184e91.
www.fao.org.
[31] Ingrao C, Licciardello F, Pecorino B, Muratore G, Zerbo A, Messineo A. Energy
[2] Kaab A, Sharifi M, Mobli H, Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Chau K. Combined life cycle
and environmental assessment of a traditional durum-wheat bread. J Clean
assessment and artificial intelligence for prediction of output energy and
Prod 2018;171:1494e509.
environmental impacts of sugarcane production. Sci Total Environ 2019;664:
[32] Arrieta EM, Cuchietti A, Cabrol D, Gonza lez AD. Greenhouse gas emissions and
1005e19.
energy efficiencies for soybeans and maize cultivated in different agronomic
[3] Sugarcane Research Institue of Iran. Annual statistics report. WwwSugarca-
zones: a case study of Argentina. Sci Total Environ 2018;625:199e208.
neIr 2016 [in persian)].
[33] Ma QJ, Li XG, Song WY, Jia B, Zhang Q, Lin L, et al. Plastic-film mulch and
[4] Granco G, Sant’Anna AC, Bergtold JS, Caldas MM. Factors influencing ethanol
fertilization rate affect the fate of urea-15N in maize production. Nutrient Cycl
mill location in a new sugarcane producing region in Brazil. Biomass Bio-
Agroecosyst 2018;112:403e16.
energy 2018;111:125e33.
[34] Nasseri A. Energy use and economic analysis for wheat production by con-
[5] Rajaeifar MA, Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M,
servation tillage along with sprinkler irrigation. Sci Total Environ 2019;648:
Mahmoudi SB. A review on beet sugar industry with a focus on imple-
450e9.
mentation of waste-to-energy strategy for power supply. Renew Sustain En-
[35] Yodkhum S, Gheewala SH, Sampattagul S. Life cycle GHG evaluation of organic
ergy Rev 2019;103:423e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.056.
rice production in northern Thailand. J Environ Manag 2017;196:217e23.
[6] Viswanathan R, Parameswari B, Nithya K. Molecular characterization of sug-
[36] Taki M, Soheili-Fard F, Rohani A, Chen G, Yildizhan H. Life cycle assessment to
arcane viruses and their diagnostics. New futur. Dev. Microb. Biotechnol.
compare the environmental impacts of different wheat production systems.
Bioeng. Crop improv. Through microb. Biotechnol. Elsevier; 2018. p. 175e93.
J Clean Prod 2018;197:195e207.
[7] Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of Iran. Annual agricultural statistics. 2019 (in
[37] Saber Z, Esmaeili M, Pirdashti H, Motevali A, Nabavi-Pelesaraei A. Exer-
Persian), www.maj.ir.
goenvironmental-Life cycle cost analysis for conventional, low external input
[8] Chimsah FA, Cai L, Wu J, Zhang R. Outcomes of long-term conservation tillage
and organic systems of rice paddy production. J Clean Prod 2020;263:121529.
research in northern China. Sustainability 2020;12:1062.
[38] Mousavi-Avval SH, Rafiee S, Jafari A, Mohammadi A. Optimization of energy
[9] Sarker JR, Singh BP, Cowie AL, Fang Y, Collins D, Dougherty WJ, et al. Carbon
consumption for soybean production using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
and nutrient mineralisation dynamics in aggregate-size classes from different
approach. Appl Energy 2011;88:3765e72.
tillage systems after input of canola and wheat residues. Soil Biol Biochem
[39] Yadav GS, Das A, Lal R, Babu S, Meena RS, Saha P, et al. Energy budget and
2018;116:22e38.
carbon footprint in a no-till and mulch based riceemustard cropping system.
[10] Omer AM. Energy use and environmental impacts: a general review. Adv.
J Clean Prod 2018;191:144e57.
Energy Res., vol. 17. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2014. p. 1e38.
[40] Alimagham SM, Soltani A, Zeinali E, Kazemi H. Energy flow analysis and
[11] Kizilaslan H. Inputeoutput energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat
estimation of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in different scenarios of
Province of Turkey. Appl Energy 2009;86:1354e8.
soybean production (Case study: gorgan region, Iran). J Clean Prod 2017;149:
[12] Safa M, Samarasinghe S. Determination and modelling of energy consumption
621e8.
in wheat production using neural networks:“A case study in Canterbury
[41] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Abdi R, Rafiee S. Applying artificial neural networks and
province, New Zealand. Energy 2011;36:5140e7.
multi-objective genetic algorithm to modeling and optimization of energy
[13] Schipper CA, Vreugdenhil H, de Jong MPC. A sustainability assessment of ports
inputs and greenhouse gas emissions for peanut production. Int J Biosci
and port-city plans: comparing ambitions with achievements. Transport Res
2014;4:170e83.
Transport Environ 2017;57:84e111.
[42] Hatirli SA, Ozkan B, Fert C. An econometric analysis of energy inputeoutput in
[14] ISO. 14040 international standard. Environmental managementelife cycle
Turkish agriculture. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2005;9:608e23.
assessmenteprinciples and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International
[43] Bakhtiari AA, Hematian A, Sharifi A. Energy analyses and greenhouse gas
Organisation for Standardization; 2006.
emissions assessment for saffron production cycle. Environ Sci Pollut Res
[15] Ghasemi-Mobtaker H, Kaab A, Rafiee S. Application of life cycle analysis to
2015;22:16184e201.
assess environmental sustainability of wheat cultivation in the west of Iran.
[44] Unakitan G, Hurma H, Yilmaz F. An analysis of energy use efficiency of canola
Energy 2020;193:116768.
production in Turkey. Energy 2010;35:3623e7.
[16] Mohammadi A, Rafiee S, Jafari A, Keyhani A, Dalgaard T, Knudsen MT, et al.
[45] Nakashima T, Ishikawa S. Energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions asso-
Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis for the bench-
ciated with small-scale farmer sugarcane cropping systems and subsequent
marking of environmental impacts in rice paddy production. J Clean Prod
bioethanol production in Japan. NJAS - Wageningen J Life Sci 2016;76:43e53.
2015;106:521e32.
€sch ME, Hellweg S, Huijbregts MAJ, Frischknecht R. Applying cumulative [46] Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Rafiee S, Mohtasebi SS, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H,
[17] Bo
Chau K-W. Integration of artificial intelligence methods and life cycle
exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent database. Int J Life Cycle
assessment to predict energy output and environmental impacts of paddy
Assess 2007;12:181.
production. Sci Total Environ 2018;631e632:1279e94.
[18] Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S, Omid M, Mousazadeh H, Clark S. Environmental
[47] Kazemi H, Kamkar B, Lakzaei S, Badsar M, Shahbyki M. Energy flow analysis
impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses using
for rice production in different geographical regions of Iran. Energy 2015;84:
life cycle assessment and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. J Clean Prod
390e6.
2014;73:183e92.
[48] Ozkan B, Ceylan RF, Kizilay H. Comparison of energy inputs in glasshouse
[19] Mrini M, Senhaji F, Pimentel D. Energy analysis of sugarcane production in
double crop (fall and summer crops) tomato production. Renew Energy
Morocco. Environ Dev Sustain 2001;3:109e26.
2011;36:1639e44.
[20] Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C. Energy inputeoutput analysis in Turkish agricul-
[49] Amezcua-Allieri MA, Martínez-Hern andez E, Anaya-Reza O, Magdaleno-
ture. Renew Energy 2004;29:39e51.
Molina M, Melgarejo-Flores LA, Palmerín-Ruiz ME, et al. Techno-economic
[21] Esengun K, Gündüz O, Erdal G. Inputeoutput energy analysis in dry apricot
analysis and life cycle assessment for energy generation from sugarcane
production of Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48:592e8.
bagasse: case study for a sugar mill in Mexico. Food Bioprod Process
[22] Karimi M, Rajabi Pour A, Tabatabaeefar A, Borghei A. Energy analysis of sug-
2019;118:281e92.
arcane production in plant farms a case study in Debel Khazai Agro-industry
[50] Sherwani AF, Usmani JA, Varun. Life cycle assessment of solar PV based
in Iran. Am J Agric Environ Sci 2008;4:165e71.
electricity generation systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:
[23] Kaab A, Sharifi M, Mobli H, Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Chau K. Use of optimization
540e4.
techniques for energy use efficiency and environmental life cycle assessment
[51] Zhou J, Chang VWC, Fane AG. An improved life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
modification in sugarcane production. Energy 2019;181:1298e320.
approach for assessing aquatic eco-toxic impact of brine disposal from
[24] Mousavi-Avval SH, Rafiee S, Jafari A, Mohammadi A. Improving energy use
seawater desalination plants. Desalination 2013;308:233e41.
efficiency of canola production using data envelopment analysis (DEA)
[52] Kucukvar M, Egilmez G, Tatari O. Sustainability assessment of US final con-
approach. Energy 2011;36:2765e72.
sumption and investments: triple-bottom-line input-output analysis. J Clean
[25] Firat Baran M, Gokdogan O. Determination of energy balance of sugar beet
Prod 2014;81:234e43.
production in Turkey: a case study of Kırklareli Province. Energy Efficiency
[53] Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F. Using attributional life cycle assessment to
2016;9:487e94.
estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind
[26] Fuess LT, Mazine Kiyuna LS, Garcia ML, Zaiat M. Operational strategies for
Ecol 2014;18:73e83.
long-term biohydrogen production from sugarcane stillage in a continuous
[54] Mostashari-Rad F, Ghasemi-Mobtaker H, Taki M, Ghahderijani M, Kaab A,
acidogenic packed-bed reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:8132e45.
Chau K wing, et al. Exergoenvironmental damages assessment of horticultural
[27] Khanali M, Movahedi M, Yousefi M, Jahangiri S, Khoshnevisan B. Investigating
crops using ReCiPe2016 and cumulative exergy demand frameworks. J Clean
energy balance and carbon footprint in saffron cultivation-a case study in Iran.
Prod 2021;278:123788.
J Clean Prod 2016;115:162e71.
€ktürk M, Atamanalp M, rahan Ceyhun SB. Determination of [55] Liu B, Wang F, Zhang B, Bi J. Energy balance and GHG emissions of cassava-
[28] Baran A, Ko
based fuel ethanol using different planting modes in China. Energy Pol
developmental toxicity of zebrafish exposed to propyl gallate dosed lower
2013;56:210e20.
than ADI (acceptable daily intake). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2018;94:16e21.
[56] Qin Z, Dunn JB, Kwon H, Mueller S, Wander MM. Influence of spatially
[29] Unakıtan G, Aydın B. A comparison of energy use efficiency and economic
dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life-cycle greenhouse gas
analysis of wheat and sunflower production in Turkey: a case study in Thrace
emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol. GCB Bioenergy 2016;8:1136e49.

16
H. Naseri, M.G. Parashkoohi, I. Ranjbar et al.
[57] Chagas MF, Bordonal RO, Cavalett O, Carvalho JLN, Bonomi A, La Scala N.
Environmental and economic impacts of different sugarcane production
systems in the ethanol biorefinery. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefining 2016;10:
89e106.
[58] Soheili-Fard F, Kouchaki-Penchah H. Assessing environmental burdens of
sugar beet production in East Azerbaijan province of I. R. Iran based on farms
size levels. Int J Farming Allied Sci 2015;4:489e95.
[59] Gabel VM, Meier MS, Ko € pke U, Stolze M. The challenges of including impacts
on biodiversity in agricultural life cycle assessments. J Environ Manag
2016;181:249e60.
[60] Shahvarooghi Farahani S, Soheilifard F, Ghasemi Nejad Raini M, Kokei D.
Comparison of different tomato puree production phases from an environ-
mental point of view. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2019;24:1817e27.
[61] Dewulf J, Bo €sch ME, Meester B De, der Vorst G Van, Langenhove H Van,
Hellweg S, et al. Cumulative exergy extraction from the natural environment
(CEENE): a comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for resource
accounting. Environ Sci Technol 2007;41:8477e83.
[62] Rivela B, Moreira MT, Mun ~ oz I, Rieradevall J, Feijoo G. Life cycle assessment of
wood wastes: a case study of ephemeral architecture. Sci Total Environ
2006;357:1e11.
[63] Nikkhah A, Emadi B, Soltanali H, Firouzi S, Rosentrater KA, Allahyari MS.
Integration of life cycle assessment and Cobb-Douglas modeling for the
environmental assessment of kiwifruit in Iran. J Clean Prod 2016;137:843e9.
[64] Hosseini-Fashami F, Motevali A, Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Hashemi SJ, Chau K
wing. Energy-Life cycle assessment on applying solar technologies for
greenhouse strawberry production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;116.
[65] de Vries M, de Boer IJM. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock
products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 2010;128:1e11.
[66] Daneshi A, Esmaili-Sari A, Daneshi M, Baumann H. Greenhouse gas emissions
of packaged fluid milk production in Tehran. J Clean Prod 2014;80:150e8.
[67] Kouchaki-Penchah H, Sharifi M, Mousazadeh H, Zarea-Hosseinabadi H,
Nabavi-Pelesaraei A. Gate to gate life cycle assessment of flat pressed parti-
cleboard production in Islamic Republic of Iran. J Clean Prod 2016;112:
343e50.
[68] Chen Y, Feng L, Tang S, Wang J, Huang C, Ho €o
€k M. Extended-exergy based
energy return on investment method and its application to shale gas
extraction in China. J Clean Prod 2020;260:120933.
[69] Exergy. Life and sustainable development by goran Wall : SSRN n.d. https://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼2236077. [Accessed 6 August
2020].
[70] Chen GQ, Chen B. Resource analysis of the Chinese society 1980-2002 based
on exergy-Part 1: fossil fuels and energy minerals. Energy Pol 2007;35:
2038e50.
[71] Iribarren D, Va zquez-Rowe I, Rugani B, Benetto E. On the feasibility of using
emergy analysis as a source of benchmarking criteria through data envelop-
ment analysis: a case study for wind energy. Energy 2014;67:527e37.
[72] Kosuti
c S, Filipovi
c D, Gospodari c Z, Husnjak S, Kova 
cev I, Copec K. Effects of
different soil tillage systems on yield of maize, winter wheat and soybean on
albic luvisol in north-west slavonia. J Cent Eur Agric 2006;6:241e8.
[73] Fumagalli M, Acutis M, Mazzetto F, Vidotto F, Sali G, Bechini L. An analysis of
agricultural sustainability of cropping systems in arable and dairy farms in an
intensively cultivated plain. Eur J Agron 2011;34:71e82.
17
Energy 217 (2021) 119252
[74] Lafond GP, Geremia R, Derksen DA, Zentner RP. The effects of tillage systems
on the economic performance of spring wheat, winter wheat, flax and field
pea production in east-central Saskatchewan. Can J Plant Sci 1993;73:47e54.
[75] Zarei-Shahamat E, Asoodar MA, Marzban A, Abdeshahi A. Energy use and
economical analysis of Sugarcane production in Iran a case study: debel
Khazaeei agro-industry. Intl J Agric Crop Sci 2013;5:249e52.
[76] Sampanpanish P. Use of organic fertilizer on paddy fields to reduce green-
house gases. Sci Asia 2012;38:323e30.
[77] Taghinezhad J, Alimardani R, Jafari A. Energy consumption flow and econo-
metric models of sugarcane production in khouzestan province of Iran. Sugar
Tech 2014;16:277e85.
[78] Sundara B, Subramanian S. Energy input-output studies of some crop se-
quences based on short-duration sugarcane in relation to the conventional
sugarcane system in tropical India. Agric Ecosyst Environ 1987;20:49e57.
[79] Alhajj Ali S, Tedone L, Verdini L, De Mastro G. Implications of No-tillage sys-
tem in faba bean production: energy analysis and potential agronomic ben-
efits. Open Agric J 2019;12:270e85.
[80] Gifford RM. Energy in Australian agriculture: inputs, outputs, and policies.
Energy Agric.; 1984. p. 154e68.
[81] Fathollahi H, Mousavi-Avval SH, Akram A, Rafiee S. Comparative energy,
economic and environmental analyses of forage production systems for dairy
farming. J Clean Prod 2018;182:852e62.
[82] Lawrence PA, Radford BJ, Thomas GA, Sinclair DP, Key AJ. Effect of tillage
practices on wheat performance in a semi-arid environment. Soil Tillage Res
1994;28:347e64.
[83] Hart W, Tompkins F, Morgan T, Bradley J, Wilkerson J. Row spacing and tillage
effects on cotton yield performance. 1995. p. 1289e95.
[84] Grange I, Prammanee P, Prasertsak P. Comparative analysis of different tillage
systems used in sugarcane (Thailand) (business collection) - informit. Aust
Farm Bus Manag J 2005;2:1e5.

[85] Sarauskis E, Romaneckas K, Kumh ala F, Kriau  niene_ Z. Energy use and
ciu
carbon emission of conventional and organic sugar beet farming. J Clean Prod
2018;201:428e38.
[86] Soltanali H, Nikkhah A, Rohani A. Energy audit of Iranian kiwifruit production
using intelligent systems. Energy 2017;139:646e54.
[87] Klebson de Medeiros Silva W, Neves TI, de Souza Silva C, Carvalho M,
Abrah~ ao R. Sustainable enhancement of sugarcane fertilization for energy
purposes in hot climates. Renew Energy 2020;159:547e52.
[88] Houshyar E, Grundmann P. Environmental impacts of energy use in wheat
tillage systems: a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study in Iran. En-
ergy 2017;122:11e24.
[89] Nunes FA, Seferin M, Maciel VG, Flo ^res SH, Ayub MAZ. Life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions from rice production systems in Brazil: a comparison between
minimal tillage and organic farming. J Clean Prod 2016;139:799e809.
[90] Wang W, Dalal RC. Nitrogen management is the key for low-emission wheat
production in Australia: a life cycle perspective. Eur J Agron 2015;66:74e82.
[91] Gelfand I, Sahajpal R, Zhang X, Izaurralde RC, Gross KL, Robertson GP. Sus-
tainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature
2013;493:514e7.
[92] Zarei MJ, Kazemi N, Marzban A. Life cycle environmental impacts of cucumber
and tomato production in open-field and greenhouse. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci
2019;18:249e55.