广西甘蔗生产全程机械化发展研究

谭俊杰 杨尚东

摘要：【目的】對比广西甘蔗生产在全程机械化、半机械化和习惯种植方式下的生产成本和产出差异，分析其原因，并对广西乃至全国的甘蔗生产竞争力提升提出发展建议。【方法】选用桂糖32号（GT-32）为试验材料，分别采用全程机械化、半机械化和习惯种植方式进行种植，时间从2011/2012榨季到2016/2017榨季共6年。在每一季种植过程中，统计生产投入和开支，收获时测定不同种植方式下甘蔗的耕层厚度、宿根期、株高、茎重、茎粗、含糖量、有效茎数、产量和实际生产成本。此外，将我国与全球其他主要甘蔗生产国的甘蔗生产成本进行对比分析，结合田间试验结果探究优化生产成本的路径。【结果】试验过程中全程机械化、半机械化、习惯种植的甘蔗株高和含糖量无显著差异（P>0.05）。机械化生产有利于甘蔗种植深耕深松和延长宿根期，较习惯种植能显著提升甘蔗的茎重、有效茎数及产量（P<0.05）。全程机械化产生的效果优于半机械化生产。生产成本方面，机械化种植取代了传统体力劳动，且有效降低了施肥和灌溉成本，因此全程机械化和半机械化均较习惯种植在耕作、收割、施肥、农药、劳动力成本等方面的成本明显降低。但与全球其他主要甘蔗生产国相比较，我国的农地使用成本的差距较大，成本优势并不明显。【结论】广西甘蔗生产必须坚持发展机械化，以不断提升产业国际竞争力。现有的农地租赁制度需要改革和创新，以降低农业生产单位的生产成本。

关键词： 甘蔗；机械化生产；生产成本；成本控制

0 Introduction

【Research significance】Sugarcane is an important economic crop in Guangxi now planted on about 9.5×105 ha， which covers 62.5% of total national sugar-cane planting area（Guangxi Statistics Bureau，2017）. Most of the sugarcane production in Guangxi is still by manual labor， that is， traditional tillage management is the means. The regional sugarcane planting area continuously declined since 2013， but the output per hectare went up to 78.45 t by 2016（Guo et al.，2016；Guangxi Statistics Bureau，2017）. The productivity raised up since the government adhered to mechanization development and guided more social capital enterng into sugar business. It caused a gradual increase in the number of large scale management for sugarcane production. The purchasing price of sugarcane in Guangxi， however， did not fall， and maintained at a price level of 400 to 500 yuan per ton， which was much higher than those in other major sugarcane producing countries（Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Price Bureau and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Sugar Industry Development Office，2017）. Price competitiveness was not obvious notwithstan-ding the productivity has been improved. Therefore，in such circumstance， sugarcane production in Guangxi needs to seek a more effective mode of production that suits both decentralized management of peasant household and the existing farmland contract management model of large scale agricultural production. 【Research progress】Ou et al.（2013） outlined possible mechanization development pattern for sugarcane production in China based on the analysis of mechanized production mode and how mechanization took over manual labor in order to enhance the productivity. Tan et al.（2013） and Luo et al.（2016） pointed out that different advanced agricultural techniques could be used as mechanized production method to improve sugarcane productivity in large scale planting. Shi and Wei（2017） proposed that the Guangxi Government should change existing policies that emphasized on sugar mill instead of sugarcane growers. Because the existing policies were not conducive to promote the transformation and upgrading of sugarcane mechanized production， and made sugar mills bear potentially higher sugarcane purchasing price. Deng et al.（2017） investigated and pointed out that mechanization development was only suitable for large scale management， and it could only reduce certain part of the production cost related to manual labor. Granco et al.（2017） and Moore et al.（2017） mentioned in their studies that， while the usage of herbicides， fertilizers and pesticides were compressed by the application of mechanized production technology and equipment， the sugarcane production environment has been well maintained， and this could be an effective motivation for the government to promote mechaniation development. Cardoso et al.（2018） pointed out that， the traditional manual planting method of sugarcane contribu-ted to the highest job creation level， but the lower internal rates of return and higher production costs were observed， so that governments need to put forward every policy very cautiously during the process of mechanization development. 【Research breakthrough point】Previous researches have conducted contrastive experiments so that the usage of certain production materials and relevant production costs by different production methods were mastered. But the production cost structures in different countries have not been analyzed， so the proposed suggestions were only suitable for sugarcane mechanized production development in the specific countries or regions and to gain competitiveness locally. Mechanization development is not something that simply transforms agriculture from labor-intensive farming to capital-intensive far-ming by utilizing machinery to take over manual labor. It should be a pattern which optimizes cost structure， enhances productivity， more importantly， opens to all kind of sugarcane business including large-scale agricultural producers and scattered peasant households. This study aimed to propose recommendations to mechanization development based on the combination of field experiment results and cost structure ana-lysis. 【Solving problems】In the current study， the problems in mechanization development were analyzed through the field experiment and cost structure analyis， and recommendations of mechanization development in sugarcane production for large-scale enterprises and scattered peasant households were put forward in order to solve the dissected problems.

1 Materials and methods

1. 1 Experimental materials

Field experiment for this study was conducted at Luorong Farm， Luzhai Country， which located at the center of Guangxi， and covered a planting area of 15 ha. It was carried out to compare sugarcane productivity among fully mechanized planting， semi-mechanized planting and habitual planting since 2011 till 2017. The fully mechanized planting meant that， the whole production process completely discarded the manual labor force（Ou et al.， 2013）； the semi-mechanized planting meant that， farm works in terms of cultivation and harvest were done by manual labor and machinery together（Li and Yang， 2009）； the habitual planting meant that， all farm works were done by manual labor， and there was no machinery get involved in the whole planting process（Tan， 2009）.

In this study， mechanized planting utilized machinery to participate in cultivation， fertilization， pesticide application， harvest and other links. The main machines used included 120-220 horsepower tractor， deep plough machine， plow rake machine， integrated planting machine， cultivator and harvester. Machines were mainly medium-sized agricultural machinery， such as Xuzhou-Deer， CASE-4000， etc.

1. 2 Treatments

Guitang 32（GT-32） sugarcane variety was used in this study. Production costs in different planting treatments for the GT-32 sugarcane were calculated in the experiment area. In the first treatment（T1）， sugarcane planting was carried out by fully mechanization； in the second treatment（T2）， sugarcane planting was carried out by semi-mechanization； in the third treatment（T3）， sugarcane planting was carried out by habitual planting. The area for each treatment was 4 ha， which was about 100 m by 400 m. There was an bu-ffer zone that did not grow any crops around the experi-mental field， and it covered an area of about 3 ha. Each treatment was divided into four fields， 1 ha each， so four replications were carried out for the experiment. Plant density was 75000 plant/ha.

1. 3 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using Duncans multiple range test to determine significant di-fference between the treatments at 5% level.

1. 4 Production cost and productivity analysis

The sugarcane production cost was divided into three categories， which included direct raw material and service fees， indirect raw material and service fees， and labor fees（Tan， 2004， 2009）. To elaborate further， cost components included the use of farmland， seedling， fertilizer， pesticide and labor. In terms of labor cost， remuneration for daily farming also included operation of mechanical cultivating and harvesting. Production cost analysis would gather and calculate all the cost components arising therefrom.

In the process of sugarcane planting， various production expenditures were counted. Related topsoil layer thickness， ratooning period， plant height， stem weight， stem diameter， sugar content， effective stalk number， yield quantity and actual production costs were measured at harvest time. In addition， the production costs between China and other major sugarcane producing countries were analyzed， and the re-commendation for future production cost optimization was made on account of the comparative analysis and field experiment results.

2 Results and analysis

2. 1 Sugarcane production costs

Farmland rent was a fixed cost to large scale planting under the land contractual management model so the farmland rent cost did not change in any plan-ting mode.

T1 delivered a superior result in cost control that gained more competitive advantage than T3. In terms of cultivation and harvest， T1 presented great advantages over T3. The harvest cost declined from 9000 yuan/ha in T3 to 4500 yuan/ha in T1， dropped by 50%. The cultivation cost declined from 2475 yuan/ha in T3 to 1275 yuan/ha in T1， decreased by 48.48%. The costs of seedling， fertilizer， pesticide and labor had di-fferent levels of decline. Overall， the total production cost in T1 dropped to 27000 yuan/ha， which decreased by 30.39% compared with T3（38790 yuan/ha）.

T2 presented a desired result as well， all cost indexes except harvest cost declined as much as T1. The total production cost was 31500 yuan/ha in T2， which was about 18.79% lower than T3（Table 1）.

2. 2 Sugarcane yields and quality

As Table 2 showed， T1 was able to extend sugarcane ratooning period from three years in T3 to six years； and the mechanical cultivation was able to achieve the effects of reaching 40.5 cm deep plowing and scarification which would improve quality and quantity of sugarcane growing. T2 was able to achieve 40.3 cm deep plowing and scarification as well， but it could merely extended sugarcane ratooning period for more than one year compared with T3.

Effective stalk number， plant height， stem dia-meter and stem weight in T1 increased than those in T3（Table 3）. Compared with T2 and T3， sugar content in T1 was the highest（15.48%）. The index values of T2 were in between of T1 and T3， but the improvement was obvious compared to T3. Effective stalk number in T1 was extremely significantly higher than T3（P<0.01，the same below）， and that of T2 was significantly higher than T3（P<0.05， the same below）. There was significant difference between in stem weight between T1 and T3.

In terms of sugarcane yields and production cost， mechanized planting had an overwhelming superiority over the habitual planting. The sugarcane yield had an increased of 36.60 t/ha in T1 compared to T3； the production cost in T1 dropped by 314.38 yuan/t compared to T3； the total output value in T1 raised to 52125 yuan/ha， an increase of 18300 yuan/ha compared to T3（Table 4）. There was extremely significant difference in average yield between T1 and T3， and significant difference between T2 and T3.

2. 3 The competitiveness brought by mechanization was visible but not obvious

Chinese sugarcane growers could gain more competitiveness through mechanization according to the field experiment result analysis， but it was still hard to win the competition among the major sugarcane producing countries in the globe as Table 5 showed. The Chinese sugarcane average production cost ranked the highest in total， follow by America， Australia， Thailand， Brazil and India. It was over three times higher than the second highest country， and even the field experiment results by fully-mechanized planting could not further compress the disparities. The reasons for disparities vary from country to country. Sugarcane production in Brazil， America and Australia tended to be extensive agriculture since these countries were vast and had low population density in the rural areas（Braunack et al.， 2006； Su et al.， 2011）. Soil condition in India was mainly allu-vium with high content of organic matter， phosphorus and potassium， so the fertilizing cost could be reduced（Chen， 2011）. Thai Government helped agricultural firms to introduce water-saving irrigation system in recent years， so the cost for raw materials have been optimized well（USDA， 2017c）. In contrast to average data of China， the farmland rent was the majority that occupied 28.16% of total production cost， but the proportions of farmland rents in other countries were negligible. Other cost components could be decreased by mechanization， but they were not lower than any countries in specific cost components.

There was no difference in farmland rent among T1， T2 and T3 in the field experiment because the cost of farmland lease was fixed. Any large-scale planting in China needed to rent farmland from pea-sant household， and the rental depended on several important factors， such as topography， soil condition as well as irrigation condition. The rental was between 7500 to 16500 yuan/ha annually（Ji et al.， 2016）. The existing law on land contract in rural areas stipulated that cultivated land lease was limited to no more than 30 years， but would be extended by reformation（Sun， 2018）. Moreover， the majority of Chinese peasant households owned scattered and small areas of farmland， so all large-scale mechanized production in China had to deal with more peasant households. This status however， became one of the major differentiating factors that broadned the disparity in cost control between China and other major sugarcane producing countries. Therefore， it was urgent that the current farmland contract-management system in China nee-ded to make further revision and improvement.

3 Discussion

3. 1 Sugarcane fully-mechanized planting redeced production cost and enhanced competitiveness in the globe

Sugarcane producers liked to adopt fully-mechanized planting because they could minimize the cost of production by utilizing machines to take place of traditional labor-intensive jobs and to optimize the app-lication cost of seedling， fertilizer and pesticide. Fu-lly-mechanized planting also improved the yield quantity and quality. In this way， sugarcane productivity could be improved and competitiveness could be promoted more effectively. Furthermore， fully-mechanization compressed all costs related to the labor down to an extreme low level but not to zero. As large number of ordinary peasants gave way to only a few who have trained skills for the agricultural machinery ope-ration and other more complex works， the farm works transformed to capital-intensive and knowledge-based agriculture. This urged China sugar business to become more competitive.

3. 2 Agricultural mechanization promoted agricultural sustainable development

The field experiment has been carried out for a short term run of six years， and its economic benefits were obviously presented by costs and yields analysis. The long-term benefit of mechanization however， was not confined to economic aspect alone. The application of fertilizers， pesticides， nutrients and relevant materials for sugarcane planting are restricted by mechanization， so it creates less impact on environment， especially soil and water. The soil organic ma-tter can be affected by cultivation， that is why the farmland needs fallow. But such pattern is difficult to be realized in large scale of production. Only reducing the application of fertilizers， pesticides， nutrients and relevant materials are the effective ways to alleviate the negative effects on soil caused by cultivation. Thus， the sugarcane production in China should adhere to mechanization development.

3. 3 The farmland contract management model seeks for reformation and innovation

In China， defacto rights of peasant households to collective farmland give them an opportunities to earn rental income， but this is against the interests of large-scale agricultural production units.

The farmland rent is the high fixed-cost to large-scale sugarcane producers， and the lease during a limi-ted period impacts on future uncertainty that contractor is unwilling to develop and protect the farmland from a long-term perspective， thereby may be against sustainable development. Thus， a drastic reformation of the existing farmland contract mechanism in China needs to be carried out， and the joint-stock farmland system should be concerned. This can be a new impetus that changes the identity of peasant household from landlord to shareholder. It enables farmland to transform into share， thereby makes business property become clear， and inspires more peasant households to support agricultural production in large-scale and helps sugarcane producers to reduce farmland cost e-ffectively.

4 Conclustion

Guangxi sugarcane production should adhere to mechanization development unremittingly in order to enhance competitiveness in the globe. Current farmland management system requires reformation and innovation to cut down the production cost per production unit effectively.

References：

Australian Sugarcane. 2016. Australian Sugarcane Annual 2016 [EB/OL]. http：//www.australiansugarcane.com.au/Back%20issues/205annsug16/205snnsug16.

Braunack M V， McGarry D， Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture. 2006. Traffic control and tillage strategies for harvesting and planting of sugarcane（Saccharum officinarum） in Australia[J]. Soil & Tillage Research， 89（1）： 86-102.

Cardoso T F， Watanabe M D B， Souza A， Chagas M F， Cavalett O， Morais E R， Leal M R L V， Bonomi A， Nogueira L A H， Braunbeck O A， Cortez L A B. 2018. Economic， environmental， and social impacts of diffe-rent sugarcane production systems[J]. Biofuels， Bioprod. Bioref，12：68-82.

Chen Y S. 2011. Sugarcane production in India and its experience for China[J]. Sugar Crops of China，33（3）：73-74.

Deng Y C， Wang W Z， Zhang R H， Tang S Y， Lin S H， Liang Q， Duan W X， Li X， Lu G Y， Han S J， Huang Y Z， Yang Y B， Huang Y N， Wang L W. 2017. An investigation report on production conditions of sugarcane in Guangxi in 2016[J]. Asian Agricultural Research， 9（6）：79-83.

Guo P，Li J X，Liang M Y，Tang J J. 2016. Drip irrigation under different climatic conditions on sugarcane in Chinas Guangxi Province[EB/OL]. 2nd World Irrigation Forum， Chiang Mai， Thailand. http：//www.icid.org/wif2_full_papers/wif2_w.3.1.09.pdf.

Guangxi Statistics Bureau. 2017. Guangxi Statistical Yearbook 2017[M]. Beijing：China Statistics Press.

Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Price Bureau， Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Sugar Industry Development Office. 2017. Notice about sugarcane purchase price issue in 2017/2018 Crushing Season[EB/OL]. http：//www.fcgs.gov.cn/gxw/tzgg/201711/W020171121539621078984.pdf.

Granco G，Caldas M M，Bergtold J S，SantAnna A C. 2017. Exploring the policy and social factors fueling the expansion and shift of sugarcane production in the Brazilian Cerrado[J]. GeoJournal， 82（1）：63-81.

Ji X Q， Rozelle S， Huang J K. Zhang L X， Zhang T L. 2016. Are Chinas Farm Growing？[J]. China & World Economy， 24（1）：41-62.

Li Y R， Yang L T. 2009. New developments in sugarcane industry and technologies in China since 1990s[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences，22（5）： 1469-1476.

Luo X W，Liao J，Hu L，Zang Y，Zhou Z Y. 2016. Improving agricultural mechanization level to promote agricultural sustainable development[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering， 32（1）：1-11.

Moore C C S， Nogueira A R， Kulay L. 2017. Environmental and energy assessment of the substitution of chemical fertilizers for industrial wastes of ethanol production in su-garcane cultivation in Brazil[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment， 22（4）：628-644.

Ou Y G， Malcolm W， Yang D T， Liu Q T， Zheng D K， Wang M M， Liu H C. 2013. Mechanization technology： The key to sugarcane production in China[J]. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Enginee-ring， 6（1）：1-27.

Shi S， Wei L B. 2017. Effects of governmental decision on cane sugar price on agricultural industry chain[J]. China Soft Science，（11）：28-38.

Su S Q， Chen Y Z， Wang T S， Wang Y. 2011. Effects of crude management on plant efficiency of sugarcane[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences， 39（23）：14014-14017.

Sun X Z. 2018. Proposal to review the amendment to the rural land contract law[EB/OL]. http：//ex.cssn.cn/fx/201803/t20180309_3870806.shtml.

Tan H W. 2004. Economic balance of crops and fruits production by K， Mg and S fertilizers application in subtropical red acid soil of Guangxi province， China[J]. Tropics， 13（4）： 287-292.

Tan H W. 2009. Fertilization Management of Sugarcane[M]. Beijing： China Agriculture Press.

Tan H W， Liu Y X， Zhou L Q， Xie R L， Yang S D， Huang J S， Huang M F. 2013. Reduction fertilization techonogies under drip for sugarcane irrigation[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops， 34（1）： 24-28.

Taylor R D. 2016. 2016 Outlook of the U.S. and World Sugar Markets， 2016-2025[EB/OL]. https：//ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/242089/2/sugar%202016R.

University of S?o Paulo. 2016. Production costs of sugarcane，sugar，ethanol and bioelectricity in brazil[EB/OL]. https：//edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/1447068/mod_folder/content/0/Pecege%2C%20RELATORIO%20FINAL.pdf？forcedownload=1.

USDA. 2016a. Australia Sugar Annual 2016[EB/OL]. https：//gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Su-gar%20Annual_Canberra_Australia_4-22-2016.pdf.

USDA. 2016b. India Sugar Annual 2016[EB/OL]. https：//gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Sugar%20Annual_New%20Delhi_India_4-26-2016.pdf.

USDA. 2016c. Thailand Sugar Annual 2016[EB/OL]. https：//gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Su-gar%20Annual_Bangkok_Thailand_4-12-2016.pdf.

USDA. 2016d. Crop Production[EB/OL]. https：//www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/crop1116.pdf.

USDA. 2017a. Brazil Sugar Annual 2017[EB/OL]. https：//gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Su-gar%20Annual_Sao%20Paulo%20ATO_Brazil_4-19-2017.pdf.

USDA. 2017b. India Sugar Annual 2017[EB/OL]. https：//gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Su-gar%20Annual_New%20Delhi_India_4-10-2017.pdf.

USDA. 2017c. Thailand Sugar Semi Annual 2017[EB/OL]. https：//gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Sugar%20Semi-annual_Bangkok_Thailand_9-25-2017.

pdf.

Wu D G，Wu J T，Wang Q N，Qiu Y S. 2017. Analysis of the sugarcane production cost and industrial competitiveness in China[J]. Sugarcane and Canesugar，（5）： 64-66.

Zimmermann B， Zeddies J. 2002. International Competitiveness of Sugar Production[EB/OL]. http：//ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/7000/2/cp02zi02.

（責任编辑 陈德元）