Environmental impacts of organic and conventional tobacco agricultural production in south Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14488/1676-1901.v20i3.3793Keywords:
Life cycle, Environmental impacts, Organic, Tobacco, ProductionAbstract
A Life Cycle Analysis of organic and conventional tobacco production in southern Brazil was carried out to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the stages of seedling production, tillage, curing and transportation. The data used for the characterization were obtained by applying questionnaires to producers and transporters and also used production data from 12,000 tobacco pro-ducers, provided by a beneficiary company in the region. Impact assessment was performed through Life Cycle Analysis. The reference unit was the production of one ton of dry tobacco. Six impact cate-gories were analyzed: Global Warming Potential, Terrestrial Acidification, Terrestrial Ecotoxicity, Fresh-water Eutrophication, Land Use and Fossil Resource Shortages. The results were able to show the stages of greatest impact on both forms of production. Comparing the results between the planting systems in each impact category it was possible to verify that the organic planting presents larger im-pacts for the terrestrial acidification, global warming potential and land use categories. In turn, conven-tional planting had higher total impact values for the categories of freshwater eutrophication potential and scarcity of fossil resources.Downloads
References
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. ABNT 14.044: Gestão ambiental: avaliação do ciclo de vida: requisitos e orientações. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2009a.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. ABNT: 14.040. Gestão ambiental: avaliação do ciclo de vida: princípios e estrutura: Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2009b.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 46/2011: Gestão ambiental - Requisitos gerais dos sistemas orgânicos de produção. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2011.
AGUILERA, E.; GUZMÁN, G.; ALONSO, A. Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional and organic cropping systems in Spain. I. Herbaceous crops. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, v. 35, n. 2, p. 713-724, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0267-9
ALAM, S. A.; STARR, M. Deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions associated with fuel-wood consumption of the brick making industry in Sudan. Science of the total environ-ment, v. 407, n. 2, p. 847-852, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.09.040
BAROSI, R. et al. Mineral nitrogen fertilizers: environmental impact of production and use. Fertil. Compon. Uses Agric. Environ. Impacts, p. 3-44, 2014.
FAO, I. WFP (2014) The state of food insecurity in the world 2014: strengthening the ena-bling environment for food security and nutrition. FAO, Rome, 2015.
GARNETT, T. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food policy, v. 36, p. S23-S32, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.010
HUSSAIN, M. et al. Hazardous pollutants emissions and environmental impacts from fuel-wood burned and synthetic fertilizers applied by tobacco growers in Pakistan. Environmen-tal Technology & Innovation, v. 7, p. 169-181, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2017.02.003
LI, Z. et al. Effects of different agricultural organic wastes on soil GHG emissions: During a 4-year field measurement in the North China Plain. Waste Management, v. 81, p. 202-210, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.008
MAKHLOUF, A.; SERRADJ, T.; CHENITI, H. Life cycle impact assessment of ammonia pro-duction in Algeria: A comparison with previous studies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 50, p. 35-41, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.003
MCMICHAEL, A. J. et al. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. The lancet, v. 370, n. 9594, p. 1253-1263, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2
SHARMA, B. D.; WANG, J.; LIU, S. Modeling of sustainable biomass utilization and carbon emission reduction. Sensor Letters, v. 9, n. 3, p. 1175-1179, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1166/sl.2011.1366.
Revista Produção Online. Florianópolis, SC, v. 20, n. 3, p. 903-922, 2020.
SKOWROŃSKA, M.; FILIPEK, T. Life cycle assessment of fertilizers: a review. International Agrophysics, v. 28, n. 1, p.
-110, 2014. https://doi.org/10.2478/intag-2013-0032
TILMAN, D. et al. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science, v. 292, n. 5515, p. 281-284, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057544.
VARGAS, M. A.; OLIVEIRA, B. F. D. Estratégias de diversificação em áreas de cultivo de ta-baco no Vale do Rio Pardo: uma análise comparativa. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, v. 50, n. 1, p. 157-174, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-20032012000100010
WEIDEMA, B. P. et al. Overview and methodology: data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3, 2013.
WIEDMANN, T. O. et al. The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, p. 201220362, 2013.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The Journal reserves the right to make spelling and grammatical changes, aiming to keep a default language, respecting, however, the style of the authors.
The published work is responsibility of the (s) author (s), while the Revista Produção Online is only responsible for the evaluation of the paper. The Revista Produção Online is not responsible for any violations of Law No. 9.610 / 1998, the Copyright Act.
The journal allows the authors to keep the copyright of accepted articles, without restrictions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License .
