Towards more precise sugar beet management based on geostatistical analysis of spatial variability within fields

Within-field variation in sugar beet yield and quality was investigated in three commercial sugar beet fields in the east of England to identify the main associated variables and to examine the possibility of predicting yield early in the season with a view to spatially variable management of sugar beet crops. Irregular grid sampling with some purposively-located nested samples was applied. It revealed the spatial variability in each sugar beet field efficiently. In geostatistical analyses, most variograms were isotropic with moderate to strong spatial dependency indicating a significant spatial variation in sugar beet yield and associated growth and environmental variables in all directions within each field. The Kriged maps showed spatial patterns of yield variability within each field and visual association with the maps of other variables. This was confirmed by redundancy analyses and Pearson correlation coefficients. The main variables associated with yield variability were soil type, organic matter, soil moisture, weed density and canopy temperature. Kriged maps of final yield variability were strongly related to that in crop canopy cover, LAI and intercepted solar radiation early in the growing season, and the yield maps of previous crops. Therefore, yield maps of previous crops together with early assessment of sugar beet growth may make an early prediction of within-field variability in sugar beet yield possible. The Broom’s Barn sugar beet model failed to account for the spatial variability in sugar yield, but the simulation was greatly improved when corrected for early canopy development cover and when the simulated yield was adjusted for weeds and plant population. Further research to optimize inputs to maximise sugar yield should target the irrigation and fertilizing of areas within fields with low canopy cover early in the season.

Simulating the impact on health of internalising the cost of carbon in food prices combined with a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages

Rising greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) have implications for health and up to 30 % of emissions globally are thought to arise from agriculture. Synergies exist between diets low in GHGEs and health however some foods have the opposite relationship, such as sugar production being a relatively low source of GHGEs. In order to address this and to further characterise a healthy sustainable diet, we model the effect on UK non-communicable disease mortality and GHGEs of internalising the social cost of carbon into the price of food alongside a 20 % tax on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs). Developing previously published work, we simulate four tax scenarios: (A) a GHGEs tax of £2.86/tonne of CO2 equivalents (tCO2e)/100 g product on all products with emissions greater than the mean across all food groups (0.36 kgCO2e/100 g); (B) scenario A but with subsidies on foods with emissions lower than 0.36 kgCO2e/100 g such that the effect is revenue neutral; (C) scenario A but with a 20 % sales tax on SSBs; (D) scenario B but with a 20 % sales tax on SSBs. An almost ideal demand system is used to estimate price elasticities and a comparative risk assessment model is used to estimate changes to non-communicable disease mortality. We estimate that scenario A would lead to 300 deaths delayed or averted, 18,900 ktCO2e fewer GHGEs, and £3.0 billion tax revenue; scenario B, 90 deaths delayed or averted and 17,100 ktCO2e fewer GHGEs; scenario C, 1,200 deaths delayed or averted, 18,500 ktCO2e fewer GHGEs, and £3.4 billion revenue; and scenario D, 2,000 deaths delayed or averted and 16,500 ktCO2e fewer GHGEs. Deaths averted are mainly due to increased fibre and reduced fat consumption; a SSB tax reduces SSB and sugar consumption. Incorporating the social cost of carbon into the price of food has the potential to improve health, reduce GHGEs, and raise revenue. The simple addition of a tax on SSBs can mitigate negative health consequences arising from sugar being low in GHGEs. Further conflicts remain, including increased consumption of unhealthy foods such as cakes and nutrients such as salt.