Next Article in Journal
Digital Tools and Decision Support Systems in Agroecology: Benefits, Challenges, and Practical Implementations
Previous Article in Journal
A Monthly Water Balance Model for Vineyard Planning and Inter-Row Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy15010235
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cumulative Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Potato and Tomato Production in Southeast Brazil

by
Breno de Jesus Pereira
1,
Newton La Scala, Jr.
2 and
Arthur Bernardes Cecílio Filho
1,*
1
Department of Plant Production, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal 14884-900, Brazil
2
Department of Exact Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal 18884-900, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(1), 235; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010235
Submission received: 17 December 2024 / Revised: 13 January 2025 / Accepted: 16 January 2025 / Published: 18 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Biosystem and Biological Engineering)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Knowing the energy balance in agricultural systems is essential for a holistic understanding of sustainability, productivity and economic return. The aim of this study was to estimate the cumulative energy demand (CED), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint in industrial potato and tomato production systems in the Southeast region of Brazil, identifying mitigation strategies in different scenarios. The Life Cycle Analysis methodology was used, and two functional units were defined: one hectare of cultivation and one kilogram of vegetable produced. The CEDs for tomato and potato production were 59,553.56 MJ ha–1 (or 0.54 MJ kg–1) and 57,992.02 MJ ha–1 (or 1.45 MJ kg–1), respectively. The GHG emissions were 5425.13 kg CO2 eq ha–1 for potato production and 5270.9 kg CO2 eq ha–1 for tomato production, resulting in carbon footprints of 0.135 and 0.042 kg CO2 eq kg–1, respectively. Fertilizers, diesel and pesticides were the main contributors to CED and GHG emissions. Thus, in order to achieve greater sustainability in the production of these vegetables and mitigate the impacts on the environment generated by the high demand for energy and GHG emissions, it is necessary to replace synthetic fertilizers with organic sources, chemical pesticides with biological pesticides, diesel with biodiesel or the use of electric vehicles and tractors, resulting in reductions of up to 39 and 52% in the GHG emissions for potatoes and tomatoes, respectively.

1. Introduction

Energy, in its different forms, is present in practically every product and service sector and is essential for humanity. Nowadays, the efficient use of energy is directly related to sustainability issues in the production sectors, especially in agriculture [1]. Knowing the balance between energy input and output in agricultural systems is essential for a holistic understanding of productivity, economic return and sustainability, allowing the sector to adapt to the use of clean energy sources, thereby reducing the impact of climate change [2,3].
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the main cause of global warming, and the Brazilian agricultural sector is responsible for 27% of Brazil’s GHG emissions [4]. Among agricultural products, vegetables belong to a sector that reflects the significant growth of agriculture in recent years, consequently increasing the intensive use of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, fuel and electricity, which contribute, both directly and indirectly, to the GHG emissions associated with this production sector [5,6]. It is, therefore, imperative to understand vegetable production systems from the point of view of energy and associated GHG emissions, with a view to optimizing the use of natural resources and minimizing the sector’s impacts [1].
Studies evaluating energy input, output and GHG emissions in vegetable production systems have been carried out in various countries, including studies on potato [1,2,7] and tomato crops [8,9]. In a study conducted by Pérez Neira et al. [9] to evaluate the cumulative energy demand for table tomato production in Almeria, Spain, the authors demonstrated that diesel, natural gas and electricity were the main contributors to the CED. Similarly, Khoshnevisan et al. [10] and Bolandnazar et al. [1], while assessing energy use in potato production in Iran, estimated values of 83,723 MJ ha⁻1 and 84,309 MJ ha⁻1, respectively; in both studies, the authors found that irrigation (electricity) and fertilizers were the primary contributors. Evaluating the CED for open-field tomato production in Iran, Zarei et al. [11] reported values ranging from 1.2 to 2.6 MJ kg⁻1 and concluded that diesel use was the main contributing source. Assessing the impact of greenhouse tomato cultivation systems in Greece and Germany, Ntinas et al. [12] reported values ranging from 7.6 to 58.7 kg CO2 eq m⁻2 (equivalent to 76 to 587 t CO2 eq ha⁻1) under different scenarios, with electricity and natural gas consumption being the main contributors. In California, USA, Winans et al. [13] used Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to estimate the impacts of processing tomato production, reporting a carbon footprint of 0.16 kg CO2 eq per kilogram of tomatoes. The primary emission sources were natural gas used in greenhouse heating systems and electricity consumed by irrigation systems. In Sicily, Italy, Timpanaro et al. [14], employing the LCA methodology, estimated emissions of 9385 kg CO2 eq ha⁻1 for conventional potato production, with synthetic fertilizers being the main emission source. According to Pishgar-Komleh et al. [15], such studies are fundamental to achieving sustainability in the vegetable production process and must consider the compatibility between economic, environmental and social aspects. To achieve this goal, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), a methodology defined by the International Organization for Standardization [16,17], has been the main evaluation tool used, as shown by some studies [11,13,15,18,19,20,21].
Brazil is one of the main producers of vegetables in the world [22], with potatoes and tomatoes for industry being two of the main vegetables produced in the country. In the literature, no studies were found using LCA to assess the cumulative energy demand and the impact of GHG emissions from these vegetables in the country. In addition, studies carried out in other countries do not reflect the Brazilian reality, since approximately 83% of the Brazilian electricity matrix is based on renewable energy sources [23], unlike other countries, which mostly use fossil energy sources. Therefore, determining the GHG emissions using the LCA method is a key factor in evaluating the impact of a production system on global warming and climate change. It plays a significant role in efforts to mitigate global warming caused by food production [15].
In view of factors such as consumer demand for products with a high standard of quality, the scarcity of natural resources, and the need to achieve the goals proposed by the United Nations for sustainable development, among which are the sustainable development of agriculture, environmentally responsible consumption and production and climate action [24], the objectives of this study were to: (1) estimate the cumulative energy demand (CED) in intensive potato and tomato production systems for industry, (2) estimate greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint in these systems and (3) identify strategies for reducing the demand for energy use and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of these vegetables in different production scenarios.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Characterization of Tomato and Potato Production Areas

In the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo, respectively, the production of potatoes and tomatoes for industry is intensive and mechanized. The area occupied by potato crops in the state of Minas Gerais, the largest potato-producing state in Brazil, is approximately 38,799 hectares, producing over 1.3 million tons, while in the state of São Paulo, tomato cultivation occupies approximately 11,475 hectares, producing over 850 thousand tons, making it the second-largest tomato-producing state [25]. As important potato and tomato growing centers, these regions offer a unique opportunity to study the environmental impacts of intensive agriculture, being essential for advancing sustainable agricultural practices and addressing the growing challenges of food security in the context of climate change. According to Köppen’s classification, the climate of the area is classified as Aw (megathermal: tropical with rainy summers and dry winters), with average temperatures between 14 and 31 °C. The rainy season is between October and April, and the dry season is between May and September.

2.2. Life Cycle Analysis—Functional Units and System Boundaries

The Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methodology, described in ISO 14040 and 14044 [16,17], was used to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, carbon footprint and cumulative energy demand (CED) in the intensive potato and tomato production system for industry, in the states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais, Brazil.
The functional unit (FU) is used to standardize the system’s input data, allowing comparison between different products and services [17]. Two functional units were chosen to represent the impact of GHG emissions and CED, defined as follows: one hectare (ha) of cultivation and one kilogram (kg) of fresh vegetables produced.
The boundaries established for the study cover the agricultural phase of vegetable production, transportation from the cradle to the processing industry and the manufacture of inputs. Three phases of the system were characterized (Figure 1): Phase (1) Agricultural production. This phase quantified the direct GHG emissions caused by the application of fertilizers (N fertilizer and liming) and the use of fuel (diesel) in the operations carried out during the cultivation of the vegetables, and the CED directly associated with the fuel (diesel) and electricity consumed by the irrigation system; Phase (2) Transportation. In this phase, GHG emissions and the CED originating from burning fuel (diesel) in the transportation of inputs and materials to the farm, and from the tomato harvest to the processing industry, were quantified; Phase (3) Input manufacturing. In this phase, the GHG emissions and CED originating from the manufacture (off the farm) of fertilizer inputs (N, P, K, limestone and gypsum), pesticides (insecticides, herbicides and fungicides), fuels (diesel), material for the structure of the irrigation system and energy consumed in the system, machinery and seedling production were quantified.

2.3. Life Cycle Analysis Inventory–Data Collection

Data and information on the relevant inputs and outputs of potato and tomato production systems (inputs used, operations carried out during the production year and yield) were collected by means of a questionnaire and interviews with technical production managers on farms in the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo. Potato production was assessed on a 10,500-hectare property, of which 4000 hectares were used to produce this vegetable. For tomatoes, data were obtained from five properties, covering a total area of 783 ha, with 172 ha per year destined for industrial tomato production. For both crops, the data corresponded to the 2020/2021 growing year (Table 1).
The crop rotation system is used on all the properties, with soybeans being planted before tomatoes, and corn, millet and Brachiaria before potatoes. Soil tillage for potato and tomato planting was carried out conventionally, using plowing, harrowing, subsoiling and a leveling roller. Both vegetables are cultivated using chemical pesticides (herbicides, fungicides and insecticides). Harvesting is carried out mechanically and all production is used in the industry for the production of fries and tomato products.

2.4. Life Cycle Impact Analysis

2.4.1. Cumulative Energy Demand Indicators

The aim of evaluating energy use is to quantify its efficiency in the system, with a view to offering sustainable solutions to the system’s demand for energy consumption [26]. Thus, energy input into the system was classified as renewable or non-renewable. Renewable energy includes electricity (hydroelectric) consumed in the irrigation system and the energy incorporated in the production of seedlings, while non-renewable energy includes energy from fossil sources and incorporated in the production of fertilizers, pesticides, fuel (diesel), machinery and infrastructure of the irrigation system.
CED was calculated using the factors established by Aguilera et al. [27], a database that includes the direct and indirect accumulation of energy associated with the main agricultural inputs at the maximum level of disaggregation, based on a historical evaluation series between 1930 and 2010, and other specific coefficients (Table 2 and Table 3). The CED values were calculated according to Equation (1) and standardized in mega Joule (MJ) of energy. The energy output of the system was calculated by converting the total yield (marketable and non-marketable) (TY, kg ha−1) of the vegetables into energy, using the conversion factors according to TACO [28], equal to 0.64 and 2.69 MJ kg−1 for tomatoes and potatoes, respectively (Equation (2)). In addition, the net energy rate was calculated, which represents the energy balance of the system and the return on energy invested (EROI), using Equations (3) and (4), respectively:
CED = ∑ Input(j) × β(j) × AC
Energy output = TY × αb
Net Energy = Energy output − CED
EROI = ((Energy output − CED)/CED) × 100
where CED = cumulative energy demand in the system (MJ ha−1); j = input described in Table 1 (unit ha−1 or kg−1); β(j) = equivalent energy coefficient (MJ unit−1); AC = depreciation coefficient based on the year of life of the input (dimensionless), if applicable; Energy output = total energy produced by the system in the form of economically valuable biomass (MJ ha−1); TY = total yield (kg ha−1) (average used in the calculations equal to 110,800 kg ha–1 of tomato and 40,000 kg ha–1 of potato); αb = conversion coefficient of vegetable biomass into energy (MJ kg−1); Net Energy = net energy balance of the system (MJ ha−1); EROI = return on energy investment (%), adopted from Pérez Neira et al. [9].

2.4.2. GHG Emissions Indicators

GHG emissions were calculated using factors associated with the inputs, materials and energy used at each stage of the production process, in accordance with the limits established in this study (Table 2 and Table 3). The methodology of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [29] and, in some cases, specific local factors (Tier 2) were used. The total GHG emitted was calculated in terms of carbon equivalent (CO2 eq), using the global warming potential of CO2, CH4 and N2O equal to 1, 28 and 265, respectively, over a given period of 100 years [30], according to the following Equation (5). The carbon footprint for the production of one kilogram of potatoes and tomatoes was calculated using Equation (6):
GHGtotal = ∑ Input(j) × EF(j) × AC
CF = GHGtotal/TY
where GHG total = total GHG emissions in the system kg CO2 eq ha−1; j = input as described in Table 1 (unit ha−1 or kg−1); EF(j) = emission factor (kg CO2 eq unit−1); AC = depreciation coefficient based on the year of life of the input (dimensionless), if applicable; CF = carbon footprint (kg CO2 eq kg−1 potato or tomato); TY = total potato or tomato yield (kg ha−1 ) .
Table 2. Energy equivalence coefficients (β(j)) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission factors (E.F.) used to calculate EDC and GHG in Phases 1 and 2 of this study.
Table 2. Energy equivalence coefficients (β(j)) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission factors (E.F.) used to calculate EDC and GHG in Phases 1 and 2 of this study.
InputUnit β ( j ) E.F.
(kg CO2 eq unit−1)		Reference
Phase 1
N fertilizer
 N applicationkg N–4.24[30]
 N leachingkg N–0.70[30]
 N volatilizationkg N–0.56[30]
Urea kg–0.73[29]
Limekg–0.48[29]
Diesel (tractor)L56.82.603[27,31]
Electricity kWh3.6–-
Phase 2
Diesel (Transportation)L56.82.603[27,31]
Table 3. Energy equivalence coefficients (β(j)) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission factors (E.F.) used to calculate EDC and GHG in Phase 3 of this study.
Table 3. Energy equivalence coefficients (β(j)) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission factors (E.F.) used to calculate EDC and GHG in Phase 3 of this study.
InputUnitβ(j)
(MJ unit−1)		E.F.
(kg CO2 eq unit−1)		Reference
Phase 3
N fertilizerkg N51.823.97[27,32]
P fertilizer kg P2O512.441.13[1,32]
K fertilizerkg K2O11.150.71[32]
Limekg1.160.01[32,33]
Gypsumkg1.310.03[34,35]
Fungicidekg a.i.a173–39711.94–27.39[36]
Insecticide kg a.i.a57.8–5803.99–40.02[36]
Herbicidekg a.i.a201–40013.87–27.6[36]
DieselL–0.581[32]
Machinerykg122.48.45[27] adapted
Electricity—generationMJ0.050.102[27,37]
Structure irrigation bkg32.2–60 1.06–3.1[27,38]
Tomato seeds ckg32.2–58.51.8–5.1[27,38]
Potato seedskg1.60.16the authors
a Active ingredient; b Materials considered in the calculations were galvanized steel, iron, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polystyrene rubber; c Materials used to produce the seedlings: polypropylene trays, plastic film and greenhouse steel.

2.5. Depreciation

In the machinery depreciation calculations, the life cycles of 20 years for tractors and 10 years for equipment (plow, harrow, grader, fertilizer spreader, harvester, etc.) were considered (Table 1). As for the irrigation system, based on information from manufacturers, the weight of a center pivot system was sized to be sufficient to irrigate an area of 91 hectares. The life cycles were 20 years for the steel structure, 10 years for the gear motor and motor pump, 5 years for the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes used in the water main and 10 years for the polystyrene rubbers used in the electrical coverings (Table 1). With regard to the materials used in the greenhouse to produce the tomato seedlings, the life cycle used in amortization was 40 years for the steel structure and 3 years for the polyethylene film covering the roof and the polypropylene film on the sides of the greenhouse (Table 1).

2.6. Mitigation Scenarios

After calculating GHG emissions, three mitigation scenarios were drawn up to reduce GHG emissions associated with the use of synthetic N fertilizer, pesticides and diesel/machinery. The scenarios were defined as follows: Scenario 1 (C1)—replacing synthetic N fertilizer with organic N (cattle manure or crop rotation) and chemical pesticides with biological ones; Scenario 2 (C2)—replacing synthetic N fertilizer with organic N (cattle manure or crop rotation), chemical pesticides with biological ones and diesel/machinery with electric tractors; Scenario 3 (C3)—replacing synthetic N fertilizer with organic N (cattle manure or crop rotation), chemical pesticides with biological ones and diesel with biodiesel.
GHG emissions associated with organic N fertilizer and biological pesticides were calculated using emission factors according to IPCC [30] and adapted by Cech et al. [39], respectively. To replace the diesel tractor/machinery with an electric tractor and diesel with biodiesel, the respective studies of Lagnelöv et al. [40] and Canabarro et al. [41] were used. According to Lagnelöv et al. [40], the use of electric tractors has the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 65% compared to combustion tractors, and according to Canabarro et al. [41], the replacement of diesel with biodiesel in Brazil would reduce GHG emissions by around 66.8%.

3. Results

According to the limits established in this study, the average cumulative energy demands (CED) for tomato and potato production in an intensive system were, respectively, 59,553.56 MJ ha−1 or 0.54 MJ kg−1 for tomatoes and 57,992.02 MJ ha−1 or 1.44 MJ kg−1 for potatoes (Table 4). The highest energy consumption occurs in the input and material manufacturing phase (phase 3), contributing around with 35,747.16 MJ ha−1 for tomatoes and 35,377.11 MJ ha−1 for potatoes, which represent around 60% of the total demanded by the crops. In the agricultural phase (phase 1), the energy consumptions were 20,463.72 and 21,578.31 MJ ha−1 for tomato and potato production, respectively, and the lowest consumptions were observed in the transportation phase (phase 2), with values equal to 3342.68 MJ ha−1 for tomatoes and 1036.60 MJ ha−1 for potatoes (Table 4). The consumption of non-renewable energy by tomato (52,825.08 MJ ha−1) and potato (48,149.94 MJ ha−1) crops was higher than the consumption of renewable energy, 6728.49 and 9842.09 MJ ha−1 for tomatoes and potatoes, respectively (Table 4).
When analyzing the energy output of the production systems, it was observed that potatoes produced more energy, around 107,600.00 MJ ha−1, while tomatoes produced around 70,912.00 MJ ha−1. Consequently, the net energy rate of the potato production system, 49,824.95 MJ ha−1, was higher than that of tomatoes, 11,592.10 MJ ha−1 (Table 4). Potato cultivation provided 86.24% return on the energy invested and tomato cultivation, 19.54% (Table 4).
Regarding the contribution of each input to the energy consumption of the crops evaluated, the use of fertilizers and limestone, plus nitrogen and other fertilizers (P, K and correctives), had the largest share, contributing with 36.2 and 34.3% of the CED for potatoes and tomatoes, respectively (Figure 2). Fuel consumption (diesel) contributed approximately 32% of the CED for both vegetables. Plant protection products ranked third (9.6% for potatoes and 14% for tomatoes), followed by seedling production (9.1% for potatoes and 3.1% for tomatoes), irrigation (electricity and energy incorporated into the structure) (8.7% for potatoes and 9% for tomatoes) and machinery (4.9% for potatoes and 7.1% for tomatoes), which alternated between the fourth and fifth largest contributors to the CED, according to the crop under analysis (Figure 2).
As for GHG emissions associated with inputs, materials and fuel, it can be seen that potato production emitted an average of 5425.13 kg CO2 eq ha−1, while tomato production emitted 5270.9 kg CO2 eq ha−1. Indirect GHG emissions associated with the manufacture of inputs and materials (phase 3) were the largest contributors (3202.11 and 2757.72 kg CO2 eq ha−1 for potatoes and tomatoes, respectively), followed by emissions in the agricultural (Phase 1) and transportation (Phase 2) phases (Table 4). The carbon footprint for potato production was 0.136 kg CO2 eq kg−1 and, for tomato production, 0.042 kg CO2 eq kg−1.
Regarding the contribution of each GHG emitting source associated with the production of the crops evaluated, it was observed that nitrogen fertilizers were the main contributors, accounting for 39.2 and 44.4% of the total emitted in potato and tomato production, respectively (Figure 3). This was followed by the use of fuel (diesel) (18.9% for potatoes and 20.3% for tomatoes), the use of other fertilizers (P and K) and correctives (limestone and gypsum) (19.8% for potatoes and 13.8% for tomatoes) and the use of pesticides (7.1% for potatoes and 11.3% for tomatoes).
With regard to the scenarios designed to mitigate GHG emissions, Scenario 2 (3336.4 and 2509.6 kg CO2 eq ha−1 for potatoes and tomatoes, respectively) was the one that led to the greatest reduction in GHG emissions compared to actual production conditions (5425.1 and 5270.9 kg CO2 eq ha−1 for potatoes and tomatoes, respectively). In Scenario 1, total GHG emissions would be 4132.2 and 3398.2 kg CO2 eq ha−1 for potatoes and tomatoes, respectively, and, in Scenario 3, they would be 3447.9 kg CO2 eq ha1 for potatoes and 2681.8 kg CO2 eq ha−1 for tomatoes (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

According to the results obtained in this study, it is possible to suggest some agricultural practices to be adopted with a view to sustainability in intensive industrial potato and tomato production systems, in relation to reducing CED, the use of renewable energy sources and GHG emissions. By replacing synthetic N fertilizer with organic N fertilizer, chemical pesticides with biological ones and diesel tractors with electric tractors or diesel tractors with biodiesel, GHG emissions can be reduced by 36 to 39% in the potato planting system and 49 to 52% in the tomato planting system, as suggested in Scenarios 2 and 3 (Figure 4). In addition, the practices suggested in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 promote the use of inputs and fuel from renewable energy sources, which would significantly reduce dependence on fossil energy sources, since potato and tomato production depends on approximately 83% and 89%, respectively, of non-renewable energy (Table 4). These farming techniques that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are aligned with global climate goals, such as the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, enabling the integration of climate-smart strategies into national agricultural frameworks.
When evaluating the energy use of potato production in Iran, Bolandnazar et al. [1] calculated values of 84,309 MJ ha−1, and Khoshnevisan et al. [10] estimated values of 83,723 MJ ha−1. In both studies, the authors found that irrigation (electricity) and fertilizers were the main contributors. Pérez Neira et al. [9] found that the cumulative energy demand for table tomato production in Almeria, Spain, is equal to 246.4 × 103 MJ ha−1 (equal to 246,400 MJ ha−1), with electricity use being the main contributor. Unlike these results, in this study, irrigation (electricity and structure) accounted for approximately 9% of energy consumption, which is mainly related to the differences in the energy and water matrices between Brazil and Iran. While, in Asian countries, it is necessary to pump water over long distances and, in Spain, fossil energy sources are mostly used, in Brazil, the water resources are close to the cultivation site, and around 83% of the Brazilian electricity matrix is based on renewable energy sources [24].
Khoshnevisan et al. [10] calculated that the CED for producing one kilogram of potatoes in Iran ranges from 2.24 to 5.2 MJ kg−1, and Pishgar-Komleh et al. [7] estimated values between 1.7 and 2.7 MJ kg−1. The values calculated in this study were 1.42 to 1.48 MJ kg−1 (Table 4). This variation is directly related to potato yield, with an average of 21 t ha−1 in the studies cited, while the average yield used in the calculations of the present study was 40 t ha−1, since the CED values per hectare between the studies cited and the present study were similar. The same relationship with yield can be considered for tomatoes, as Karakaya and Özilgen [42] calculated 2412.8 MJ t−1 (equal to 2.4 MJ kg−1) for tomato production in Spain, and Zarei et al. [11] report values between 1.2 and 2.6 MJ kg−1 for tomato production in open fields in Iran, while in the present study, the calculated values were 0.46 to 0.57 MJ kg−1. In addition, these variations are also related to the differences between the electrical matrices of the countries mentioned compared to Brazil.
As for the carbon footprint, Clavreul et al. [43] calculated 51 kg CO2 eq t−1 (0.051 kg CO2 eq kg−1 of tomatoes) for open-field tomato production in Spain, and Pishgar-Komleh et al. [44] estimated values ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 kg CO2 eq kg−1 of tomatoes produced in Iran, values close to those determined in this study (Table 4). However, when evaluating the carbon footprint for tomato production in Florida, USA, Jones et al. [45] estimated values ranging from 0.19 to 0.27 kg CO2 eq kg−1 of tomatoes, with irrigation and the use of N fertilizers being the main contributors. For potato production, Khoshnevisan et al. [10] calculated a carbon footprint of 1.6 kg CO2 eq kg−1, with fertilizers accounting for 34% of the carbon footprint, as in the present study, where fertilizer use, especially nitrogen, was the main contributor (Figure 3). Therefore, the replacement of synthetic N fertilizers with organic N sources proposed in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 of this study (Figure 4) is one of the main practices needed to reduce GHG emissions and, consequently, the carbon footprint in intensive tomato and potato production systems.
It is important to note that the results obtained in this study are subject to the uncertainties common in this type of study, due to the limits established and coefficients used in the calculations (Tiers 1, 2 or 3) [46], highlighting the importance of carrying out local studies aimed at understanding and proposing sustainable alternatives for CED, GHG emissions and the carbon footprint of potato and tomato production, such as those proposed in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 of this study (Figure 4). Furthermore, due to the limited research on the impacts of potato and tomato production in Brazil, it is currently impossible to make broader projections regarding the potential contribution of the vegetable sector to Brazil’s proposed GHG emission reduction targets, underscoring the need for further studies.

5. Conclusions

The results obtained in this study showed that fertilizers, especially nitrogenous fertilizers, diesel and pesticides are the main sources contributing to the cumulative energy demand and GHG emissions associated with the production of potatoes and tomatoes for industry in Southeastern Brazil. The way to reduce the cumulative energy demand and mitigate the GHG emissions associated with the production of these vegetables is to replace synthetic fertilizer inputs with organic sources, replace chemical pesticides with biological ones, and replace diesel and machinery with electric or biofuel-powered vehicles and tractors in the near future. The cumulative energy demand for the production of potatoes and tomatoes from non-renewable sources is evaluated to be around 83% and 89%, respectively, and replacing these sources with renewable sources is essential for the sustainability of potato and tomato production in Brazil. These sustainable practices provide pathways to mitigate the environmental impact of intensive potato and tomato production systems and ensure that agricultural practices are aligned with global efforts to limit temperature increases under the Paris Agreement and contribute to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B.C.F.; methodology, A.B.C.F. and N.L.S.J.; formal analysis, B.d.J.P. and N.L.S.J.; investigation, A.B.C.F. and N.L.S.J.; data curation, B.d.J.P. and N.L.S.J.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.C.F., B.d.J.P. and N.L.S.J.; writing—review and editing, A.B.C.F., B.d.J.P. and N.L.S.J.; supervision, A.B.C.F. and N.L.S.J.; project administration, A.B.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank CAPES and CNPq.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bolandnazar, E.; Rohani, A.; Taki, M. Energy consumption forecasting in agriculture by artificial intelligence and mathematical models. Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2020, 42, 1618–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Banerjee, H.; Sarkar, S.; Ray, K. Energetics, GHG emissions and economics in nitrogen management practices under potato cultivation: A farm-level study. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2017, 2, 250–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kumar, A.; Rana, K.S.; Choudhary, A.K.; Bana, R.S.; Sharma, V.K.; Prasad, S.; Gupta, G.; Choudhary, M.; Pradhan, A.; Rajpoot, S.K.; et al. Energy budgeting and carbon footprints of zero-tilled pigeonpea—Wheat cropping system under sole or dual crop basis residue mulching and Zn-fertilization in a semi-arid agro-ecology. Energy 2021, 231, 120862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Potenza, R.F.; Quintana, G.O.; Cardoso, A.M.; Tsai, D.S.; Cremer, M.S.; Silva, B.F.; Carvalho, K.; Coluna, I.; Shimbo, J.; Silva, C.; et al. Análise das Emissões Brasileiras de Gases de Efeito Estufa e Suas Implicações Para as Metas Climáticas do Brasil 1970–2020. Available online: http://www.observatoriodoclima.eco.br/ (accessed on 8 October 2022).
  5. Pereira, B.D.J.; Cecílio Filho, A.B.; La Scala, N. Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint of cucumber, tomato and lettuce production using two cropping systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 124517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cecílio Filho, A.B.; Nascimento, C.S.; Pereira, B.D.J.; Nascimento, C.S. Nitrogen fertilisation impacts greenhouse gas emissions, carbon footprint, and agronomic responses of beet intercropped with arugula. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 307, 114568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pishgar-Komleh, S.H.; Ghahderijani, M.; Sefeedpari, P. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 33, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Theurl, M.C.; Haberl, H.; Erb, K.-H.; Lindenthal, T. Contrasted greenhouse gas emissions from local versus long-range tomato production. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 593–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pérez Neira, D.; Soler Montiel, M.; Delgado Cabeza, M.; Reigada, A. Energy use and carbon footprint of the tomato production in heated multi-tunnel greenhouses in Almeria within an exporting agri-food system context. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 628–629, 1627–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khoshnevisan, B.; Rafiee, S.; Omid, M.; Mousazadeh, H.; Rajaeifar, M.A. Application of artificial neural networks for prediction of output energy and GHG emissions in potato production in Iran. Agric. Syst. 2014, 123, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zarei, M.J.; Kazemi, N.; Marzban, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of cucumber and tomato production in open-field and greenhouse. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2019, 18, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ntinas, G.K.; Neumair, M.; Tsadilas, C.D.; Meyer, J. Carbon footprint and cumulative energy demand of greenhouse and open-field tomato cultivation systems under Southern and Central European climatic conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3617–3626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Winans, K.; Brodt, S.; Kendall, A. Life cycle assessment of California processing tomato: An evaluation of the effects of evolving practices and technologies over a 10-year (2005–2015) timeframe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 538–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Timpanaro, G.; Branca, F.; Cammarata, M.; Falcone, G.; Scuderi, A. Life cycle assessment to highlight the environmental burdens of early potato production. Agronomy 2021, 11, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pishgar-Komleh, S.H.; Akram, A.; Keyhani, A.; Sefeedpari, P.; Shine, P.; Brandao, M. Integration of life cycle assessment, artificial neural networks, and metaheuristic optimization algorithms for optimization of tomato-based cropping systems in Iran. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 620–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. ISO 14040; ISO International Organization for Standardization, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  17. ISO 14044; ISO International Organization for Standardization, Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  18. Pergola, M.; Persiani, A.; Pastore, V.; Palese, A.M.; Arous, A.; Celano, G. A comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of three apricot orchard systems located in Metapontino area (Southern Italy). J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 4059–4071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Romero-Gámez, M.; Antón, A.; Leyva, R.; Suárez-Rey, E.M. Inclusion of uncertainty in the LCA comparison of different cherry tomato production scenarios. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 798–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tasca, A.L.; Nessi, S.; Rigamonti, L. Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains: An LCA comparison between two alternative forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 725–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Martin-Gorriz, B.; Gallego-Elvira, B.; Martínez-Alvarez, V.; Maestre-Valero, J.F. Life cycle assessment of fruit and vegetable production in the Region of Murcia (south-east Spain) and evaluation of impact mitigation practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 265, 121656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. FAO. Faostat Crops Database. 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC,04.25.21 (accessed on 8 October 2022).
  23. EPE. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética. Matriz Energética e Elétrica. 2022. Available online: https://www.epe.gov.br (accessed on 11 November 2022).
  24. UN. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (accessed on 8 October 2022).
  25. IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia E Estatística. Produção Agrícola Municipal. 2023. Available online: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/pam/tabelas (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  26. Temizyurek-Arslan, M.; Karacetin, E. Assessing the environmental impacts of organic and conventional mixed vegetable production based on the life cycle assessment approach. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2022, 18, 1733–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aguilera, E.; Guzmán, G.I.; Infante-Amate, J.; Soto, D.; García-Ruiz, R.; Herrera, A.; Villa, I.; Torremocha, E.; Carranza, G.; Molina, M.G. Embodied Energy In Agricultural Inputs. Incorporating A Historical Perspective. Soc. Esp. De Hist. Agrar. 2015, 1, 119. [Google Scholar]
  28. TACO. Tabela Brasileira de Composição de Alimentos; NEPA—UNICAMP: Campinas, Brazil, 2011; Available online: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Tabela+Brasileira+de+Composi%C3%A7%C3%A3o+de+Alimentos#vhid=zephyr:0&vssid=atritem-https://www.cfn.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/taco_4_edicao_ampliada_e_revisada.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2022).
  29. IPCC. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme; Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., Eds.; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES): Hayama, Japan, 2006; p. 664. [Google Scholar]
  30. IPCC. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize, S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P., Federici, S., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. CETESB. Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo. Relatórios de Emissões Veiculares no Estado São Paulo. 2018. Available online: https://cetesb.sp.gov.br/veicular/relatorios-e-publicacoes/ (accessed on 6 October 2022).
  32. Macedo, I.C.; Seabra, J.E.A.; Silva, J.E.A.R. Green house 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, 582–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mayer, F.D.; Brondani, M.; Aita, B.C.; Hoffmann, R.; Lora, E.E.S. Environmental and Energy Assessment of Small Scale Ethanol Fuel Production. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 6704–6716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Guareschi, R.F.; Dos Reis Martins, M.; Sarkis, L.F.; Rodrigues Alves, B.J.; Jantalia, C.P.; Boddey, R.M.; Urquiaga, S. An analysis of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions from organic soybean cultivation in Brazil. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2019, 40, 3461–3476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Popp, M.; Lindsay, K.; Ashworth, A.; Moore, P.; Owens, P.; Adams, T.; McCarver, M.; Roark, B.; Pote, D.; Pennington, J. Economic and GHG emissions changes of aeration and gypsum application. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 321, 107616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Audsley, E.; Stacey, K.; Parsons, D.J.; Willians, A.G. Estimation of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Pesticide Manufacture and Use; Cranfield University: Bedford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. MCTI. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. 2019. Available online: http://www.mctic.gov.br/mctic/opencms/index.html (accessed on 28 June 2022).
  38. Posen, I.D.; Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W.M. Uncertainty in the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. Production of three biobased polymer families. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 2846–2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cech, R.; Leisch, F.; Zaller, J.G. Pesticide Use and Associated Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Sugar Beet, Apples, and Viticulture in Austria from 2000 to 2019. Agriculture 2022, 12, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lagnelöv, O.; Larsson, G.; Larsolle, A.; Hansson, P.-A. Life Cycle Assessment of Autonomous Electric Field Tractors in Swedish Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Canabarro, N.I.; Silva-Ortiz, P.; Nogueira, L.A.H.; Cantarella, H.; Maciel-Filho, R.; Souza, G.M. Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 171, 113019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Karakaya, A.; Özilgen, M. Energy utilization and carbon dioxide emission in the fresh, paste, whole-peeled, diced, and juiced tomato production processes. Energy 2011, 36, 5101–5110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Clavreul, J.; Butnar, I.; Rubio, V.; King, H. Intra- and inter-year variability of agricultural carbon footprints—A case study on field-grown tomatoes. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 158, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pishgar-Komleh, S.H.; Akram, A.; Keyhani, A.; Raei, M.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; van Zelm, R. Variability in the carbon footprint of open-field tomato production in Iran—A case study of Alborz and East-Azerbaijan provinces. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1510–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jones, C.D.; Fraisse, C.W.; Ozores-Hampton, M. Quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from open field-grown Florida tomato production. Agric. Syst. 2012, 113, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Adewale, C.; Reganold, J.P.; Higgins, S.; Evans, R.D.; Carpenter-Boggs, L. Improving carbon footprinting of agricultural systems: Boundaries, tiers, and organic farming. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 71, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00235 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart for assessing the cumulative energy demand (CED), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint of intensive potato and tomato production during one agricultural year.
Figure 1. Flowchart for assessing the cumulative energy demand (CED), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint of intensive potato and tomato production during one agricultural year.
Agronomy 15 00235 g001
Agronomy 15 00235 g002
Figure 2. Percentage contribution of each input, material and fuel to the cumulative energy demand (CED) for potato and tomato production in an intensive cultivation system.
Figure 2. Percentage contribution of each input, material and fuel to the cumulative energy demand (CED) for potato and tomato production in an intensive cultivation system.
Agronomy 15 00235 g002
Agronomy 15 00235 g003
Figure 3. Percentage contribution of each input, material and fuel to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for potato and tomato production in an intensive cultivation system.
Figure 3. Percentage contribution of each input, material and fuel to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for potato and tomato production in an intensive cultivation system.
Agronomy 15 00235 g003
Agronomy 15 00235 g004
Figure 4. Real condition (CR) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and scenarios (C1—replacement of synthetic N fertilizer with organic sources and chemical pesticides with biological ones; C2—replacement of synthetic N fertilizer with organic sources, chemical pesticides with biological ones and diesel/machinery with electric tractors; and C3—replacement of synthetic N fertilizer with organic sources, chemical pesticides with biological ones and diesel with biodiesel) of alternatives proposed for mitigating emissions associated with the main emission sources used in the production of potatoes and tomatoes, in an intensive cultivation system.
Figure 4. Real condition (CR) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and scenarios (C1—replacement of synthetic N fertilizer with organic sources and chemical pesticides with biological ones; C2—replacement of synthetic N fertilizer with organic sources, chemical pesticides with biological ones and diesel/machinery with electric tractors; and C3—replacement of synthetic N fertilizer with organic sources, chemical pesticides with biological ones and diesel with biodiesel) of alternatives proposed for mitigating emissions associated with the main emission sources used in the production of potatoes and tomatoes, in an intensive cultivation system.
Agronomy 15 00235 g004
Table 1. Average values of inputs and materials used in potato and tomato production in an intensive system.
Table 1. Average values of inputs and materials used in potato and tomato production in an intensive system.
SourceCharacteristicsUnitTomatoPotato
Machinery a
Tractors (90 to 210 hp), plows, subsoilers, harrows, fertilizers, sprayers and harvesters.kg ha−1 year−1447.7592.0
Fertilizers
N fertilizer (N)Urea, Calcium Nitrate, MAP, NPKkg ha−1 year−1233.40184.62
P fertilizer (P2O5)MAP, NPKkg ha−1 year−1319.40541.63
K fertilizer (K2O)Potassium chloride, NPKkg ha−1 year−1322.80327.63
LimestoneDolomitic limestonekg ha−1 year−1641.67301.35
GypsumAgricultural gypsumkg ha−1 year−1-528.00
Pesticides
Herbicides (i.a) bMetribuzim, Triazinona, etc.kg ha−1 year−10.581.39
Fungicides (i.a) bCopper oxychloride, mancozeb, etc.kg ha−1 year−141.8721.91
Insecticides (i.a) bAcephate, Formentanate hydrochloride, etc.kg ha−1 year−14.493.43
Fuel
Fuel for tractorDiesel used in tractor operationsL ha−1 year−1278.00303.50
Fuel for transportationDiesel used in transport operationsL ha−1 year−158.8518.25
Electricity Electricity consumed by the irrigation systemkWh ha−1 year−11298.141205.42
Irrigation structure
Steel cGalvanized steel used in the system structurekg10,499.2710,499.27
Iron cIron used in gearmotor and motor-pump assemblieskg110.1636.72
PVC cPVC pipes used to assemble the pipelinekg 1652.611652.61
Rubbers cPolystyrene rubbers used to cover electrical wiringkg1180.501180.50
Seedling
Seedling trays Polypropylene trayskg ha−1 year−126.68-
Steel cGalvanized steel used in the structure of the greenhousekg 3500.00-
Polyethylene cPlastic used in the greenhousekg 160.00-
Seed potatoesSeed potato productionkg ha−1 year−1-3303.50
a The values correspond to the weighted average of the weight of tractors (20-year amortization) and equipment (10-year amortization); b Active ingredient; c Values not amortized.
Table 4. Cumulative energy demand (CED), energy balance, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint of potato and tomato production in an intensive cultivation system.
Table 4. Cumulative energy demand (CED), energy balance, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint of potato and tomato production in an intensive cultivation system.
EnergyTomatoPotato
Max.Med.Min.Max.Med.Min.
Phase 1 (MJ ha–1)22,324.1420,463.7217,864.9022,281.3221,578.3120,875.30
Phase 2 (MJ ha–1)4884.803342.68710.001079.201036.60994.00
Phase 3 (MJ ha–1)40,584.6635,747.1629,519.5836,521.7535,377.1134,224.61
CED (MJ ha–1)67,793.6059,553.5648,094.4859,882.2757,992.0256,093.92
Energy Output (MJ ha–1)94,720.0070,912.0054,400.0010,8945.0010,7600.0010,6255.00
Net Energy (MJ ha–1)26,926.4011,358.446305.5250,161.0849,607.9849,062.73
Non-Renewable Energy (MJ ha–1)60,364.1252,825.0842,066.9949,221.6848,149.9447,070.33
Renewable Energy (MJ ha–1)7429.486728.496027.4910660.599842.099023.59
CED (MJ kg–1)0.570.540.541.481.441.42
EROI (%)39.7219.0713.1189.4285.5481.93
Greenhouse gas emissions
Phase 1 (kg CO2 eq ha–1)2554.432359.892075.852242.642175.512108.38
Phase 2 (kg CO2 eq ha–1)223.86153.1932.5449.4647.5045.55
Phase 3 (kg CO2 eq ha–1)3348.312757.832161.273307.453202.113096.59
Total emissions (kg CO2 eq ha–1)6126.605270.904269.665599.555425.135250.53
Carbon footprint (kg CO2 eq kg–1)0.0440.0420.0370.1400.1360.131
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pereira, B.d.J.; La Scala, N., Jr.; Cecílio Filho, A.B. Cumulative Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Potato and Tomato Production in Southeast Brazil. Agronomy 2025, 15, 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010235

AMA Style

Pereira BdJ, La Scala N Jr., Cecílio Filho AB. Cumulative Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Potato and Tomato Production in Southeast Brazil. Agronomy. 2025; 15(1):235. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010235

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pereira, Breno de Jesus, Newton La Scala, Jr., and Arthur Bernardes Cecílio Filho. 2025. "Cumulative Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Potato and Tomato Production in Southeast Brazil" Agronomy 15, no. 1: 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010235

APA Style

Pereira, B. d. J., La Scala, N., Jr., & Cecílio Filho, A. B. (2025). Cumulative Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Potato and Tomato Production in Southeast Brazil. Agronomy, 15(1), 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010235

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop