Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

Exploring the economic limits of pumping for sugarcane

irrigation

Robert E Merry

Booker Tate Ltd, Masters Court, Church Road, Thame, Oxfordshire, OX9 3FA, UK; Bob.Merry@booker-tate.co.uk

Abstract The trend in sugarcane irrigation development is to reach areas higher and more distant from the primary
water source to achieve the scale of business required to be economically viable. Total pumping head from combined
primary abstraction, re-lift and pressurised irrigation is therefore increasing to meet these trends, but what is the real
economic limit? Many variables that impact on pumping were explored to develop a relationship between sugar price and
pumping lift to assist project evaluators when assessing irrigation viability. The analysis initially compared the pumping
requirements of four irrigation methods to determine the cross-over points of pumping lift where a particular irrigation
method out-performs others on energy consumption. The analysis was then extended using defined physical and economic
parameters, both fixed and variable, to determine the cross-over point where it was no longer economic for pumped
irrigation. The analysis accounted for total dynamic head, fixed/variable irrigation costs and the economic limit of irrigation
within the total cost of sugarcane production. The result was a chart relationship between revenue (USD cents/lb), static
pumping lift and total dynamic head. Conclusions were threefold: firstly, cross-points can be defined where low-head
surface-irrigation systems are superseded by systems with a higher head but that are more water and energy efficient;
secondly, a relationship between revenue and economic pumping lift can be established to determine the land elevation
above the water source that can be viably used for sugarcane production; and thirdly, project evaluators can adopt the
methods presented to provide an early indication of economic pumping limit.

Key words Sugarcane, irrigation, pumping, economics

INTRODUCTION

The idea for this paper arose from friendly banter with an agriculturist neighbour who always claimed that it was not
economic to grow irrigated crops on land that was more than 50 m above the water source. In contrast, I claimed there
were many case studies where sugarcane was being grown economically and sustainably on land much higher than this.
In fact the trend for new developments or expansions of existing projects is to reach further and higher into the hinterland
from primary water sources to increase crop production, but what is the realistic limit in the current day and specifically for
sugarcane?

At the very beginning of irrigation development many years ago along the Nile, Indus or Euphrates-Tigris rivers the limiting
factor was technology. There was only human or animal power available, which limited the pumping head to about 9 m
and output to 19 m3/h even with clever lifting devices such as the shadouf, mhote, piccottah, saqiya or Persian/Roman
water wheels (Carruthers and Clark 1981). Since the advent of the industrial age and the progression of steam, diesel and
electric drive mechanical pumps, the technology limitation has been superseded by an economic one.

This paper explores the many physical and economic variables that impact on pumping head for sugarcane irrigation and
seeks to find a relationship between sugar price and pumping lift to assist project evaluators.

PUMPING-HEAD COMPONENTS

There are four components to the pumping head that when combined are often referred to as the Total Dynamic Head
(TDH) expressed in metres (m):

 Pumping lift (or static head): This is the vertical distance from the pump suction water level to the highest point of
the irrigation command area. It is a fixed distance and, unlike other components, cannot be reduced by design.

393
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

 Friction head: This is the extra pumping head required to overcome pipe-wall friction losses. Pipe diameters and
materials can be optimised by design to keep friction losses reasonable, ideally less than 5 m head loss per
kilometre of pipe.

 System head: This is the pumping head required to operate the irrigation system and can vary from zero for a basic
surface system to 80 m for a hose-reel or big-gun system. Nozzle pressure and wetting pattern is optimised by the
designers and manufacturers to keep the system head reasonable without compromising coefficient of uniformity.

 Minor head losses: This is the extra pumping head required to overcome losses attributed to pipe entry/exit, pipe
valves (control, isolating, reflux etc.) and pipe fittings (bends, tees, branches, reducers etc). Piping design and flow
velocity can be optimised to keep minor head losses reasonable.

The common component to all irrigation systems is the pumping lift being a fixed distance for a particular piece of land.
Hence, this was the chief variable for economic comparison rather than the total dynamic head, which is used to determine
energy consumption and cost.

BULK-WATER AND IRRIGATION-SYSTEM SPLIT

Irrigation designers tend to separate bulk water conveyance from irrigation-system design. The point of split (battery limit)
can be the field edge for small systems or a command-block booster-pump station for larger systems. Each component is
defined below and illustrated in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Typical irrigation area commanded by pumping.

394
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

Bulk-water conveyance: This includes the pumped abstraction point on primary water source (river, reservoir or canal), the
rising main(s), any intermediate storage points or re-lift pump stations, and the terminal storage pond or irrigation pump
station suction line.

Irrigation system: This covers the two broad categories of non-pressurised surface systems, such as furrow irrigation, and
the pressurised systems of overhead sprinkler and drip (James et al. 2004).

The total pumping head is the addition of these components.

In projects where the operator farms all the land from the water source to hinterland then the lower elevation land areas
compensate for the higher land, such that the overall average pumping lift dictates the economic viability. However, here I
analyse the economic case of the independent sugarcane farmer at higher elevation.

COMPARISON OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS AT DIFFERENT PUMPING LIFTS

Net irrigation water requirement (Net IWR) is common to all systems but different efficiencies and system head
requirements impact on the energy consumption as pumping lift increases. I consider the case of the four irrigation systems
(furrow, centre pivot, sprinkler and subsurface drip) illustrated in Figure 2.

1 2

3 4

Fig. 2. Different irrigation systems: (1) furrow; (2) centre pivot; (3) sprinkler; and (4) subsurface drip.

The typical parameters of these systems (Table 1) are derived from a feasibility study for an expansion project in Ethiopia
where different irrigation systems were being compared on land sloping away and distant from the water source. While the
Net IWR remains constant, there are different system pressures, application efficiencies and total water consumption that
will impact on power and energy requirements.

395
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

Table 1. Typical parameters of different irrigation systems.

Irrigation type System Net IWR* Efficiency Gross Total water
head (m) (mm) (%) IWR (mm) (m3/ha/yr)
Furrow irrigation 0 1,200 60 2,000 20,000
Sprinkler irrigation 50 1,200 70 1,714 17,143
Centre-pivot irrigation 35 1,200 80 1,500 15,000
Subsurface-drip irrigation 45 1,200 95 1,263 12,632
*IWR – Irrigation Water Requirement

My analysis compared the annual energy consumption for each irrigation type for different pumping lift. The common
parameters applied to all irrigation types were Net IWR, Pump Efficiency 75%, Average Ground Slope 1% and Average
Pipe Friction 3 m in 1 km and the only variable parameter was pumping lift.

The energy consumption equation is derived from the standard water power equation (Sanks 1989):

𝛾𝑄𝐻
𝑃= Equation 1
𝐸𝑝

where: P = Pumping power (kW); ϓ = Specific weight of water (density x gravity and taken as 9.8 kN/m 3);
Q = Flow rate(m3/s); H = Total dynamic head (m); Ep = Efficiency of pumping (%).

This was then developed into an energy consumption equation:

𝛾𝑄𝑣 𝐻
𝑃𝑒 = Equation 2
𝑇𝐸𝑝

where: Pe = Pumping energy (kWh); ϓ = Specific weight of water (density x gravity and taken as 9.8 kN/m 3);
Qv = Flow volume (m3 or m3/ha/yr); H = Total dynamic head (m); T = Time factor (3600 for this analysis);
Ep = Efficiency of pumping (%)

The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 3 where the X-axis is the annual energy consumption per hectare
calculated for the four irrigation types for the different pumping lifts on the Y-axis varying from 0 m to 220 m. Although
furrow has the least TDH requirement, it also has highest water consumption, which means that other pressurised systems
will compete on energy consumption (kWh/ha/yr) as land elevation and TDH increases. The cross-over points in this
example where furrow irrigation is bettered by other systems are 65 m pumping lift for subsurface drip, 80 m for centre
pivot and 220 m for sprinkler.

Fig. 3. Comparison of irrigation systems at different pumping lifts.

396
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

Physical parameters applicable for main analysis

The energy consumption comparison undertaken above was then extended further to include other physical and economic
parameters. Table 2 shows typical physical values used in the next analysis together with the minimum and maximum
ranges that could be applied for different project scenarios.

The command area parameter in Table 2 is important for particular project cases, but the generic analysis undertaken for
this paper was at the 1 ha (one pixel) level.

Table 2. Physical parameter ranges applicable to the analysis.

Typical Range
Description Unit Comment
value Minimum Maximum
Net irrigation requirement mm/ha 1,200 500 1,600 Typical = semi-arid environment
Net irrigation requirement m3/ha 12,000 5,000 16,000 Min. = sub-tropical, Max. = arid
Ground slope % 1.00 0.20 3.00 Min. = 1:500, Max. = 1:33
Command area (rising main) ha/km 1,000 200 2,000 Command width = 10/2/20 km
Pipe friction slope m/km 3.0 1.5 5.0 GRP 450 & velocity = 1.5/1.0/2.0
Minor losses m 1.15 0.51 2.04 k*v2/2g with k = 1.5/1.0/2.0
Pump efficiency % 75 70 80
Note: 100 mm/ha = 1,000 m3/ha = 1 ML/ha

Economic parameters applicable for main analysis

In the analysis, I also determined energy consumption for different pumping lifts. Table 3 shows the typical economic values
that were used in the analysis. The minimum and maximum ranges represent values that could be applied for different
project scenarios.

Table 3. Economic parameter ranges applicable to the analysis.

Typical Range
Description Unit Comment
value Minimum Maximum
Bulk water infrastructure USD/ha 5,000 3,000 5,000 Pumps/canals/reservoirs/pipes/power
Furrow irrigation system USD/ha 4,000 3,000 5,000 Land level 500 m3/ha and layflat
Semi-solid sprinkler system USD/ha 4,000 3,000 5,000 18 m x 18 m and buried laterals
Centre pivot system USD/ha 4,000 3,000 5,000 60-80 ha size
Subsurface drip system USD/ha 4,000 3,000 5,000 1.9 m rows and 1.0 l/hr emitter
c/lb 25 20 30
Revenue Sugar and co-products
USD/ts 551 441 661
Agriculture share of revenue % 65 60 70
Irrigated sugarcane yield tc/ha 110 90 150 Semi-arid/sub-tropical/arid
Rendement tc:ts 9.0 8.0 10.0
Sugarcane price (calculated figure) USD/tc 39.81 Min./Max. not applicable
Limit on irrigation cost1 % 21 Limit varies with sugarcane price
Energy cost USD/kWh 0.08 0.06 0.15 Combined consumption and peak
1
Limit is expressed as percentage of revenue (refer also to Table 4 and following text)

Typical bulk water and irrigation capital costs were assumed for this generic and demonstrative analysis. A capex
depreciation figure was also required in the build-up of viable irrigation cost. Depreciation was taken over 40 years to reflect
the long service life provided by pumps, pipelines, canals, etc., given good maintenance.

Table 4 shows a cost breakdown for sugarcane. The revenue parameter is defined in equivalent USD cents/lb and includes
a combination of sugar and co-product revenue such as molasses, ethanol, alcohol and co-generation. The analysis could
also be applied to projects that are direct sugarcane juice to ethanol product based.

397
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

Table 4. Typical breakdown for cost of sugarcane.

Typical Analysis
Description USD c/lb %
USD/tc USD/ha Fixed/Variable
Revenue price 25.0
Sugarcane price 39.8 4,379 Variable
Cultivation:
Direct labour 0.3 33 Fixed
Machinery 1.8 195 Fixed
Fertiliser 2.7 299 Fixed
Herbicides 1.0 113 Fixed
Harvesting 4.7 517 Fixed
Transport 2.9 319 Fixed
Overheads 5.4 597 Fixed
Subtotal 18.8 2,073 Fixed
Depreciation (not Irrigation) 6.7 737 Fixed
Profit margin 15 6.0 657 Variable
Subtotal 31.5 3,466 Variable
Water and Irrigation
Depreciation 2.0 225 Fixed
Operating cost
6.2 687 Variable
(tariff/labour/energy/maintenance)
Subtotal (Limit on Irrigation Cost) 8.3 912 Variable
Total Cost of Sugarcane 39.8 4,379 Variable

The limit on irrigation cost was a critical factor in the analysis methodology. The limit on irrigation cost was a variable that
represented the allowable limit (threshold) for irrigation so that together with all other sugarcane production costs such as
labour, fertiliser, agro-chemicals, harvesting, transport, overheads and grower’s profit margin, it matched the total available
revenue.

For the purpose of this analysis the agriculture costs are mostly fixed, while the limit on irrigation cost was allowed to vary.
The premise is that sugarcane growing costs are largely constant whether land is 0 m or 100 m elevation from the water
source, but the bulk water delivery cost varies considerably. In the example provided in Table 4 the Limit on Irrigation Cost
is calculated to be USD 912/ha, which is carried forward to the final analysis. For any particular project and timeframe the
project’s financial risk analysts would determine the appropriate revenue and cost parameters to input to the analysis.

Analysis method and results

The pumping lift (static head) was plotted against corresponding irrigation costs. The irrigation cost consisted of fixed costs
and variable costs. Irrigation fixed costs included depreciation, national water charge, maintenance, staff and labour.
Irrigation variable cost is the pumping energy consumption cost for varying pumping lift. The irrigation cost limit,
USD 912/ha as previously determined, was also plotted on the graph. The resultant cross over point on the graph indicated
the threshold for economic pumping.

For example, Figure 4 illustrates an example for centre pivot irrigation using the parameters in Tables 1 to 4 and for revenue
of USD 25 cents/lb.

398
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

Fig. 4. Example of irrigation cost limit for centre pivot and revenue USD 25 c/lb.

This same analysis was applied for different revenues to provide the economic pumping lift relationship of USD cents/lb
versus Pumping Lift (m). Figure 5 illustrates such a relationship for the centre pivot irrigation scenario using the parameters
in Tables 1-4. The scenario shows that for a USD 23-28 c/lb revenue range the economic pumping lift varies from 15 m to
145 m (TDH – 55 m to 225 m) revealing that the results are very price sensitive.

Fig. 5. Economic pumping head versus revenue USD cents/lb for a centre pivot.

399
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

The analysis parameters can be varied further to explore particular cases where favourable environmental conditions exist.
Consider the changes to parameters in Table 5 below with all others remaining constant, including revenue of USD 25 c/lb.
Such conditions can exist in semi-arid regions of southern Africa.

Table 5. Parameters applying to the case of favourable environmental and economic conditions.
Description Parameter Comment
Net irrigation requirement 9,000 m3/ha/yr More rain and less irrigation demand
Ground slope 2% Steeper land and shorter rising mains
Irrigation efficiency 95% Subsurface drip
System head 45 m Higher for subsurface drip than centre pivot
National water charge USD 0/m3/yr Best case is zero, e.g. Swaziland
Maintenance USD 90/ha/yr Higher for subsurface drip than centre pivot
Energy tariff USD 0.06/kWh Factory power supply and cross-charge

The analysis result in this scenario is illustrated in Figure 6 and is determined as 180 m (TDH – 253 m) for the economic
pumping limit. This demonstrates the potential for future irrigation development where such favourable conditions exist.
Conversely, there would be instances where projects have much less favourable conditions and the economic pumping
limit is very low at less than 10 m (TDH – 66 m). The parameters applying to this analytical case are presented in Table 6
and the result is illustrated in Figure 7.

Fig. 6. Analysis of economic limit on pumping lift under favourable operating and economic conditions.

Table 6. Parameters applying to the case of less favourable environmental and economic conditions.
Description Parameter Comment
Net irrigation requirement 12,000 m3/ha/yr Less rain and higher irrigation demand
Ground slope 0.5% Flatter land and longer rising mains
Irrigation efficiency 70% Hand move sprinkler system
System head 50 m Higher than subsurface drip or centre pivot
National water charge USD 0.002/m3/yr Required in some countries e.g. Mozambique
Maintenance USD 45/ha/yr Same as centre pivot but less than subsurface drip
Energy tariff USD 0.10/kWh National grid power supply instead of cheaper factory power

400
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

Fig. 7. Analysis of economic limit on pumping lift under less favourable operating and economic conditions.

The two scenarios demonstrate the wide range in economic pumping limit for differing sets of conditions. Project evaluators,
therefore, need to ensure an accurate due diligence of parameters to provide a meaningful answer.

EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS WITH HIGH PUMPING HEADS

I have experience of three sugarcane projects that possess different irrigation systems and pumping configurations, but a
common theme of high static lifts and TDH. Comparative data on static head and TDH are provided in Table 7. Such
projects were implemented without the analyses that I describe here but, if applied retrospectively, would determine
whether they operate within the economic pumping limit and whether there is scope to go higher.

Table 7. Examples of sugarcane projects with high pumping heads.

Project location Kaleya Rio Chira Mlaula
Country Zambia Peru Swaziland
Irrigation type Furrow Drip Sprinkler
Pumping head Static (m) TDH (m) Static (m) TDH (m) Static (m) TDH (m)
Abstraction 4.0 6.7 90.8 95.8 49.5 61.2
Relift 1 54.3 104.0 6.0 6.5 0.0 0.0
Relift 2 66.7 86.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Irrigation system 0.0 0.0 5.0 62.1 25.0 83.5
Total head (m) 125.0 196.9 101.8 164.4 74.5 144.7

CONCLUSIONS

There are three main conclusions arising from the analysis described in this paper.

Firstly, when considering the physical attributes of different irrigation systems and their energy consumption alone there
are cross-over points whereby the conventional low energy surface irrigation system is superseded by other higher energy
but more efficient irrigation systems. Based on assumptions used in this paper regarding irrigation efficiencies and other
parameters, these pumping lift cross-over points are 65 m for subsurface drip, 80 m for centre pivot and 220 m for sprinkler.

Secondly, when considering a realistic range of physical and economic parameters it is possible to build up a sugar price
(USD cents/lb) versus pumping lift (m) relationship and determine the economic limit of pumping for sugarcane.

401
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, volume 29, 393-402, 2016

Finally, the analysis has illustrated that with pre-determined economic limits on irrigation cost related to the price of
sugarcane, it was possible to also pre-determine the likely ground elevation limit for viable irrigation of sugarcane. For
project designers and evaluators this can be a far more efficient approach than the conventional one of designing to given
land boundaries, finding that capital and operating costs create too low an IRR and then having to proceed through much
hand wringing, iterations and value engineering to find the right solution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank my colleagues David Gibbens and Greg Ascough for conducting research, reviewing the paper and steering me
through the economic parameters for sugarcane agriculture.

REFERENCES
Carruthers I, Clark C. 1981. The Economics of Irrigation. 3rd edition. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool.
James GL, Ellis RD, Merry RE, et al. 2004. Sugarcane. 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. pp. 122-141.
Sanks RL, Tchobanoglous G, Newton D, et al. 1989. Pumping Station Design. Butterworth Publishers, USA. pp. 212-213

Exploration des limites economiques de pompage pour l'irrigation de la canne a sucre

Résumé. Le développement de projets de canne à sucre irrigués tend à exploiter des terrains plus élevés à une plus grande distance de
la principale source d'eau pour atteindre l'échelle nécessaire pour l'entreprise d'être économiquement viable. La hauteur totale de
l'abstraction de pompage primaire, combinée à la re-élévation et l'irrigation sous pression donc devient augmentée pour répondre à ces
tendances, mais quelle est la vraie limite économique? Plusieurs critères ayant une incidence sur le pompage ont été explorées afin de
développer la relation entre le prix du sucre et de pompage pour aider les évaluateurs de projets pour évaluer la faisabilité de l'irrigation.
L'analyse au commencement comparé les exigences de pompage de quatre méthodes d'irrigation afin de déterminer les points de
intersection de levage de pompage où une méthode d'irrigation particulier utilise moins d'énergie que les autres. Ensuite, l'analyse a été
élargi en utilisant des paramètres physiques et économiques, à la fois fixes et variables, pour déterminer le point de intersection où on
trouve que l'irrigation sous pression n'est plus maintenant economique. L'analyse a pris en compte la charge dynamique totale, les coûts
variables / fixes de l'irrigation, et la limite d'irrigation économique dans le coût total de la production de la canne à sucre. Le résultat a été
un graphique montrant le ratio entre revenu (cents USD / lb), statique pompage de levage, et la tête dynamique totale. Les conclusions
ont été triple: premièrement, on peut définir des points où les systèmes d'irrigation par gravité avec la tête basse, sont remplacés par des
systèmes à tête plus élevé, qui sont plus efficients au usage d'énergie et d'eau; deuxièmement, on peut établir une relation entre le revenu
et la hauteur de pompage économique pour déterminer l'élévation de la terre au-dessus de la source d'eau qui peut être utilisé de manière
viable pour la production de la canne à sucre; et troisièmement, les évaluateurs de projet peuvent adopter les méthodes qui sont présentés
pour fournir une indication précoce de la limite de pompage économique.

Mots-clés: Canne à sucre, irrigation, pompage, économie

Exploración de los límites económicos de bombeo de riego en la caña de azúcar

Resumen. Las tendencias con proyectos de caña de azúcar con riego, son cada vez hacía terrenos más altas y distantes de la fuente
principal de agua, y esto está afectando la viabilidad económica. La altura total de bombeo de la abstracción primaria, combinada con la
re-elevación y el riego presurizado, está aumentando para satisfacer estas las tendencias, pero ¿cuál es el límite económico verdadero?
Varios variables que impactan en el bombeo fueron explorados para elaborar la relación entre el precio de azúcar y la altura de bombeo,
para ayudar a los evaluadores de proyectos de evaluar la viabilidad de riego. Inicialmente el análisis comparó los requisitos de bombeo
de cuatro métodos de riego para determinar el punto de cruce de elevación de bombeo donde un método de riego supera a los demás
en el consumo de energía. Luego el análisis fue extendido usando parámetros físicos y económicos, tanto fijos como variables, para
determinar el punto de cruce donde será ya no más económico bombear para riego. El análisis tomó en cuenta la carga dinámica total,
los costes variables/fijos de riego, y el límite económico de riego dentro del costo total de producción de caña de azúcar. El resultado fue
una tabla de la relación de ingresos (USD centavos/lb), la elevación de bombeo estática, y carga dinámica total. Las conclusiones eran
tres: en primer lugar, se pueden definir puntos de cruce donde sistemas de riego de gravedad con baja cabeza, son sustituidas por
sistemas con cabeza más alta pero que son más y eficiente en energía; en segundo lugar, se puede establecer una relación entre
ingresos y la altura de bombeo económica, para determinar la elevación de la tierra por encima de la fuente de agua que se puede utilizar
de forma viable para la producción de caña de azúcar; y en tercer lugar, los evaluadores de proyectos pueden adoptar los métodos que
se presentan para proporcionar una indicación temprana de límite de bombeo económico.

Palabras clave: Caña de azúcar, riego, bombeo, economía

402