Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Greenhouse gas emissions from sugar cane ethanol: Estimate considering MARK
current different production scenarios in Minas Gerais, Brazil
⁎
Juan Carlos Claros Garciaa, , Eduardo Von Sperlingb
a
Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR), Av. Monteiro Lobato s/n, km 04, 84016210 Ponta Grossa, PR,
Brazil
b
Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Av. Presidente Antônio Carlos, 6627, Pampulha,
31270901 Belo Horizonte, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The studies of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of sugarcane ethanol production show few scenarios or, in most
Greenhouse gas emissions cases, a single representative scenario of the most common practices for ethanol production. However, the
Ethanol combination of the diverse sugarcane agricultural and industrialization practices lead to a wide variety of
Sugarcane production scenarios. Current studies do not show the GHG emissions balance for all these scenarios. This issue
Biofuels
is the aim of this study, which presents a GHG emissions balance of ethanol production considering 120
Climate change
different scenarios related to current sugarcane agricultural and industrial practices in Brazil, with data of
Minas Gerais. In order to obtain the ethanol production scenarios, different types of cultivation, fertilization,
harvesting and different sugarcane crop cycles were combined. The scenarios were classified by groups,
according to their GHG emission levels. The main characteristics of each group were analyzed in order to
identify the factors that influence the performance of GHG emissions. The results show GHG emission levels
ranging from 2489.38 kg CO2eq∙ha−1∙yr−1 to 3289.95 kg CO2eq∙ha−1∙yr−1, depending on the regime of
agricultural practices present in each scenario. The factors that most favor the increase of GHG emission
levels are: short sugarcane crop cycle combined with fertigation with stillage. These two factors were present in
production scenarios that presented the highest levels of GHG emissions in this study. The factors that most
favor the decrease of GHG emissions are: long sugarcane crop cycle, fertilization without stillage on ratoon and
mechanical harvesting without sugarcane burning. All these factors were present in scenarios that presented the
lowest GHG emissions. On the other hand, in certain agricultural conditions, the mechanical harvesting of green
cane showed to be as polluting as manual harvesting of burnt cane. The differences between the types of
cultivation showed no significant influence on the final balance of GHG emissions.

1. Introduction
In the last decades, the search for new energy sources that can
reduce the dependence on petroleum has intensified, particularly due
to the depletion of petroleum reserves worldwide. Concern over global
warming has also led to the search for forms of energy that emit smaller
amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG). In the automotive industry, in
recent years, attention has been given to the use of biomass as basis for
the production of alternative fuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel,
whose uses have been increased in many countries. In Brazil, the
production and use of ethanol as an automotive fuel have experienced
considerable growth over the last decade due to, among other reasons,
the mandatory blending of gasoline with anhydrous ethanol (currently
the mandatory blend contains 25% of anhydrous ethanol) as well as the
massive production of flex-fuel cars since 2003 (nearly 90% of all new
vehicles produced in the country are flex-fuel type) [1], which can use a
mixture of gasoline and ethanol combined in any desired ratio by the
consumer. In Brazil ethanol is commercially produced from sugar cane
milling, i.e. first generation ethanol, raw material which is currently the
second largest source of energy (16.1% of domestic supply) in the
country, after petroleum (39.3% of domestic supply) [2].
Several studies have been conducted to assess, among other
aspects, the GHG mitigation potential of sugarcane ethanol as an
automotive fuel. Macedo et al. [3] performed an assessment of GHG
emissions from agricultural, industrial and use stages of ethanol in the
typical conditions found in Brazilian mills, considering two scenarios:
(1) based on the average consumption of energy and raw materials and
(2) based on the best values of energy and raw materials consumption

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jcgarcia@utfpr.edu.br (J.C. Claros Garcia).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.046
Received 14 December 2015; Received in revised form 20 December 2016; Accepted 8 January 2017
Available online 16 February 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

90 900.000
with the best practices and technology available in the country. Macedo

Sugarcane production (million t) and

80 800.000
et al. [4] conducted a study of GHG emissions in the production and
70 700.000
use of ethanol comparing scenarios that show technological improve-

Productivity (t∙ha )

Planted area (ha)

60 600.000
ments in agriculture practices, including a future projection. Wang
50 500.000
et al. [5] evaluated the performance of GHG emissions in the produc-
tion and use of 1st generation and 2nd generation ethanol, i.e. ethanol 40 400.000

produced from lignocellulosic biomass such as sugarcane bagasse and 30 300.000

straw, comparing scenarios that reflect current and future technologi- 20 200.000

cal conditions. In addition to these studies based on scenarios, there 10 100,000

are other studies, e.g. [6–9], that show the GHG emissions balance 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
0

resulting from the production and use of sugarcane ethanol under Cane production Productivity Planted area
Brazilian conventional technologies.
In their final balance of GHG emissions, these studies do not Fig. 1. Sugarcane production, productivity and planted area in Minas Gerais.

consider the diversity of sugarcane agricultural practices currently

adopted in Brazil. Furthermore, these studies do not consider the
variation in the number of cuttings nor the variation in the time span
occupied by the sugarcane crop cycle (studies usually consider 6-year
crop cycle with five cuttings). These studies only show the GHG
emissions balance corresponding to a single representative scenario
of the most common or best practices of sugarcane agriculture and
industry in Brazil. However, the Brazilian sugacane agriculture is
performed currently by several different practices (especially in soil
preparation, planting, fertilization, fertigation and harvesting stages)
whose combination result in many and diverse ethanol production
scenarios with different crop cycles and different number of cuttings.
Currently there are no studies that consider all of these scenarios in the
final balance of GHG emissions. This issue is the main objective of this
study, which will be achieved by: (1) the identification of the ethanol
production scenarios formed from the combination of current sugar-
cane agricultural practices in Brazil, including soil preparation, ferti-
lization, fertigation, harvesting, number of cuttings performed and the
resulting crop cycle; (2) the estimation of GHG emissions from each of
the identified ethanol production scenarios, calculated from the emis-
sions generated in each sugarcane agricultural/industrial practice, with
data collected from mills located in Minas Gerais; and (3) the
classification and characterization of these scenarios according to their
performance in GHG emission levels by means of a cluster analysis.
harvesting reached 97% [16]. The decrease in sugarcane burning area
was considerable: in 2010, 45.6% of the harvest area was subjected to
burning in Minas Gerais [17], while 97% of the sugarcane was
harvested without burning in 2014 [16].
Further details of sugarcane agricultural operations in Minas Gerais
are shown in Section 3 and Appendix A.
3. Methodology
3.1. Agriculture and industrialization of sugarcane
Fig. 2 shows the ethanol production stages considered in this study,
which includes agriculture and industrialization of sugarcane. The
agricultural subprocesses were studied with greater emphasis since,
based on data of [3,4], the agriculture stage represents aproximately
90% of total GHG emissions over the full ethanol life cycle. The
agricultural and industrialization subprocesses considered in this study
are described in the subsequent sections, with more details in Appendix
A. All the necessary information and inputs data, unless otherwise
indicated, were collected from documentation study and field research
conducted in a total of 11 mills located in the state of Minas Gerais,
during the years of 2009 and 2010. Table 1 shows data of the visited
mills in the field study.

2. Sugarcane agriculture in Minas Gerais 3.1.1. Sugarcane crop cycle

In 2015 the production of sugarcane in Brazil was approximately
665 million tonnes, and the Southeast, including the state of Minas
Gerais, produced more than 65% of the entire production [10]. Minas
Gerais is currently the third largest producer of sugarcane in Brazil,
with nearly 65 million tonnes of sugarcane produced in 2015 [10],
representing about 10% of the total production of the country. Minas
Gerais currently has 42 sugarcane mills [11], most located in the state's
western region, which concentrates most of the area planted with
sugarcane. Because of its favorable climate, Minas Gerais is among the
most productive sugarcane regions, along with the states of São Paulo,
Paraná, Mato Grosso do Sul and Goiás. In these states, the average
productivity in 2015 was 80.2 t cane∙ha−1, and in Minas Gerais was
74.9 t cane∙ha−1 [10]. Based on [12] data, Fig. 1 shows the evolution of
production, productivity and size of the area planted with sugarcane in
Minas Gerais in the last 10 years.
In Minas Gerais, as occurred with the states that have higher
sugarcane productivity, the main agricultural improvements in the
recent years were: the increased mechanization of sugarcane planting
and the reduction of sugarcane burning before harvesting, accompa-
nied by an increase of mechanical harvesting. In 2010 the mechaniza-
tion of planting and harvesting in the Center-South region (South and
Southeast of Brazil) was 35.1% and 72.8%, respectively [13], while in
Minas Gerais was 25% [14] and 71.2% [17], respectively. In 2014 the
mechanization of planting and harvesting in the Center-South region
reached 74.7% and 93.6% respectively [15], while in Minas Gerais the
mechanization of planting was about 55% [14] and mechanical
In Brazil, usually the agricultural cycle of sugarcane is six years,
which includes five cuttings and a fallow period. However, as observed
in the field research, sugarcane crop cycle can be extended to more
than six years and five cuttings, with acceptable productivity. To
determine more precisely the sugarcane crop cycle, this study considers
a variable crop cycle calculated from the following equation:
bm = F + Pt + cm − 1 m = 1, …, M (1)
where bm is the time span (years) of the sugarcane crop cycle; F is the
duration of the fallow period; Pt is the elapsed time from planting to
the first cutting, depending on the type of sugarcane planted; cm is the
number of cuttings made during the sugarcane crop cycle. According to
the field research, there are areas of cultivation without fallow (F=0)
and areas with variable fallow period, averaging 4.67 months (F=0.39
years); in this study it was considered the latter value for crop areas
under fallow treatment. The sugarcane planted can be year and half
cane type, whose average cycle for the first cutting is 18 months (Pt=1.5
years), and year cane type, whose first cutting takes place at 12 months
(Pt=1 year). The number of cuttings varies in fertigated areas and non-
fertigated areas. According to the field research, an average of 5.63
cuttings (cm=5.63) in areas without fertigation and seven cuttings
(cm=7), on average, in fertigated areas are performed. According to the
field research data, there were identified eight different sugarcane crop
cycles (M=8). Table 2 shows the sugarcane crop cycles (bm) considered
in this study, calculated by the Eq. (1) and corresponding to the
sugarcane production regimes observed during the field research.
Table 2 also shows the proportion of area corresponding to each crop

1034
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Fig. 2. Agriculture and industrialization stages for ethanol production.

Table 1 coding of the ethanol production scenarios are described in Section

Data of the mills visited during the field study. 3.2.1.
Description Units Average

Crop area ha 18288.75 3.1.2. Soil preparation and tillage operations

Year and half cane area ha 2163.50 According to the field research, before starting a new sugarcane
Year cane area ha 1244.00 crop cycle, maintenance operations are carried out in the field, and all
Ratoon area ha 14217.50
the ash and sediments generated during the industrial stage are
Fallow area ha 663.75
Filter cake area – planting ha 762.50 dumped in the maintenance area. The quantities, considered in this
Stillage area – planting ha 803.00 study, of such residues generated by the researched mills are shown in
Stillage area – ratoon ha 2609.25 Table A.5. Further details of the maintenance operations in the
Mechanical planting area ha 915.00 cultivation area are presented in Appendix A.1.
Reduced tillage area ha 842.00
Productivity – not fertigated cane (t ha−1) 89.50
The sugarcane seeds are produced separately and, according to data
Productivity – fertigated cane (t ha−1) 103.00 of the field research, a seeds production area unit results in an area of
Average productivitya (t ha−1) 89.75 commercial planting 10–15 times higher compared to the seeds
n° of cuttings – not fertigated cane – 5.63 planting area and is carried out with the same operations used in the
n° of cuttings – fertigated cane – 7.00
agriculture of commercial sugarcane. Based on these data, this study
Average fallow period months 4.67
Average distance from crop to mill km 20.40 considers that the production of seeds uses 8% of the inputs required
for commercial production of sugarcane, with the corresponding GHG
a
Considers the weighted average between fertigated and non-fertigated crop areas of emissions, and taking into account that the production of seeds is
each mill. carried out with year and half cane, with manual harvesting and
without sugarcane field burning.
cycle, taking into account the crop area data of the researched mills This study considered three types of sugarcane cultivation evi-
(Table 1). Each sugarcane crop cycle has been assigned a code, also denced in the field research: conventional cultivation, mechanical
shown in Table 2, in order to facilitate its identification as part of a cultivation and reduced tillage. Most of the planting area (51.56%) of
specific ethanol production scenario. More information about the the researched mills are under conventional cultivation practices.

Table 2
Sugarcane crop cycle (bm) according to the number of cuttings (cm), type of cane planted and fallow period.

Code m Characteristics of agriculture Number of cuttings (cm) Crop cycle (bm-years) Frequencya (%)

M1 1 Without fallow+year and half cane planting without irrigation. 5.63 6.13 49.34
M2 2 Without fallow+year and half cane planting+irrigation. 7.00 7.5 11.85
M3 3 Without fallow+year cane planting without irrigation. 5.63 5.63 28.37
M4 4 Without fallow+year cane planting+irrigation. 7.00 7.00 6.81
M5 5 With fallow+year and half cane planting without irrigation. 5.63 6.52 1.86
M6 6 With fallow+year and half cane planting+irrigation. 7.00 7.89 0.45
M7 7 With fallow+year cane planting without irrigation. 5.63 6.02 1.07
M8 8 With fallow+year cane planting+irrigation. 7.00 7.39 0.25

a
Proportion of area corresponding to each crop cycle, taking into account the total cultivation area of the researched mills.

1035
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Table 3 the amount of biomass subjected to burning depends on the produc-

Sugarcane agricultural and industrialization practices.
Code Production stages (j)
A Seeds production
B Maintenance of crop area
C Application of agricultural
correctives
D Tillage and planting
tivity of sugarcane and the burning efficiency. This study considers the
weighted average productivity (considering irrigated and non-irrigated
Code Agricultural/industrial
practices (i) areas) and the burning efficiency observed in the field research:
89.75 t∙ha−1 and 88%, respectively. It was considered that all the
A1 Seeds production operations sugarcane straw content, 140 kg∙t−1 [18], remains on the soil after
B1 Maintenance operatons on the
mechanical harvesting and, according to data of the researched mills,
crop area
C1 Lime and gypsum application 12% average of the remaining straw can be left on the soil after manual
harvesting. Appendix A.6 and Appendix A.7 shows more details of
D1 Conventional cultivation sugacane field burning and the harvesting operations, respectively,
D2 Mechanical cultivation observed in the field research.
D3 Reduced tillage

E Fertilization on planting E1 Year and half cane in stillage 3.1.5. Transportation of inputs
area This study considers the GHG emissions from transportation of
E2 Year cane in stillage area necessary inputs for the production of sugarcane and ethanol. The
E3 Year and half cane in no-stillage
amount of inputs used in each production step are presented in
area
E4 Year cane in no-stillage area Appendix A. The average transportation distances from the suppliers
E5 Filter cake area to the agricultural and/or industrial area according to data from the
field research are: 382.5 km for transporting correctives and pesticides;
F Agricultural practices on F1 Field operations on ratoon 237.9 km for transporting industrial fertilizers and 332.5 km for
ratoon
transporting industrial chemical products.
G Fertilization on ratoon G1 Burnt cane in stillage area
G2 Raw cane in stillage area In the researched mills the most widely used form of sugarcane
G3 Burnt cane in no-stillage area transportation from the field to the plant is performed by 58 t trucks,
G4 Raw cane in no-stillage area (57.25% of total sugarcane transportation), followed by 28 t trucks
(24.75%) and 45 t trucks (18%). The average transportation distance
H Application of agricultural H1 Application of herbicides and
defensives insecticides
from the sugarcane field to the mills is 20.4 km.
I Sugarcane field burning I1 Sugarcane field burning
I2 Sugarcane field without burning 3.1.6. Ethanol production
This study focuses mainly on GHG emissions from sugarcane
J Harvesting J1 Manual harvesting
agriculture operations for ethanol production; however, in order to
J2 Mechanical harvesting
estimate the GHG emissions "from seed to mill", the industrial stage
K Sugarcane transportation K1 Sugarcane transportation was also considered. Only the emissions from the production and
operations transport of chemical products used in the industrialization of sugar-
L Ethanol production L1 Sugarcane industrialization
cane were considered. Table A.6 shows the chemical products used and
their average consumption in the researched mills. In this mills, all the
necessary energy for sugarcane processing is generated from sugarcane
However, currently about 55% of the sugarcane plantation area is
bagasse, however, the production of extra energy was not observed, for
subjected to mechanical cultivation in Minas Gerais [14]. The adoption
which this study does not considered this practice. More information
of each of these types of cultivation was considered in the modeling of
about the ethanol production stage is presented in Appendix A.8.
ethanol production scenarios. Further details of these types of cultiva-
In addition to GHG emissions realated to the production of
tion and their differences are shown in Appendix A.2 and Table A.1.
sugarcane and ethanol, this study includes the emissions from the
During the soil preparation and cultivation operations, agricultural
production of machinery, equipment and construction of necessary
correctives, i.e. lime and gypsum, and pesticides are applied. Table A.2
buildings for agriculture and industrialization of sugarcane. These data
shows the amount of correctives applied in the researched mills. Table
were obtained from [3].
A.3 shows the amount and types of pesticides applied. Details of these
For all agricultural and transportation operations, the diesel con-
operations are described in Appendix A.3.
sumption data for machinery, agricultural equipment and vehicles used
were taken from [3] and [19], when available. These data were
3.1.3. Fertilization complemented with field research data.
This study considers five types of fertilization in planting observed
in the field research, including fertilization on year and half cane and 3.2. Identification of current ethanol production scenarios
year cane in areas with and without stillage, as well as fertilization with
filter cake. Four types of fertilization on ratoon were considered, Based on data from the field research, the ethanol production
depending on the use of stillage and sugarcane burning. Table A.4 scenarios were identified combining each of the i agricultural/indus-
shows the amount of fertilizers used in the researched mills. Appendix trial practices included in each stage j of sugarcane and ethanol
A.5 shows more details about fertilization practices observed in the production. Table 3 shows all the production stages and the corre-
researched mills. sponding agricultural/industrial practices considered in this study,
including their identification codes. Note that some production stages
3.1.4. Harvesting have only one agricultural/industrial practice. Compatible combina-
Two types of harvesting observed in the field research were tions were made between the different agricultural and industrial
considered for modeling the ethanol production scenarios: manual practices. For example, the practice of maintenance operations in the
harvesting of burnt cane and mechanical harvesting of green cane. crop area is compatible with all agricultural and industrial practices,
Although less frequently, mechanical harvesting can also be performed since the whole process of sugarcane agriculture, according to data
with burnt cane, and manual harvesting can be made with green cane. from the field research, should include such maintenance practice. On
This study only considers mechanical harvesting of green cane and the other hand, agricultural irrigation (stillage area) of green sugarcane
manual harvesting of burnt cane, which are the main types of areas is not compatible with the sugarcane burning option, because
sugarcane harvesting practices in Brazil. During the sugarcane burning, those areas were not subjected to burning. Additionally, the sugarcane

1036
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling
crop cycles considered are only compatible with certain agricultural/
industrial practices. For example, the crop cycle b1 (6.13 years) cannot
be considered for irrigated areas, since such areas are subject to seven
cuttings on average (according to the field research data) and each
cutting is performed after, at least, one year of cultivation of sugarcane.
Therefore, in this case, the base period to be considered must be equal
or greater than seven years.
Taking into account the compatibility of agricultural/industrial
practices, the sugarcane crop cycles and considering that, for each
scenario, only one agricultural/industrial practice is permitted for each
stage of sugarcane and ethanol production, a total of 120 ethanol
production scenarios were identified. All these scenarios represent
different routes by which ethanol can be produced.
3.2.1. Identification code for each ethanol production scenario
In this study, each ethanol production scenario can be identified by
a numeric code that indicates the adopted agricultural/industrial
practices and the corresponding sugarcane crop cycle. The codes of
each item that made part of the scenario identification are shown in
Table 2 and Table 3. In order to identify the ethanol production
scenarios, these codes were sorted alphanumerically, so that each
production stage must only have one alphanumeric code corresponding
to its agricultural/industrial practice and one alphanumeric code for
the corresponding sugarcane crop cycle, making a total of 13 alpha-
numeric codes. The codes that are common to all the production
scenarios, i.e. ethanol production stages that have only one agricultur-
al/industrial practice, were removed from the final coding version. For
example, the scenario A1-B1-C1-D3-E3-F1-G4-H1, I2, J2, K1-L1-M5
can be represented as D3-E3-G4-I2-J2-M5, since the agricultural/
industrial practices A1-B1-C1-F1-H1-K1-L1 are common to all the
production scenarios. For further simplification, the alphabetic com-
ponent was also removed from the final coding version. In this sense,
the D3-E3-G4-I2-J2-M5 scenario was represented as 334225, and
corresponds to (according to Table 2 and Table 3) a production
scenario with reduced tillage, year and half cane planting in no-stillage
area, ratoon with green cane in no-stillage area, sugarcane field without
burning with mechanical harvesting, 5.63 cuttings and 6.52-year crop
cycle. This study adopted this last form of coding for identification of
the ethanol production scenarios.
Some scenarios includes a combination of sugarcane fertigated in
the first cutting and sugarcane not fertigated in the subsequent
cuttings, and vice versa. In such cases, it was considered that the total
number of cuttings depends on the sugarcane fertigation (or not) in the
subsequent cuttings, so it was considered a total of seven cuttings and
5.63 cuttings for sugarcane fertigated and not fertigated in the
subsequent cuttings, respectively.
3.3. Estimate of GHG emissions
GHG emissions were expressed in terms of one hectare of sugar-
cane cultivated for one year (ha−1yr−1), which represents the annual
average emissions per hectare, considering the full sugarcane crop
cycle. Most of the agricultural data provided by the researched mills fits
to this functional unit, once the obtained data are expressed per hectare
(ha−1). Most of the industrial data provided by the researched mills is
expressed per tonne of cane (t−1). This data was converted to ha−1yr−1
units, taking into account the average productivity and the correspond-
ing sugarcane crop area of the researched mills. For some agricultural
operations whose GHG emissions depend on the sugarcane productiv-
ity, such as sugarcane field burning and sugarcane transportation, the
corresponding emissions were also obtained according to the average
productivity of the researched mills.
In order to estimate the GHG emissions, the emissions correspond-
ing to each of the agricultural/industrial practices (i) included in each
of the sugarcane and ethanol production stages (j) were first calculated.
In a general way, GHG emissions from each of these practices can be
1037
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049
calculated by the equation:
Kij
Eij = ∑ (IN × EF )kij i = 1, 2, …, I . j = 2, 3, …, J .
kij =1 (2)
where Eij=GHG emissions (kgCO2eq∙ha−1) from each agriculture/
industrial practice i present in the production stage j (i and j are
indicated in Table 3), except for the production of seeds (E11), whose
emissions calculation will be explained below; IN=amount of input k
consumed during each practice i present in the production stage j; k
represents each of the inputs consumed in the agricultural/industrial
practices, including: diesel, lime, gypsum, fertilizers, herbicides, in-
secticides, sugarcane to be burned during harvesting and chemicals
used in the industrial stage; EF=GHG emission factor of the input k.
According to the field research data, each of the 12 stages (J=12) of
agriculture and industrialization of sugarcane includes up to five
agriculture/industrial practices (I ≤5).
As explained before, it was considered that the production of seeds
consumes about 8% of the resources used in the commercial produc-
tion of sugarcane. Thus, the emissions from the production of seeds
(E11) were calculated as 8% of GHG emissions resulting from
sugarcane production operations in the corresponding production
scenario, considering year and half cane planting, manual harvesting
and without sugarcane field burning, which are the operations com-
monly performed in the production of seeds, according to data of the
researched mills.
The total GHG emissions of ethanol production take into account
the emissions related to all the cuttings and subsequent industrializa-
tion performed during the full crop cycle of sugarcane, divided by the
time comprehended between the beginning of the fallow period
(beginning of the crop cycle) and the last cutting and subsequent
industrialization of sugarcane. In a general way, the total emissions for
each ethanol production scenario were calculated using the equation:
5 7 12
ESP + ∑ j =2 Eij+(cm − 1) ∑j =6 Eij + cm ∑ j =8 Eij + EME + EPP
TE =
bm (3)
−1 −1
where TE=Total GHG emissions (kgCO2eq∙ha ∙yr ) corresponding to
each production scenario; ESP=GHG emissions corresponding to seeds
production (E11=ESP); Eij=GHG emissions (kgCO2eq∙ha−1) corre-
sponding to the agricultural/industrial practice i present in the
production stage j (for ∀i ∈ {1,2,3,4,5}), calculated by the Eq. (2);
cm=number of cuttings made during the sugarcane crop cycle (the
number of cuttings cm, as well as the sugarcane crop cycle bm, are
indicated in Table 2); EME=GHG emissions corresponding to the
production of machinery and agricultural equipment (based on [3]
data, EME=82.82 kgCO2eq∙ha−1); Epp=GHG emissions corresponding
to the production/contruction of plant, buildings and equipment for
ethanol production (based on [3] data, EPP=24.85 kgCO2eq∙ha−1);
bm=sugarcane crop cycle. In Eq. (3), the second term of the numerator
refers to soil preparation and planting practices (j=2, 3, 4, 5) which
occur only once during the sugarcane crop cycle. The third term of the
numerator refers to operations in ratoon (j=6, 7), which occur 'cm–1′
times during the sugarcane crop cycle. The fourth term of the
numerator refers to practices (j=8, 9, 10, 11, 12) that occur cm times
during the sugarcane crop cycle.
3.4. GHG emission factors
GHG emission factors used in this study were obtained from [19]
and [20], for estimating direct, i.e. on field emissions, and indirect
emissions, i.e. emissions from the production and transportation of
inputs. Table 4 shows the GHG emission factors used for the consump-
tion of diesel, agricultural correctives, fertilizers and sugarcane burning.
The emission factors of pesticides and chemical products considered in
this study are shown in Table A.3 and Table A.6 respectively.
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Table 4 can be arranged according to their Euclidean distance. Table 5 shows

GHG emission factors for direct and indirect emissions. the number of groups identified for some Euclidean distances, con-
sidering that all the scenarios that are part of a branch form a group.
Inputs/GHG emission sources Units Emission factors
As shown in Table 5, various classifications of scenario groups can
Direct Indirect be made from the cluster analysis. For the choice of the number of
groups to be analyzed in this study, and to increase the robustness of
Diesel kg CO2eq∙l−1 3.04a 0.42b
the results, a second method of agglomeration was used: the average
Lime kg CO2eq∙kg−1 0.48c 0.02d
Gypsum kg CO2eq∙kg−1 – 1.87×10−3 (e) linkage clustering [23] in which groups are fused according to the
average distance between all pairs of objects, and each pair is
Fertilizers composed of one object from each group. In this second analysis, the
N kg CO2eq∙kg−1 6.20f 3.02g similarities between objects were also measured by the Euclidean
P (P2O5) kg CO2eq∙kg−1 – 2.66h
distances. Fig. 4 shows the tree diagram of the cluster analysis with
K (K2O) kg CO2eq∙kg−1 – 0.51i
Sugarcane burning g CO2eq∙kg−1 82.82j – average linkage method. Table 6 shows a summary of the groups of
scenarios formed by this second method.
a,b
Emission factors obtained from [20], based on diesel density data (0.8425 kg∙l−1) From Table 5 and Table 6, it can be observed that two classification
from [21]. of groups coincide from the two grouping methods, both in number of
c
[20]
d
[19]
groups and number of scenarios in each group: the classifications with
e
[19]. maximum Euclidean distances of 50 and 120 in the single linkage, and
f
[20]; corresponds to 20 g N2O per kg of N added to soil. 85 and 200 in the average linkage, containing 31 and seven groups of
g

h
[19] scenarios, respectively. Given that the first classification includes a
[19]
i large number of groups, this study takes into account the classification
[19].
j
[20] Based on emission factors for field burning of agricultural residues: 2.7 g of seven groups of ethanol production scenarios, to allow more
CH4∙kg−1 and 0.07 g N2O∙kg−1 - dry matter. simplicity in the analysis of these groups.

3.5. Classification of the ethanol production scenarios 4. Results and discussion

The ethanol production scenarios were classified according to their
GHG emissions. The classification was made by means of a cluster
analysis, in order to divide the ethanol production scenarios in
homogeneous groups. The following section describes the variables
and techniques used for this analysis.
3.5.1. Cluster analysis
The cluster analysis aimed to group the ethanol production
scenarios according to their GHG emissions. The technique used was
the agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis in which the most
similar objects (the ethanol production scenarios) are first grouped
and, as the similarity decreases, all subgroups are fused into a single
cluster [22]. The total GHG emissions of each mill, calculated from Eq.
3, corresponding to each ethanol production scenario, was considered
as the grouping variable. The similarities between objects were
measured by the Euclidean distance, which is the minimum linear
distance between two objects, measured from the corresponding values
of the grouping variable. The single linkage method, in which the
groups are fused according to the distance between their nearest
members [22] was used for the hierarchical clustering of groups.
There were obtained several scenario groups, as shown in Fig. 3, which
Euclidean distances
4.1. GHG emissions from agricultural and industrial practices
Table 7 shows the results summary of GHG emissions from
agricultural and industrial practices identified during the field research.
It shows the average (in parenthesis) emissions corresponding to each
agricultural/industrial practice. These emissions were calculated by the
Eq. (2). When a certain production stage has more than one practice,
the frequency (%) of each of these practices is indicated in brackets,
representing the percentage of the agriculture area under such
practices, according to the field research data.
These results show that the agricultural practice that generates the
greater amount of GHG emissions in ethanol production is the
fertilization on ratoon in stillage area with green cane. The high impact
on GHG emissions in this case is due to the increased use of nitrogen
fertilizers (the average amount of N fertilizers used is the largest among
all types of fertilization observed in the field research) and the addition
of nitrogen to the soil through irrigation with stillage. It is worth
mentioning that only a small crop area (6.16% of the total area of
ratoon) is subjected to this type of fertilizing.
The second largest source of GHG emissions is the application of
agricultural correctives during soil preparation (1595.26 kg CO2∙ha−1).
About 95% of these emissions correspond only to the application of

Ethanol production scenarios

Fig. 3. Tree diagram of the ethanol production scenarios – single linkage clustering.

1038
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Table 5
Groups of ethanol production scenarios - Single linkage clustering with Euclidean distances.

Maximum Euclidean distance (a) Number of scenarios in each group: Total number of groups

3 6 9 12 15 18 30 33 36 75 108 120

Number of groups with the quantity of scenarios shown in (a)

50 25 4 1 1 – – – – – – – – 31
80 12 3 2 – – 1 1 – – – – – 19
120 – 1 2 1 1 – – 1 1 – – – 7
150 – – 2 1 1 – – – – 1 – – 5
200 – – – 1 – – – – – – 1 – 2
220 – – – – – – – – – – – 1 1
Euclidean distances

Ethanol production scenarios

Fig. 4. Tree diagram of the ethanol production scenarios – Average linkage clustering.

Table 6
Groups of ethanol production scenarios – Average linkage clustering with Euclidean distances.

Maximum Euclidean distance (a) Number of scenarios in each group: Total number of groups

3 6 9 12 15 18 24 30 33 36 39 75 87 120

Number of groups with the quantity of scenarios shown in (a)

85 25 4 1 1 – – – – – – – – – – 31
160 – 2 2 1 2 1 – 1 – – – – – – 9
200 – 1 2 1 1 – – – 1 1 – – – – 7
280 – – 1 1 – – 1 – – 1 1 – – – 5
400 – – – 1 – – – – 1 – – 1 – – 3
600 – – – – – – – – 1 – – – 1 – 2
780 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 1

lime. The high level of GHG emissions in this case is due to the large
amount of lime applied to the soil and the corresponding emission
factor. It is worth mentioning that these are the total emissions per
hectare. However, as we shall see later, the impact of lime application
emissions changes when all the cuttings made during the entire
sugarcane crop cycle are considered. Since lime is only applied during
the soil preparation and after the third cutting, the impact of the
corresponding emissions is diluted over all the sugarcane cuttings;
therefore, the impact in ha−1∙yr−1 units will be lower.
4.2. GHG emissions resulting for each ethanol production scenario
The total GHG emissions for each scenario were calculated by the
Eq. (3). Appendix B shows the average GHG emissions corresponding
to each of the 120 scenarios identified in the study. According to these
results, the most polluting scenario is 221114 (n° 49). In this case, the
high impact on GHG emissions is due to: (1) mechanical cultivation,
which emits more GHG emissions compared to the other types of
cultivation; (2) year cane planting, in which the resources are used for a
shorter time span (one year) compared with year and half cane
planting; (3) irrigation with stillage during the entire sugarcane crop
cycle, which adds N to the soil; and (4) sugarcane field burning before
every manual harvest, which emits more GHG compared to mechanical
harvesting. Other issues that contribute to raise the level of GHG
emissions in this case are because the activities (3) and (4) described
above are repeated over seven cuttings, and the sugarcane crop cycle
begins without fallow, which increases the average annual GHG
emissions resulting from a sugarcane crop cycle of seven years.
The least polluting scenario is 334225 (n° 104), whose main
characteristics are: (1) reduced tillage, which emits lower levels of
GHGs than the other types of cultivation; (2) year and half cane
plantation without stillage irrigation, which results in better utilization
of resources used in planting (for one and half year) as well as avoids
adding N of stillage to the soil; (3) ratoon area without stillage, which
prevents the addition of N to the soil; (4) mechanical harvesting
without sugarcane field burning, which is the type of harvesting with
less impact on GHG emissions. Additionally, the fewer number of
cuttings (5.63) and adoption of the fallow period also contribute to low
average annual emissions.
From the frequencies of the practices showed in Table 7, it can be

1039
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Table 7
Average GHG emissions (kg CO2eq∙ha−1) from agricultural/industrial practices for ethanol production.

Seeds production Maintenance of crop area Application of agricultural correctives Tillage and planting

• Seeds production
(241.07)
operations • Maintenance operations on the • Lime and gypsum application (1833.41) (1595.26 • Conventional cultivation (317.28)
crop area (77.35) during soil preparation and 238.15 after the 3rd [51.56%]
cutting) •[26.85%]
Mechanical cultivation(345.31)

Fertilization on planting Agricultural practices on Fertilization on ratoon

•Application
Reduced tillage (233.84) [24.71%]
of agricultural
ratoon defensives
• Year(1253.80)
and half cane in stillage area • Field operations on ratoon • Burnt cane in stillage area (1400.93) [13.36%] • Application of herbicides and
[14.96%] (29.71) • Raw cane in stillage area (1631.62) [6.16%] insecticides (30.37)
• Year[8.61%]
cane in stillage area (1253.80) • Burnt cane in non-stillage area (1059.94) [55.05%]
• Raw cane in non-stillage area (1172.29) [25.43%]
• Yearareaand(1110.32)
half cane in non-stillage
[34.32%]
• Year(1207.46)
cane in non-stillage area
[19.73%]
• Filter
[22.38%]
cake a
area (1490.58)

Sugarcane field burning Harvesting Sugarcane transportation Ethanol production

• Sugarcane
[61.10%]
field burning (952.72) • Manual harvesting (47.17) • Sugarcane transportation operations (263.94)
[53.10%] b
• Sugarcane industrialization (59.66)
• Sugarcane
[38.90%]
field without burning (0) • Mechanical harvesting (764.16)
[46.90%] b

a
Considers year and half cane planting.
b
2009 data obtained from [17] for Minas Gerais.

observed that the 133111 (n° 21) scenario is the most frequent, whose
main characteristics are: (1) conventional cultivation; (2) year and half
cane planting; (3) cultivation without stillage irrigation; (4) sugarcane
field burning with manual harvesting; and (5) sugarcane field without
fallow period. These practices correspond to most of the sugarcane area
in the researched mills. The data of the area (%) of sugarcane subjected
to burning and mechanical harvesting are of 2009 [17], period of which
most of the field research was carried out. Currently the most practiced
type of harvesting in Minas Gerais is the mechanical cutting without
sugarcane field burning. In 2014 Minas Gerais mills reached the goal of
eliminating 100% of sugarcane burning in areas with declivity less than
12%, this corresponds to 97% of the total crop area [16]. Additionally,
the mechanical cultivation (including mechanical planting) is currently
practiced by most of the mills in Minas Gerais, occurring in nearly 55%
of the planted area [14]. Thus, maintaining the same conditions of
cultivation without stillage use in planting and ratoon, the current
production scenario that is the most frequently adopted is 234221 (n°
63), which is similar to the scenario 133111 with the difference that the
latter has mechanical cultivation and mechanical harvesting of sugar-
cane without burning. The total elimination of sugarcane field burning
with mechanical harvesting results in approximately 24% reduction of
GHG emissions when compared to manual harvesting of burnt cane.
However, the scenario 234221 shows a reduction of about 5% in total
GHG emissions compared to the scenario 133111. Table 8 details the
GHG emissions of the four scenarios mentioned above.
4.3. Classification of the ethanol production scenarios according to
their GHG emission levels
Aiming the classification of the ethanol production scenarios
according to their GHG emissions, the cluster analysis enabled the
identification of seven scenario groups. The scenarios that have the
lowest levels of GHG emissions compose the first group. The scenarios
that present the highest levels of those emissions form the seventh
group. Table 9 shows a summary of the identified scenario groups and
their main features.
The low GHG emission levels from the Group I scenarios are mainly
due to the use of production resources for a longer time span, exclusion
of stillage use during ratoon cultivation (and exclusion of stillage use
during planting in most of the scenarios) and mechanical harvesting
without sugarcane field burning. The fallow period before planting
combined with year and half cane planting make the sugarcane crop
cycle extends to 6.52 years (areas without fallow period and year cane
planting have a sugarcane crop cycle of 5.63 years), this contributes to
the annual reduction of emissions, since it favors the efficient use of
resources to produce ethanol. This extension of the crop cycle duration
also occurs in sugarcane crops submitted to seven cuttings (where the
sugarcane crop cycle extends to 7.89 years), but in this case there is a
greater use of stillage for fertigation, which does not allow the
reduction of GHG emissions. In Group I scenarios, the fertilization of
ratoon in areas of green cane without stillage represents a GHG
emissions reduction of about 460 kg CO2eq∙ha−1, i.e. nearly 40%,
compared to fertilization in areas of green cane with stillage. The
mechanical harvesting without sugarcane field burning also represents
an important source of GHG emission reductions in the Group I
scenarios; compared to manual harvesting of burnt cane, the reduction
of emissions is around 235 kg CO2eq∙ha−1, representing about 24% of
GHG emission reductions.
The only difference between Group I and Group II scenarios is that
the latter has manual harvesting with sugarcane field burning. Group II
has the lowest GHG emission levels for scenarios with sugarcane field
burning. It is worth mentioning that the emission levels of Group II
scenarios are lower than the estimated for Group III scenarios, whose
agricultural practices do not include sugarcane field burning. This
shows that some scenarios that includes the practice of sugarcane field
burning may present less GHG emission levels compared to scenarios
without sugarcane burning, provided that the other agricultural
practices present in Group I scenarios are carried out.
Group III is composed of scenarios with similar characteristics of
Group I scenarios, with the difference that the former does not include
the fallow period, thereby shortening the sugarcane crop cycle. This
raises the average annual GHG emissions. Group III also includes
scenarios with year cane planting, which results in decrease of six
months in the sugarcane crop cycle, thereby raising the average annual
GHG emissions. According to the field research data, the most common
production scenario in 2014 belongs to Group III.
Most of Group IV scenarios are similar to Group III scenarios, with
the difference that the former includes, in addition to mechanical

1040
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Table 8
GHG emissions from various ethanol production scenarios (kg CO2eq∙ha−1·yr−1).

Emissions source Ethanol production scenarios

Most polluting Least polluting Most frequent (2009) Most frequent (2014)

221114 334225 133111 234221

(n°49) (n°104) (n°21) (n° 63)

Fuel consumption: 689.94 732.22 515.86 805.13

Agricultural operations 290.89 106.26 126.63 131.68
Transportation of agricultural and industrial inputs 87.94 95.57 103.03 101.65
Harvesting, loading and transportation of sugarcane 311.11 537.60 285.73 571.80
Seeds production (excluding transportation) 28.85 30.98 32.95 32.95
Consumption of agricultural correctives 229.58 246.48 262.16 262.16
Consumption of synthetic fertilizers 353.50 426.22 425.64 453.34
N2O Emissions on soil: 891.39 882.77 563.84 938.94
N2O due to the use of synthetic fertilizers 559.55 546.42 522.65 581.19
N2O due to the application of stillage 286.99 – – –
N2O due to remaining straw after harvesting 44.85 336.35 41.19 357.75
Consumption of agricultural defensives 30.37 26.22 27.89 27.89
Sugarcane field burning 907.87 – 833.82 –
Consumption of chemical products during the industrial stage 50.78 51.52 46.64 46.64
Production of machinery, agricultural equipment, buildings and plant 107.67 92.97 98.89 98.89
construction
Total 3289.95 2489.38 2807.69 2665.94

harvesting, the practice of sugarcane field burning with manual scenarios.

harvesting. Group IV also presents scenarios with fertigation with
stillage, combined with mechanical harvesting of green cane or manual
harvesting of burnt cane. The most common production scenario in
2009, according to the field research data, pertains to Group IV.
All Group V scenarios present mechanical harvesting and year cane
planting in areas with no fallow period. The latter two aspects cause a
reduction of about 11 months in the sugarcane crop cycle, shortening
the time span of consumption of production resources and thus raising
the average annual GHG emissions.
Group VI has similar characteristics of Group IV, with the
difference that Group VI has scenarios that include fertigation com-
bined with shorter sugarcane crop cycles; these features favor the
increase of GHG emission levels. Most of the Group VI scenarios
includes irrigation with stillage on ratoon, either with mechanical or
manual harvesting. In this group, the fertilization practices in areas
with stillage on ratoon raises the level of GHG emissions by about
400 kg CO2eq∙ha−1, on average, compared to fertilization methods in
areas without stillage, mainly due to its use of fuel (diesel) and N2O
emissions from soil. This represents an increase of GHG emissions up
to 35% during fertilization on ratoon. The practice of fertilization
without irrigation with stillage is also part of some scenarios of Group
VI; however, this practice is combined with burning of the sugarcane
field and year cane planting, resulting in similar GHG emission levels
compared to the scenarios with stillage irrigation.
All the scenarios of Group VII present irrigation with stillage on
ratoon, and some of those scenarios also present irrigation with stillage
in planting. All the scenarios of this group include areas with no fallow
period and year cane planting, and the harvesting can be mechanical
with green cane or manual with sugarcane field burning. An analysis of
Group VII scenarios shows that the practices that most influence the
raise of annual GHG emissions are: (1) year cane planting in areas
without fallow period, which reduces the sugarcane crop cycle and
increases the annual average use of production resources; and (2) the
practice of fertigation with stillage, which results in a higher fuel
consumption and N2O emissions from soil. The Group VII scenarios
also show that mechanical harvesting of green sugarcane can be as
polluting as manual harvesting with sugarcane field burning, if carried
out together with the other agricultural practices present in Group VII
4.4. Comparison with other studies and suggestion of production
improvement policies
The results for some scenarios considered in this study are similar
to those found in the study of Macedo et al. [4], which was based on a
large database of mills located in the Center-South region of Brazil.
That study shows a GHG emissions balance of 2970.73 kg
CO2eq∙ha−1∙yr−1 in the agriculture and industrialization stages (calcu-
lation based on sugarcane productivity of 89.75 t∙ha−1 and without
production of surplus electricity, corresponding to data from this
study). The results of Macedo et al. [4], corresponds to the 2005/
2006 scenario, whose production conditions are similar to those found
in Group IV and Group VI of this study. The weighted average GHG
emissions of these two groups is 2970.07 kg CO2eq∙ha−1∙yr−1. Some of
the results of this study are also similar to those presented by Soares
et al. [8], which obtained a GHG emissions balance of 2842.74 kg
CO2eq∙ha−1∙yr−1 in the agriculture and industrialization stages (taking
into account a productivity of 89.75 t∙ha−1), with main data of the state
of São Paulo. The production scenario considered by Soares et al. [8]
also presents characteristics of Group IV and Group VI of this study.
Considering the results of this study, observe that the GHG
emission levels progressively decreased in the years of 2009
(2807.69 kg CO2eq∙ha−1∙yr−1 in scenario 133111) and 2014
(2665.94 kg CO2eq∙ha−1∙yr−1 in scenario 234221). This is a result of
improvements in sugarcane agriculture practices, especially in relation
to the adoption of mechanical harvesting and, to a lesser extent,
mechanical cultivation. Currently, GHG emission levels are even lower,
taking into account the production of surplus electricity for external
consumption. In this sense, in Minas Gerais, currently 63% of the mills
produce surplus electricity and the trend is to increase the supply in the
coming years [34]. Another advance in sugarcane agriculture is the
recovery of sugarcane straw for energy cogeneration, led by plants in
the state of São Paulo. In Minas Gerais, currently there are no sugar
mills that use sugarcane straw for this purpose [34]. As seen in this
study, all the straw generated after harvesting is left on the soil. The
recovery of straw for energy cogeneration could avoid the emission of
approximately 360 kg CO2eq∙ha−1∙yr−1, according to data from this

1041
 J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling

Table 9
Classification of ethanol production scenarios according to their GHG emission levels.

Group Tillage and planting Agricultural practices Harvesting practices Average Average Average Percentage GHG emissions (kg CO2eq∙ha−1·yr−1)
practices on ratoon fallow period number of sugarcane crop distribution of
(months) cuttings cycle (years) scenarios within the Minimum Average Maximum
group (%)

I Conventional or mechanical Green cane cultivation in Mechanical harvesting 4.67 5.63 6.52 7.50 2489.38 2526.12 2564.80
cultivation, or reduced tillage. no-stillage area. without sugarcane field
Year and half cane planting. burning.
II Conventional or mechanical Burnt cane cultivation in Manual harvesting with 4.67 5.63 6.52 7.50 2626.95 2663.69 2702.37
cultivation, or reduced tillage. no-stillage area. sugarcane field burning.
Year and half cane planting.
III Conventional or mechanical Green cane cultivation in Mechanical harvesting 0.00 or 4.67 5.63 6.02 or 6.13 12.50 2647.75 2702.86 2738.49
cultivation, or reduced tillage. no-stillage area. without sugarcane field
Year and half or year cane burning

1042
planting.
IV Conventional or mechanical Green or burnt cane Manual harvesting of 0.00 or 4.67 5.63 or 7.00 6.02, 6.13 or 7.89 27.50 2794.08 2873.54 2948.85
cultivation, or reduced tillage. cultivation in stillage area, burnt cane or mechanical
Year and half or year cane or burnt cane in no-stillage harvesting of green cane.
planting. area.
V Conventional or mechanical Green cane cultivation in Mechanical harvesting 0.00 5.63 5.63 5.00 2900.16 2915.81 2928.19
cultivation, or reduced tillage. no-stillage area. without sugarcane field
Year cane planting. burning.
VI Conventional or mechanical Green or burnt cane Manual harvesting of 0.00 or 4.67 5.63 or 7.00 5.63, 7.39 or 7.50 30.00 2986.25 3058.56 3116.33
cultivation, or reduced tillage. cultivation in stillage area, burnt cane or mechanical
Year and half or year cane or burnt cane in no-stillage harvesting of green cane.
planting. area.
VII Conventional or mechanical Green or burnt cane Manual harvesting of 0.00 7.00 7.00 10.00 3213.44 3253.01 3289.95
cultivation, or reduced tillage. cultivation in stillage area. burnt cane or mechanical
Year cane planting. harvesting of green cane.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

study for the most frequent scenario of 2014. Therefore, policies to
encourage this practice in the state of Minas Gerais are recommended.
All the scenarios with lower levels of GHG emissions (Groups I, II
and III) present sugarcane cultivation without stillage application. The
exclusion of this practice avoids the emission of N2O and, if the other
conditions of the Group II scenarios are accomplished, could allow
manual cutting of burnt cane, resulting in emission levels comparable
to some scenarios with mechanical harvesting. Therefore, policies to
avoid the use of stillage in order to reduce the levels of GHG emissions
are suggested.
All the scenarios of Group I and Group II present fallow period and
year and half cane planting. As explained before, those practices extend
the sugarcane crop cycle permitting the use of production resources for
a longer time span, thus contributing to the annual reduction of GHG
emissions. In this sense, policies that encourage the practice of fallow
period and the exclusive handling of year and half cane for planting are
recommended.
The adoption of the policies suggested here, together with the
cogeneration of energy and the complete elimination of sugarcane
burning, will contribute to the obtention of the lowest levels of GHG
emissions in the production of first generation ethanol in Minas Gerais.
5. Conclusion
It was conducted a GHG emissions balance for diverse ethanol
production scenarios, identified from the combination of different
types of cultivation, fertilization, harvesting and different sugarcane
crop cycles, resulting in a total of 120 scenarios of ethanol production.
Those scenarios present different levels of GHG emissions, so that they
were grouped and classified according to their GHG emissions perfor-
mance, identifying seven groups of scenarios.
Considering the current agricultural practices of sugarcane, it is
concluded that the factors that most favor the reduction of GHG
emission levels, since these factors are part of the group of scenarios
with lower GHG emission levels observed in this study, are: (1) long
sugarcane crop cycle, i.e. includes year and half cane planting and
fallow period, resulting in a 6.52-year cycle, which reduces GHG
emissions mainly due to the use of production resources for a longer
time span; (2) fertilization without stillage on ratoon, which reduces
GHG emissions by 40% when compared to fertigation with stillage on
ratoon; and (3) mechanical harvesting of green cane, which reduces
nearly 24% of GHG emissions when compared to manual harvesting of
burnt cane.
There were identified groups with low levels of GHG emissions that
include scenarios with manual harvesting of burnt cane, while there are
groups with high levels of GHG emissions that include scenarios with
mechanical harvesting of green cane. Therefore, it can be concluded
that manual harvesting of burnt cane can be carried out with lower
GHG emission levels than mechanical harvesting of green cane, if other
agricultural practices carried out in scenarios with lower levels of GHG
emissions are accomplished.
It was found that the combination of fertigation with stillage in
planting and ratoon and short sugarcane crop cycle, i.e. year cane
planting without fallow, result in ethanol production scenarios that
belong to the group with the highest levels of GHG emissions observed
in this study. In this sense, it can be concluded that the factors that
most favor the increase of GHG emissions are: short sugarcane crop
cycle and fertigation with stillage in planting and ratoon. The combina-
tion of these factors results in the highest GHG emission levels,
independent of the type of cultivation (conventional, mechanical or
reduced tillage) or the type of harvesting (mechanical of green cane or
manual of burnt cane).
Finally, the conventional cultivation, mechanical cultivation and
reduced tillage showed no significant influence on GHG emission levels
from ethanol production, since all the scenario groups present these
three types of tillage and planting practices. Thus, it can be concluded
that the differences between the techniques of sugarcane cultivation
have no relevant influence on the final levels of GHG emissions in
ethanol production.
Acknowledgements
The authors greatfully acknowledge the financial support of the
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior -
CAPES, and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais -
FAPEMIG. The authors thankfully acknowledge the Sindicato da
Indústria do Açúcar e do Álcool de Minas Gerais - SIAMIG, represented
by Jadir Oliveira and Mario Campos, for the information provided and
for facilitating the contact with the researched mills.

Appendix A

See Appendix Tables A1–A6.

Table A.1
Sugarcane tillage operations.

Operations Conventional cultivation Mechanical cultivation Reduced tillage

Lime application x x x
Gypsum application x x x
Mechanical removal of ratoon x x
Chemical removal of ratoon x x x
Heavy harrowing I x x
Subsoiling x x x
Heavy harrowing II x x
Final harrowing x
Furrowing and fertilizationa x x x
Distribution of seedsa x x x
Furrow closing and application of insecticidea x x x
Aplication of herbicide x x x
Mechanical cultivation x x x

a
In mechanical planting, furrowing, fertilization, distribution of seeds, furrow closing and insecticide application are made by mechanical planters, in a single operation.

1043
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Table A.2
Consumption of agricultural correctives.

Agricultural Average quantity Average fraction of the

correctives (kg∙ha−1) application area

Lime
Application during 2800 0.93
tillage
Application after third 2175 0.19
cutting

Gypsum
Application during 1125 0.83
tillage
Application after third 1325 0.15
cutting

Table A.3
Consumption of agricultural defensives.

Agricultural Quantity GHG emission factor (kg

defensivesa (kg ha−1) CO2eq kg−1)b

Ametrine 1.05 7.81

Diuron 0.34 6.94
Tebuthiuron 0.28 9.11
Glyphosate 0.27 15.77
Diuron+Hexazinone 0.97 8.46
Etilenoxi 0.01 3.86
2,4-D amine 0.15 3.20
2,4-D+Picloram 0.02 3.20
MSMA 0.21 4.12
Imazapic 0.02 7.08
Isoxazol 0.01 7.08
Fipronil 0.03 7.08
Metribuzin 0.01 7.81
Clomazone+Ametrine 0.70 7.81
Aldicarb 0.85 6.91

a
The agricultural defensives used were classified according to its active component or chemical group, since the available emission factors are expressed in terms of these parameters.
b
Emission factors for production of agricultural defensives [19].

Table A.4
Use of fertilizers in sugarcane cultivation.

Fertilization regimes Average amount of fertilizers

N P (P2O5) K (K2O) Stillage Filter cake

(kg ha−1) (kg ha−1) (kg ha−1) (m3 ha−1) (t ha−1)

Planting
Year and half cane in stillage area 33.8 163.0 0.0 137.8 0.0
Year cane in stillage area 33.8 163.0 0.0 137.8 0.0
Year and half cane in non-stillage area 53.8 182.4 156.3 0.0 0.0
Year cane in non-stillage area 64.8 182.4 147.3 0.0 0.0
Filter cake areaa 51.7 134.0 150.0 0.0 18.7

Ratoon
Burnt cane in stillage area 99.7 8.3 0.0 127.0 0.0
Raw cane in stillage area 112.9 38.8 0.0 137.8 0.0
Burnt cane in non-stillage area 100.0 16.7 126.7 0.0 0.0
Raw cane in non-stillage area 112.5 18.8 105.0 0.0 0.0

a
Considers year and half cane planting.

Appendix A.1: Maintenance of crop area

Before sugarcane planting, that is, the beginning of a new sugarcane crop cycle, always maintenance operations of cultivation area are carried
out, which consist mainly in construction or repair of agricultural paths, terraces and watersheds. During these operations all the ash and sediments
generated during the industrialization of sugarcane are dumped in the maintenance area. The sediments are constituted by inert material generated
during the washing step of sugarcane on the feeding belt, before milling in the industrial stage. The amount of inert material can vary from 4–15%
of the total weight in the dry and the rainy season, respectively [24]. The ash are generated during sugarcane bagasse burning in the industrial

1044
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Table A.5
Generation of filter cake, ash and sediments during sugarcane industrialization.

By-products Average quantity (kg t−1)

Filter cake 27.26

Ash 8.76
Sediments 57.73

Table A.6
Chemical products consumption during sugarcane industrialization.

Chemical products Average quantity GHG emission factor (kg

(kg t−1) CO2eq kg−1)a

Phosphates 0.0003 1.58

Sulphites 0.0016 1.42
Sulfuric acid 0.5681 0.14
Bactericides 0.0124 3.91
Cyclohexane 0.0403 0.91
Yeast 0.1146 1.01
Caustic soda 0.0748 1.11
Sulphates 0.0084 0.78
Simple superphosphate 0.0029 2.67
Urea 0.0207 3.35
Phosphoric acid 0.0584 1.45
Lime 0.7133 0.01
Mineral salt 0.0059 1.17

a
Emission factors for production of chemical products [19].

boilers for power generation; the ash content is nearly 5% of the bagasse weight burned in the boilers [25]. The ash and sediments are also dumped
in eroded soils recovery areas and for road maintenance in the agricultural area.

Appendix A.2: Tillage and planting

Tillage operations and planting of sugarcane may vary depending on the type of sugarcane planted (year and half cane or year cane) and the type
of cultivation performed (conventional cultivation, mechanical cultivation or reduced tillage). When planting is carried out with year cane, the
ratoon removal of the previous cultivation is done mainly mechanically and the first cutting occurs 12 months after planting. When the planting is
done with year and half cane, the chemical removal of ratoon is prefered and the first cutting takes place 18 months after planting. In both cases the
subsequent cuttings are done every 12 months.
Conventional cultivation is carried out by a semi-mechanized process; its main features are the mechanized furrowing and fertilization, with
manual planting.
The main feature of mechanical cultivation is the use of mechanical planters to perform furrowing, fertilization, distribution of seeds, furrow
closing and herbicide application, all in a single operation. Mechanical cultivation is currently the most widely adopted practice in the Center-South
region of Brazil, with 74.7% of the planted area [15].
Reduced tillage differs from the other types of cultivation mainly because the elimination of ratoon is performed chemically and heavy harrowing
is not carried out on the soil.
Table A.1 shows the operations for conventional cultivation, mechanized cultivation and reduced tillage considered in this study, according to
data obtained during the field research.

Appendix A.3: Agricultural correctives and defensives application

Agricultural correctives (lime and gypsum) are applied in the crop area during soil preparation before planting and after the third cutting. The use
of lime and gypsum are carried out before tillage. However, since all the types of cultivation observed during the field research include the application
of agricultural correctives, in this study these operations have been considered together with the tillage operations. The application of lime in the
agriculture of sugarcane is an important source of GHG emissions, since the amount used in agriculture is large, and its GHG emission factor is 0.5
kgCO2eq∙kg−1 (0.02 kgCO2eq∙kg−1 from lime production [19] and 0.48 kgCO2eq∙kg−1 from the dissolution of carbonate content of lime in the soil [20]).
Since the quantity of lime and gypsum used during soil preparation (total of 4.1 t ha−1, according to data from the field research) and after the third
cutting (total of 3.5 t ha−1) is large, it also becomes important the GHG emissions impact caused by the transportation of these inputs by the suppliers
to the crop. In the researched mills, the transportation of these correctives is carried out with direct unloading in the field. The agricultural defensives
(herbicides and insecticides) are applied during tillage and during ratoon treatment after each harvesting of sugarcane. Despite GHG emission factors
for production of agricultural defensives are high (the factors vary from 3.2 kgCO2eq∙kg−1 to 15.77 kgCO2eq∙kg−1 [19], considering the insecticides and
herbicides whose use was verified in the field research), its GHG emissions impact is not large, since the amount of agricultural defensives used in this
case is small. Table A.2 and Table A.3 show the average amount of agricultural correctives as well as the average consumption of agricultural
defensives, respectively, verified in the field research. Table A.3 also shows the GHG emission factors for production of agricultural defensives.

1045
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

Appendix A.4: Cultivation treatment of ratoon

Cultivation treatment of ratoon is always done after harvesting, in order to prepare the soil for sugarcane regrowth. The operations consist
mainly in the triple cultivation and the application of agricultural defensives. The triple cultivation consists of subsoiling, fertilizing and cultivation
simultaneously, through a specific cultivator (triple cultivator) developed for ratoon cane. An important aspect of this stage observed in the field
study is that all the remaining straw after harvesting operations, either manual or mechanical, is left on the soil. This causes the nitrogen content in
the straw return to the soil, resulting in N2O emissions caused by the microbial activity in the soil.

Appendix A.5: Fertilization

The fertilization practices on sugarcane planting and ratoon vary depending on soil fertility, the desired productivity, the variety of sugarcane
planted, fertigation (areas with stillage and areas without stillage), use of filter cake as fertilizer and burning of sugarcane field before harvesting.
Fertilization practices are important in GHG emissions assessment of agricultural systems, mainly due to the use of nitrogen fertilizers, which have a
high impact on GHG emissions (the production of each kg of nitrogen fertilizer emits 3.02 kgCO2eq [19] and each kg of N added to the soil emits 6.2
kgCO2eq [20]).
The nitrogen added to the soil during fertilization occurs mainly via application of synthetic fertilizers, stillage and filter cake used during
planting and during cultivation on ratoon. In the field research it was found that in areas fertigated with stillage the use of potassium fertilizers is
completely eliminated and the use of nitrogen fertilizers is reduced, due to the average content of K (K2O −2.04 kg ∙m−3) [26] and N (0.36 kg •m−3)
[26,27] in the stillage. Part of the planting areas is fertilized by filter cake added to conventional synthetic fertilizers. Filter cake has an approximate
content of 1.15% N in dry matter [27–29]. In the case of fertilization with filter cake, rich in phosphorus, the use of phosphate fertilizers is lower
compared to the other forms of fertilization. Table A.4 shows the types of fertilization regimes observed in the field research, with average
consumption amounts.

Appendix A.6: Sugarcane field burning

Sugarcane field burning is an important source of GHG emissions, specifically CH4 and N2O, since large amounts of biomass (straw) are burned
to facilitate the manual harvesting of sugarcane. The unburnt straw returns and remains on the soil after manual harvesting, thus contributing to
the emission of N2O. The sugarcane field burning practice before manual harvesting has gradually reduced in Minas Gerais and in Brazil in recent
years, mainly due to labor and environmental issues. In 2010 the sugarcane harvesting area submitted to previous burning was 45.60% in Minas
Gerais [17]. A protocol signed between the state government authorities and the Sugar and Alcohol Industry Trade Union of Minas Gerais (SIAMIG)
decreed the elimination of sugarcane field burning at 100% of the crop area with declivity below 12%, from 2008 to 2014. This goal was reached in
2014, allowing the reduction of GHG emissions, higher moisture retention, soil organic matter retention and less amount of water used for
sugarcane washing in the industrial process [30]. However, sugarcane field burning with manual harvesting is still practiced in Brazil, mainly in the
North-Northeast region. In the states of Pernambuco and Alagoas, largest sugarcane producers of this region, the harvesting area submitted to
burning reached nearly 98% and 85% respectively in 2012 [31].

Appendix A.7: Harvesting

In the researched mills, manual and mechanical harvesting practices were observed. Manual harvesting is usually carried out with previous
burning of sugarcane, while the mechanical harvesting is performed with green sugarcane.
In manual harvesting, after the sugarcane field has been burned, the sugarcane cutters cut the cane and leave it piled on the ground, ready to be
loaded. Subsequently, the sugarcane is loaded by mechanical loaders and put into trucks for transportaton to the mill. In this sense, the
corresponding GHG emissions of manual harvesting operations depend on the fuel consumption of loaders and the productivity of sugarcane, which
determines the amount of sugarcane loaded per hectare.
Mechanical harvesting consists basically of sugarcane cutting by harvesters, which cut the sugarcane and deposit it directly into the trans-
shipment trucks. Later, when the trans-shipment trucks are completely filled, the harvested cane is transported and placed on trucks that carry out
the final transportation to the mill. Thus, GHG emissions of mechanical harvesting operations occur depending on the fuel consumption in
harvesters and transportation trucks. After mechanical harvesting, the amount of straw left on the soil is higher compared with the manual
harvesting. In the researched mills, all the straw remains in the field contributing to N2O emissions. All the straw can remain on the soil after
mechanical harvesting of green cane, or part of it after manual harvesting of burnt cane. The N content, which results in N2O emissions from the
soil, is 0.5% in the sugarcane straw [32]. A survey conducted in southeastern Brazil mills shows that currently over 60% of these mills leave the
sugarcane straw on the soil after harvesting and therefore is not used for power generation [33]. This practice was also not observed in the
researched mills, so this study does not consider the power generation from sugarcane straw.

Appendix A.8: Ethanol production

The final stage of ethanol production is the industrialization of sugarcane. In the researched mills, all the energy needed to process the raw
material is generated from sugarcane bagasse obtained in the milling process. The surplus bagasse is stored near the plant for future power
generation in the industrial process. None of the researched mills use the surplus bagasse for cogeneration and sale of additional energy to other
industries. Currently, there are mills that use part of the surplus bagasse for producing and selling extra energy to other industries and is predicted
that the sell of extra energy generated in the mills will increase [4], mainly due to the possibility of use of the straw generated after harvesting for
power generation.
In addition to sugarcane bagasse generated during the industrialization stage, other by-products are generated: stillage, filter cake, ash and
sediments from boilers. Stillage and filter cake are used in the fertilization of the agricultural area, while the sediments and ash from boilers are used
for maintenance of the cultivation area. Table A.5 shows the average amounts of filter cake, ash and sediments generated in the researched mills.
Since all the energy used for the industrial process in the mill is generated from sugarcane bagasse, there are no significant sources of GHG

1046
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

emissions at this stage than those generated during production and transportation of chemicals used in the industrial process. Table A.6 shows the
average consumption of chemicals used in the industrialization of sugarcane for ethanol production (and their emission factors), according to data
provided by the researched mills.

Appendix B

GHG emissions from different ethanol production scenarios.

GHG emissions by ethanol production scenario (kg CO2eq∙ha-1·yr-1)

Scenario n° Regime of practices GHG emissions Group

1 111112 3066.88 VI
2 111116 2915.29 IV
3 112222 3016.51 VI
4 112226 2867.41 IV
5 113111 2831.09 IV
6 113115 2661.75 II
7 114221 2684.77 III
8 114225 2524.18 I
9 121114 3285.95 VII
10 121118 3112.54 VI
11 122224 3231.98 VII
12 122228 3061.41 VI
13 123113 3082.52 VI
14 123117 2882.83 IV
15 124223 2923.21 V
16 124227 2733.83 III
17 131112 3047.75 VI
18 131116 2897.11 IV
19 132222 2997.38 VI
20 132226 2849.22 IV
21 133111 2807.69 IV
22 133115 2639.74 II
23 134221 2661.37 III
24 134225 2502.17 I
25 141114 3279.33 VII
26 141118 3106.27 VI
27 142224 3225.36 VII
28 142228 3055.14 VI
29 143113 3074.29 VI
30 143117 2875.13 IV
31 144223 2914.98 V
32 144227 2726.13 III
33 151112 3098.46 VI
34 151116 2945.30 IV
35 152222 3048.08 VI
36 152226 2897.42 IV
37 153111 2869.72 IV
38 153115 2698.07 II
39 154221 2723.40 III
40 154225 2560.50 I
41 211112 3070.62 VI
42 211116 2918.84 IV
43 212222 3020.25 VI
44 212226 2870.96 IV
45 213111 2835.67 IV
46 213115 2666.05 II
47 214221 2689.34 III
48 214225 2528.48 I
49 221114 3289.95 VII

1047
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049

50 221118 3116.33 VI
51 222224 3235.98 VII
52 222228 3065.20 VI
53 223113 3087.50 VI
54 223117 2887.48 IV
55 224223 2928.19 V
56 224227 2738.49 III
57 231112 3051.49 VI
58 231116 2900.66 IV
59 232222 3001.12 VI
60 232226 2852.77 IV
61 233111 2812.26 IV
62 233115 2644.04 II
63 234221 2665.94 III
64 234225 2506.47 I
65 241114 3283.33 VII
66 241118 3110.06 VI
67 242224 3229.36 VII
68 242228 3058.93 VI
69 243113 3079.27 VI
70 243117 2879.78 IV
71 244223 2919.96 V
72 244227 2730.79 III
73 251112 3102.19 VI
74 251116 2948.85 IV
75 252222 3051.82 VI
76 252226 2900.97 IV
77 253111 2874.29 IV
78 253115 2702.37 II
79 254221 2727.97 III
80 254225 2564.80 I
81 311112 3055.76 VI
82 311116 2904.71 IV
83 312222 3005.38 VI
84 312226 2856.83 IV
85 313111 2817.48 IV
86 313115 2648.95 II
87 314221 2671.16 III
88 314225 2511.38 I
89 321114 3274.03 VII
90 321118 3101.24 VI
91 322224 3220.05 VII
92 322228 3050.12 VI
93 323113 3067.70 VI
94 323117 2868.96 IV
95 324223 2908.39 V
96 324227 2719.97 III
97 331112 3036.63 VI
98 331116 2886.53 IV
99 332222 2986.25 VI
100 332226 2838.64 IV
101 333111 2794.08 IV
102 333115 2626.95 II
103 334221 2647.75 III
104 334225 2489.38 I
105 341114 3267.41 VII
106 341118 3094.97 VI
107 342224 3213.44 VII
108 342228 3043.85 VI
109 343113 3059.47 VI
110 343117 2861.27 IV

1048
J.C. Claros Garcia, E. Von Sperling
111 344223
112 344227
113 351112
114 351116
115 352222
116 352226
117 353111
118 353115
119 354221
120 354225
References
[1] Empresa de Pesquisa Energética. Análise da conjuntura dos biocombustíveis – Ano
2012. Rio de Janeiro: EPE 2013:49.
[2] Empresa de Pesquisa Energética. Balanço energético nacional – Ano base 2014:
Relatório Síntese. Rio de Janeiro: EPE 2015:61.
[3] Macedo I, Leal M, Silva J. Balanço das emissões de gases do efeito estufa na
produção e no uso do etanol no Brasil. São Paulo: SMESP 2004:32.
[4] Macedo I, Seabra J, Silva J. Greenhouse gases emissions in the production and use
of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for
2020. Biomass- Bioenergy 2008;32:582–95.
[5] Wang L, Quiceno R, Price C, Malpas R, Woods J. Economic and GHG emissions
analyses for sugarcane ethanol in Brazil: looking forward. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2014;40:571–82.
[6] Oliveira M, Vaughan B, Rykiel Jr. E. Ethanol as fuel: energy carbon dioxide
balances and ecological footprint. Bioscience 2005;7(55):93–601.
[7] Seabra J, Macedo I, Chum H, Faroni C, Sarto C. Life cycle assessment of Brazilian
sugarcane products: GHG emissions and energy use. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref
2011;5:519–32.
[8] Soares L, Alves B, Urquiaga S, Boddey R. Mitigação das emissões de gases efeito
estufa pelo uso de etanol da cana-de-açúcar produzido no Brasil. EMBRAPA Circ
Técnica 2009;27:14.
[9] Turdera M. Energy balance, forecasting of bioelectricity generation and greenhouse
gas emission balance in the ethanol production at sugarcane mills in the state of
Mato Grosso do Sul. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:582–8.
[10] Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Cana-de-açúcar: acompanhamento da
safra brasileira, safra 2015/2016, primeiro levantamento, abril/2016. Brasília:
CONAB; 2016.66. Available at: 〈http://www.conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads/
arquivos/16_04_18_14_27_15_boletim_cana_portugues_-_1o_lev_-_16.pdf〉
[accessed30.06.16].
[11] Nova Cana. As usinas de açúcar e etanol do Brasil. NOVA CANA 2016, 〈https://
www.novacana.com/usinas-brasil/〉, [accessed 30.06.2016].
[12] Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento . Levantamentos de safra. Brasília: CONAB
2016, 〈http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1253 & t〉, [accessed 03.07.2016].
[13] Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira . Censo varietal e de produtividade em 2011. CTC
2012:28.
[14] Sindicato da Indústria do Açúcar e do Álcool de Minas Gerais. Data Provid SIAMIG
2015. [Personal communication].
[15] Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira . Análise da safra 2014/2015. CTC 2015.
[16] Canaonline. Minas Gerais eliminou a queima em 100% das áreas com 12% de
declividade. CANAONLINE. 2015. Available at: 〈http://www.canaonline.com.br/
conteudo/minas-gerais-eliminou-a-queima-em100-das-areas-com12-de-
declividade.html#.WFbL-9grLIU.〉 [accessed08.08.15].
[17] Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira . Programa de Acompanhamento Mensal de
Performance Agrícola (PAMPA) – Safra 2010/2011. São Paulo: CTC 2011.
[18] Hassuani S, Leal M, Macedo I. Biomass power generation: sugar cane bagasse and
1049
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1033–1049
2900.16 V
2712.27 III
3087.33 VI
2934.72 IV
3036.96 VI
2886.84 IV
2856.11 IV
2685.27 II
2709.79 III
2547.70 I
trash. Piracicaba: PNUD-CTC; 2005.
[19] Institut für umweltinformatik, institut für energie & umweltforschung. Ecoinvent
v2.01a for Umberto 5.5. Hamburg: 2006. 1 CD-ROM.
[20] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . IPCC Guidelines for national
greenhouse gas inventories. Hayama: IGES; 2006.
[21] PETROBRAS. Ficha de Informações de Segurança de Produtos Químicos – Óleo
Diesel B S10. Petrobrás, 2012.
[22] Johnson R, Wichern D. Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 5th ed.. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2002.
[23] Sokal R, Michener C. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships.
Univ Kans Sci Bull 1958;28:1409–38.
[24] Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais . Uso de energia na indústria de açúcar e
álcool em Minas Gerais. Belo Horiz: CEMIG 1990:79.
[25] Almeida B, Barreto G, Gonçalves C. Resíduos da agroindústria canavieira no estado
de Minas Gerais: usos e conservação ambiental. Inf agropecuário, Belo Horiz
2007;28(239):96–100.
[26] Elias Neto A, Nakahodo T. Caracterização físico‐química da vinhaça.. Piracicaba:
CORPERSUCAR; 1995.
[27] Macedo I, Macedo G. Novos produtos da sacarose. Relatório reservado. Campinas,
2005 apud SEABRA J. Avaliação técnico-econômica de opções para o aproveita-
mento integral da biomassa de cana no Brasil. 298 f. Tese (Doutorado em
Planejamento Energético) – Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Estadual de
Campinas, São Paulo; 2008.
[28] Ferreira E, Zotarelli E, Salviati L. Efeitos da utilização da torta de filtro na
produtividade da cana-de-açúcar. Seminário de tecnologia agronômica.
4.Piracicaba. Anais. Piracicaba: Corpersucar; 1988. p. 321–31.
[29] Pereira J, Ferreira G, Gondim T, Santos J, Vale D. Adubação orgânica com torta de
filtro de cana-de-açúcar no algodoeiro semiperene BRS 200 no Cariri cearense. In:
CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE ALGODÃO, 5; 2005.
[30] Sindicato da Indústria do Açúcar e do Álcool de Minas Gerais. Cana sem queima
gera vantagens altamente positivas [dez]. Canavial 2014(29):4–6, 〈http://www.
siamig.com.br/cache/Canavial/novembro.pdf〉, [accessed 20.09.2015].
[31] Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento . Perfil do setor do açúcar e do álcool no
Brasil. Brasília: CONAB; 2013. p. 88, Available at 〈http://www.conab.gov.br/
OlalaCMS/uploads/arquivos/13_10_02_11_28_41_perfil_sucro_2012.pdf〉,
[accessed 27.03.2015].
[32] Linero F, lamônica H. Integração BIG/GT – Usina. Geração de energia por
biomassa: bagaço e palha de canaSeminário de alternativas energéticas a partir da
cana-de-açúcar. Centro de tecnologia canavieira – CTC. São Paulo: Piracicaba; 2005.
[33] União dos Produtores de Bioenergia . Mais de 60% das usinas não mexem na palha
da cana, aponta pesquisa UDOP. Agência UDOP de notícias 2015, 〈http://www.
udop.com.br/index.php?item=noticias & cod=1128027〉, [accessed 06.07.2015].
[34] Brasilagro MG. Minas Gerais: uso da palha da cana triplicaria venda de energia.
BRASILAGRO 2016, 〈http://www.brasilagro.com.br/conteudo/mg-uso-da-palha-
da-cana-triplicaria-venda-de-energia.html#.WFbLdNjyvIU〉, [accessed 17.12.2016].