https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v17i6.4189

elocation-id: elocation-id: e4189

Maldonado-Mancera, Estrada-Baltazar, Ríos-Fuentes, Mandujano-Bueno, Gámez-Vázquez, and Botello-Álvarez: Environmental and economic assessment of white corn production in Guanajuato

Journal Metadata

Journal Identifier: remexca [journal-id-type=publisher-id]

Journal Title Group

Journal Title (Full): Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas

Abbreviated Journal Title: Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc [abbrev-type=publisher]

ISSN: 2007-0934 [pub-type=ppub]

ISSN: 2007-9230 [pub-type=epub]

Publisher

Publisher’s Name: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias

Publisher’s Location: México

Article Metadata

Article Identifier: 10.29312/remexca.v17i6.4189 [pub-id-type=doi]

Article Grouping Data

Subject Group [subj-group-type=heading]

Subject Grouping Name: Article

Title Group

Article Title: Environmental and economic assessment of white corn production in Guanajuato

Contributor Group

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Maldonado-Mancera

Given (First) Names: María Teresa

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Estrada-Baltazar

Given (First) Names: Alejandro

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Ríos-Fuentes

Given (First) Names: Brenda

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff2]

Superscript: 2

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Mandujano-Bueno

Given (First) Names: Andrés

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff3]

Superscript: 3

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Gámez-Vázquez

Given (First) Names: Alfredo Josué

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff3]

Superscript: 3

Contributor [contrib-type=author; corresp=yes]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Botello-Álvarez

Given (First) Names: José Enrique

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=corresp; rid=c1]

Superscript: §

Affiliation [id=aff1]

Label (of an Equation, Figure, Reference, etc.): 1

Institution Name: in an Address: Departamento de Ingeniería Bioquímica-Tecnológico Nacional de México en Celaya. Av. Tecnológico y Av. García Cubas, Fovissste, Celaya, Guanajuato, México. CP. 38010. [content-type=original]

Institution Name: in an Address: Tecnológico Nacional de México en Celaya [content-type=orgname]

Institution Name: in an Address: Departamento de Ingeniería Bioquímica [content-type=orgdiv1]

Address Line

Named Special (Subject) Content: Av. Tecnológico y Av. García Cubas, Fovissste [content-type=street]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Celaya [content-type=city]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Guanajuato [content-type=state]

Country: in an Address: México [country=MX]

Postal Code: 38010

Affiliation [id=aff2]

Label (of an Equation, Figure, Reference, etc.): 2

Institution Name: in an Address: Departamento de Ingeniería Agroindustrial-Ingeniería en Biotecnología-Universidad de Guanajuato. Mutualismo s/n y Río Lerma, Enrique Colunga, Celaya, Guanajuato, México. CP. 38060. [content-type=original]

Institution Name: in an Address: Universidad de Guanajuato [content-type=orgname]

Institution Name: in an Address: Departamento de Ingeniería Agroindustrial [content-type=orgdiv1]

Institution Name: in an Address: Ingeniería en Biotecnología [content-type=orgdiv2]

Address Line

Named Special (Subject) Content: Mutualismo s/n y Río Lerma, Enrique Colunga [content-type=street]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Celaya [content-type=city]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Guanajuato [content-type=state]

Country: in an Address: México [country=MX]

Postal Code: 38060

Affiliation [id=aff3]

Label (of an Equation, Figure, Reference, etc.): 3

Institution Name: in an Address: Campo Experimental Bajío-INIFAP. Carretera Celaya-San Miguel de Allende km 6.5, Celaya, Guanajuato, México. CP. 38110. [content-type=original]

Institution Name: in an Address: INIFAP [content-type=orgname]

Institution Name: in an Address: Campo Experimental Bajío [content-type=orgdiv1]

Address Line

Named Special (Subject) Content: Carretera Celaya-San Miguel de Allende km 6.5 [content-type=street]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Celaya [content-type=city]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Guanajuato [content-type=state]

Country: in an Address: México [country=MX]

Postal Code: 38110

Author Note Group

Correspondence Information: [§] Autor para correspondencia: enrique.botello@itcelaya.edu.mx [id=c1]

Publication Date [date-type=pub; publication-format=electronic]

Day: 01

Month: 09

Year: 2026

Volume Number: 17

Issue Number: 6

Electronic Location Identifier: e4189

History: Document History

Date [date-type=received]

Day: 01

Month: 06

Year: 2026

Date [date-type=accepted]

Day: 01

Month: 08

Year: 2026

Permissions

License Information [license-type=open-access; xlink:href=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/; xml:lang=es]

Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons

Abstract

Title: Abstract

The environmental and economic aspects of white corn production in Guanajuato between 2016 and 2020 were studied. The factors that significantly contribute to the environmental impact of irrigated (MR) and rainfed (MT-450) corn production, as well as the profitability of production and its contribution to local self-sufficiency of this grain, were determined. The environmental impact was evaluated using the life cycle assessment methodology, with one tonne of grain as the functional unit; emissions were estimated using Ecoinvent v 3.9, and the environmental impact indicators were estimated using ReCiPe 2016 v 1.1. The economic analysis was performed with an optimization model that seeks the maximum gross income with constraints on food self-sufficiency, soil, and water. Irrigated and rainfed corn have loads of 871 and 244 kg CO2eq t-1 respectively, for the climate change indicator. In irrigated corn, the environmental impact is primarily associated with high electricity consumption for water extraction and distribution. In rainfed corn, the environmental impact is associated with the disproportion between production and inputs. In the economic analysis, it was estimated that local corn production meets 83% of the total demand for the grain. The benefit/cost ratio for rainfed and irrigated corn was estimated at 1.48 and 0.8, respectively. Agricultural profitability is conditioned by prices and the market: with a 3% change in the irrigated area of cereals, a 50% increase in the demand for vegetables can be met.

Keyword Group [xml:lang=en]

Title: Keywords:

Keyword: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Keyword: irrigation and seasonality

Keyword: sustainability

Counts

Figure Count [count=1]

Table Count [count=3]

Equation Count [count=1]

Reference Count [count=27]

Abstract

The environmental and economic aspects of white corn production in Guanajuato between 2016 and 2020 were studied. The factors that significantly contribute to the environmental impact of irrigated (MR) and rainfed (MT-450) corn production, as well as the profitability of production and its contribution to local self-sufficiency of this grain, were determined. The environmental impact was evaluated using the life cycle assessment methodology, with one tonne of grain as the functional unit; emissions were estimated using Ecoinvent v 3.9, and the environmental impact indicators were estimated using ReCiPe 2016 v 1.1. The economic analysis was performed with an optimization model that seeks the maximum gross income with constraints on food self-sufficiency, soil, and water. Irrigated and rainfed corn have loads of 871 and 244 kg CO2eq t-1 respectively, for the climate change indicator. In irrigated corn, the environmental impact is primarily associated with high electricity consumption for water extraction and distribution. In rainfed corn, the environmental impact is associated with the disproportion between production and inputs. In the economic analysis, it was estimated that local corn production meets 83% of the total demand for the grain. The benefit/cost ratio for rainfed and irrigated corn was estimated at 1.48 and 0.8, respectively. Agricultural profitability is conditioned by prices and the market: with a 3% change in the irrigated area of cereals, a 50% increase in the demand for vegetables can be met.

Keywords:

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), irrigation and seasonality, sustainability.

Introduction

Corn is one of the most important food cereals globally and a fundamental component of diets in regions such as Africa and the Americas (Erenstein et al., 2022; FAO, 2023). In Mexico, white corn is the main ingredient in the diet and tortillas are its main by-product (Espejel-García et al., 2016).

National white corn production is mainly for human consumption, whereas a large amount of yellow corn is imported from the United States of America for livestock use. In 2023, 17 615 000 t were imported, corresponding to 40% of national demand (FAO, 2023). Rainfed corn production went from 77% to 52% of national production between 1980 and 2022, giving more space to the irrigated crop (SIAP, 2023).

To holistically analyze the sustainability of food production, agriculture must be studied as a system highly interrelated with social, economic and environmental factors.

The term agricultural systems analysis (ASA) has been used to analyze the different factors that condition the economic, social, and environmental performance of farm management or in regional and national settings (Macfadyen, 2019). Phenomena such as globalization affect agricultural systems in different ways and intensities (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011).

Countries with weak and vulnerable agricultural systems are affected by globalization through food dependence associated with international trade (Lähde et al., 2023), highlighting the need to assess sustainability in national and international contexts. Agricultural systems can be represented by models in which the factors of production and consumption integrate linked nodes of transfer functions (Walters et al., 2016).

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology that attributes environmental effects to the consumption of natural resources and energy, emissions, and waste generated during the production, distribution, and consumption processes (Ríos-Fuentes et al., 2022).

This methodology has been widely used in the environmental analysis of corn production. In regional studies for the United States of America, China and Europe, the climate change indicator values are 271, 640 and 185 kg of CO2eq t-1, respectively (Qi et al., 2018; Holka et al., 2020; Koushki et al., 2023).

The environmental impact is directly related to local agroclimatic factors. The United States of America produces large quantities of corn at low production costs and with low environmental impacts, which are associated with climatic conditions, soil quality, technological factors, and government support (Foley et al., 2020).

Mexico aims to achieve food self-sufficiency in corn by 2024-2030 (SADER, 2025). A fundamental step in achieving this goal is analyzing the sustainability of corn production as an integral part of the national agricultural system. Corn production in Guanajuato is considered to exhibit a productivity gap, associated with inefficient productivity/input ratios that lead to high environmental impacts and production costs.

This study aimed to identify the agricultural and commercial factors that condition the sustainability of corn production in Guanajuato using the LCA methodology and an optimization model. The results of this study can contribute to understanding the agricultural problem and provide recommendations for improvement.

Materials and methods

Environmental analysis

White corn production in Guanajuato was studied for the 2016-2020 period. The LCA methodology (ISO 14040 and 14044: ISO, 2006) was applied to evaluate two scenarios: ‘irrigated corn (IC)’ and ‘rainfed corn (RC-450, regions with annual rainfall of 450 mm)’.

The functional unit (FU) is 1 t of harvested corn. The foreground inputs (seeds, fertilizers, and herbicides) were obtained from INIFAP-Bajío (INIFAP, 2017). The information on fuels and electricity used for irrigation was obtained from FIRA (2024). Environmental impacts were estimated with SimaPro® v9.5, which uses the ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 methodology (Huijbregts et al., 2017). The background inventories were obtained from the Ecoinvent v3.9 database.

Economic analysis

In the economic analysis, a mathematical model of an agricultural system with constraints on food self-sufficiency, soil and water was proposed. The model considers local production, imports and exports, differentiating local and external prices.

Imports are limited by local supply. Two scenarios are considered for exports: the base scenario, which represents the state’s production and consumption in 2023 (SIAP, 2023; FAO, 2023), and the extended scenario, where external demand for agricultural products was considered to increase by 50%.

The objective function of the model is presented in equation 1, which expresses achieving the maximum gross income of the agricultural system (Max Igross), which consists of local (Si, local) and external (Si, ext) sales, production costs (PCi) and import payments (IPi, imp).

The decision variables in the extended case are the areas allocated to each crop. In both scenarios, local demands for agricultural products are met. The optimization model was solved with the Solver routine of Excel®.

(1)
Max I Gross = ∑ i n S i, local + ∑ i n S i , ext - ∑ i n PC i - ∑ i n IP i , imp

Results and discussion

Environmental analysis

Table 1 presents the inventory of inputs and yields for white corn production under the IC and RC-450 scenarios; Table 2 in turn, shows the environmental impact indicators. In the analysis of the background (in input production) and foreground (in corn production) contributions of production factors to environmental impact, the main drivers were found to be electricity consumption for irrigation in the IC scenario and the background environmental load of DAP (diammonium phosphate) in RC-450, which is also associated with low productivity.

Table 1

Table 1. Inventories of inputs for LCA.

Description IC RC-450
Yield (t ha-1) 7.5 2.8
Mechanical tillage (L diesel FU) 16.67 8.21
Seed (units FU) 11 666 11 410
Fertilizers (kg FU)
Urea 00-46-00 47.64 18.9
DAP 18-46-00 11.59 31.06
KCl 00-00-60 - 11.9
Nitrogen (kg N/FU) 24 14.29
Phosphorus (kg P2O5 FU) 5.33 14.29
Potassium (kg K2O FU) - 7.14
Glyphosate* (kg AI FU) 0.192 -
Pesticides (kg IA FU) 0.051 0.064
Water (m3 FU) 666.67 -
Electricity (kWh FU) 868.67 -

[i] IC= irrigated corn; RC-450= rainfed corn; FU= functional unit; AI= active ingredient; *= glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine).

Table 2

Table 2. Midpoint indicators according to ReCiPe for the 2 corn scenarios.

Impact category IC RC-450
Climatic change (kg CO2 eq) 871.8 244.33
Depletion of the ozone layer (kg CFC-11 eq) 1.2 E-05 4.18 E-06
Ionizing radiation (kBq U235 eq) 25.11 1.43
Particulate matter formation (kg PM10 eq) 1.28 0.82
Photochemical oxidant formation (kg NMVOC) 1.96 0.36
Terrestrial acidification (kg SO2 eq) 2.3 0.64
Freshwater eutrophication (kg P eq) 0.02 0.01
Marine eutrophication (kg N eq) 0.14 0.09
Terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq) 0.06 0.06
Freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq) 0.15 0.07
Marine ecotoxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq) 0.28 0.3
Human toxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq) 21.67 25.52
Occupation of agricultural (m2 a) 1 343.54 3580.15
Occupation of urban land (m2 a) 7.15 14.29
Land natural transformation (m2) 0.004 0.003
Metal depletion (kg Fe eq) 4.6 10.29
Fossil depletion (kg oil eq) 226.91 36.44
Water depletion (m3) 606.3 9.1

The climate change indicator is a benchmark in environmental impact studies due to its relevance and its association with damage to human health and ecosystems. This indicator has been estimated for the most productive corn regions of the United States of America, China and Europe, with values of 271, 640 and 185 kg of CO2 eq t-1, respectively (Qi et al., 2018; Holka et al., 2020; Koushki et al., 2023).

In these regions, the most important driver of environmental impact is chemical fertilization, where DAP stands out, which is produced with a large environmental load generated during its production due to high energy consumption and inadequate management of depleted phosphate rock remains; it is mainly produced in China (Zhang et al., 2017).

In Mexico, the recommended nitrogen dose is 250-300 kg of N for an expected productivity of 13 t ha-1 (Sánchez-de Jesús et al., 2024). Nonetheless, the national average for irrigated corn production is 6.74 t ha-1, whereas Sinaloa, Sonora, Baja California, Guanajuato and Chihuahua have an average of 11.14 t ha-1, indicating a wide productivity gap.

In Guanajuato, the climate change indicator is primarily linked to energy consumption for extracting and distributing well water. The average well depth is 170 m, with a range of 30-400 m. In Mexico, electricity consumption for pumping groundwater is 1-1.3 kWh m-3 (FIRA, 2024).

In this region of Mexico, a total of 11 000 m3 ha-1 is allocated for surface water and road irrigation; for groundwater, a demand of 5 000 m3 ha-1 is considered. In irrigated systems in the United States of America, yields of up to 14 t ha-1 are achieved with 6 000 m3 ha-1 (Koushki et al., 2023). Water consumption and chemical fertilization in this region of Mexico are inefficient due to the low ratio between production and inputs, generating one of the highest corn productivity gaps in the world (GYGA, 2024).

For irrigated corn, electricity use for water extraction is the dominant factor. In rainfed corn, the dominant factor is the environmental loads generated during DAP production (background).

In the case of RC-450, the application of DAP is considered the dominant factor in environmental impact. The high environmental load of DAP is linked to production and heavy-metal leaching processes (Zhang et al., 2017). Although RC-450 showed lower impacts in 12 of the 18 indicators evaluated, it recorded higher values for human toxicity, marine and terrestrial ecotoxicity, metal depletion, and land occupation. The occupation of agricultural land was 2.66 times higher than that of IC due to its lower yields per functional unit.

The results show that rainfed corn production has lower environmental impacts; however, its yields and planted area have decreased by 3 923 ha year-1 since the beginning of the century (SIAP, 2023), mainly due to low profitability and losses. The LCA allowed us to identify the main environmental hotspots in corn production: electricity in IC and the yield-fertilization ratio in RC-450.

Economic analysis

Figure 1 shows the evolution of the national corn supply, comprising irrigated and rainfed production and imports, as well as human and livestock consumption, which represent the total demand. Mexico imports large volumes of yellow corn at international prices lower than national prices, putting pressure on the domestic market (USDA, 2024). Trade integration has increased the Mexican agricultural system’s exposure to international price volatility and external competition, limiting the profitability of staple grains (OECD, 2023).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Dynamics of corn production and consumption in Mexico.

2007-0934-remexca-17-6-e4189-gf1.png

Table 3 presents the base scenario, corresponding to the agricultural areas planted in 2023. The results show that local vegetable production amply meets state demand, whereas staple grains do not fully meet consumption requirements. In particular, irrigated and rainfed corn cover 61.65 and 23.26% of local demand, respectively. For its part, broccoli production far exceeds domestic demand, confirming its orientation toward foreign markets (SIAP, 2023; FAO, 2023).

Table 3

Table 3. Basic grains coverage with scenarios of agricultural land substitution.

Crop Base (ha) Coverage (%) Extended (ha) Coverage (%)
Irrigated corn 157 145 61.65 154 645 60.67
Rainfed corn 213 587 23.26 213 587 23.26
Other cereals 152 238 144 755
Beans 12 353 76.74 9 853 67.97
Broccoli 20 033 4 315.45 24 433 5 263.28
Other vegetables 66 353 74 436
Total area (ha) 621 709 621 709
Gross income $6 880 201 655.00 $11 087 148 608.00

The benefit/cost ratio for rainfed and irrigated corn was estimated at 1.48 and 0.8 respectively, indicating that rainfed corn is produced with significant monetary losses for producers. The permanence of the latter system is associated with self-consumption, productive tradition, external support and the limited economic alternatives available to rural producers (Eakin et al., 2014).

In the extended scenario, small reductions in the area allocated to irrigated corn, beans, and other cereals allow the production of broccoli and other export vegetables to increase. The system’s gross income increases from $6 880 million to $11 087 million. The optimal solution identified by the model suggests that economic profitability favors expanding horticultural crops; nevertheless, its implementation would depend on factors not explicitly considered in the analysis, such as the infrastructure and absorption capacity of the markets.

Conclusions

Rainfed corn had lower environmental impacts than irrigated corn in most of the categories evaluated; however, it showed higher values for human toxicity, ecotoxicity, and agricultural land occupation due to its lower yields. The main environmental hotspots identified were electricity consumption for water extraction in irrigated corn and the production of diammonium phosphate (DAP) in rainfed corn.

Irrigated corn contributed more to local supply and was more profitable than rainfed corn. On the other hand, the optimization model indicated that expanding horticultural crops increases the agricultural system’s income, although it can reduce the area allocated to staple grains.

Overall, the results show trade-offs among economic profitability, food security, and environmental impact; therefore, the sustainability of the agricultural system requires improving the efficiency of water, energy and fertilizer use simultaneously without compromising the production of staple foods.

Bibliography

1 

Eakin, H.; Perales, H.; Appendini, K. and Sweeney, S. 2014. Selling maize in Mexico: the persistence of peasant farming in an era of global markets. United Kingdom. Development and Change. 45(1):133-155. Doi:10.1111/dech.12074.

2 

Erenstein, O.; Jaleta, M.; Sonder, K.; Mottaleb, K. A. and Prasanna, B. M. 2022. Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Switzerland. Food Security. 14(5):1295-1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7.

3 

Espejel-García, M. V.; Mora-Flores, J. S.; García-Salazar, J. A.; Pérez-Elizalde, S. y García-Mata, R. 2016. Caracterización del consumidor de tortilla en el Estado de México. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo. 13(3):371-384. https://doi.org/10.22231/asyd.v13i3.401.

4 

FAO. 2022. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The state of food and agriculture 2022: leveraging automation in agriculture for transforming agrifood systems. Italia.

5 

FAO. 2023. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT: food balance sheets. Italia.

6 

FIRA 2024. Fideicomisos Institucionales de Relación con la Agricultura. Panorama agroalimentario 2024: maíz. México.

7 

Foley, D. J.; Thenkabail, P. S.; Aneece, I. P.; Teluguntla, P. G. and Oliphant J. 2020. A meta-analysis of global crop water productivity of three leading world crops (wheat, corn and rice) in the irrigated areas over three decades. International Journal of Digital Earth. 13(8): 939-975. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2019.1651912.

8 

GYGA. 2024. Global Yield Gap Atlas. Yield gap Atlas. https://yieldgap.com/atlas/.

9 

Holka, M. and Bieńkowski, J. 2020. Carbon footprint and life-cycle costs of maize production in conventional and non-inversion tillage systems. Agronomy. 10(12):1877. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121877.

10 

Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Steinmann, Z. J. N.; Elshout, P. M. F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M. D. M.; Hollander, A.; Zijp, M. and Van Zelm, R. 2017. ReCiPe 2016 v1.1: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 22(2):138-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.

11 

INIFAP. 2017. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias. Agenda técnica agrícola de Guanajuato. Gobierno de México. 324 p. https://vun.inifap.gob.mx/VUN-MEDIA/BibliotecaWeb/-media/-agendas/4129-4826-Agenda-Técnica-Guanajuato-2017.pdf?utm-source=chatgpt.com.

12 

ISO. 2006. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040-14044:2006 Environmental Management-Life cycle assessment-Principles and framework; ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management-Life cycle assessment-Requirements and guidelines. First edition. Geneva, Switzerland.

13 

Koushki, R.; Sharma, S.; Warren, J. and Foltz, M. E. 2023. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for irrigated corn production in the US. Great Plains. Paises Bajos. Environmental Challenges. 13:100750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100750.

14 

Lähde, V.; Vadén, T.; Toivanen, T.; Järvensivu, P. and Eronen, J. T. 2023. The crises inherent in the success of the global food system. Canada. Ecology and Society. 28(4):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14624-280416.

15 

Lambin, E. F. and Meyfroidt, P. 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. PNAS. 108(9):3465-3472. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100480108.

16 

Macfadyen, S. 2019. Farming systems analysis in relation to ACIAR objectives and projects. Australian Centre for international agricultural research (ACIAR). 42 p. https://www.aciar.gov.au/publication/farming-systems-analysis-aciar-objectives-and-projects.

17 

OECD. 2023. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development y Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023-2032. Francia. OECD Publishing.

18 

Qi, J. Y.; Yang, S. T.; Xue, J. F.; Liu, C. X.; Du, T. Q.; Hao, J. P. and Cui, F. Z. 2018. Response of carbon footprint of spring maize production to cultivation patterns in the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 187:525-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.184.

19 

Qiao, L.; Silva, J. V.; Fan, M.; Mehmood, I.; Fan, J.; Li, R. and Van Ittersum, M. K. 2021. Assessing the contribution of nitrogen fertilizer and soil quality to yield gaps in maize. Países Bajos. Field Crops Research. 273:108304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108304.

20 

Ríos-Fuentes, B.; Rivas-García, P.; Estrada-Baltazar, A.; Rico-Martínez, R.; Miranda-López, R. y Botello-Álvarez, J. E. 2022. Life cycle assessment of frozen broccoli processing: environmental mitigation scenarios. Netherlands. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 32:27-34. Doi:10.1016/j.spc.2022.04.001.

21 

SADER. 2025. Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. Programa Sectorial de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural 2025-2030. Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. Ciudad de México, México. 120 p.

22 

Sánchez-de Jesús, M. A.; Volke-Haller, V. H.; Cortés-Flores, J. I.; María-Ramírez, A. y San Martín-Hernández, C. 2024. Aporte de nitrógeno por el suelo y eficiencia de aprovechamiento del nitrógeno aplicado en maíz de temporal. México. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana. 47(2):99-110. https://doi.org/10.35196/rfm.2024.2.99.

23 

SIAP. 2023. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. Cierre agrícola. México, DF.

24 

SIAP. 2024. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. Cierre agrícola. México, DF.

25 

USDA. 2024. United States Department of Agriculture. Grain: world markets and trade. foreign agricultural service. Washington, DC, USA. 62 p.

26 

Walters, J. P.; Archer, D. W.; Sassenrath. G. F.; Hendrickson, J. R.; Hanson, J. D.; Halloran, J. M.; Peter Vadas, P.; Alarcon, V. J. 2016. Exploring agricultural production systems and their fundamental components with system dynamics modelling. Ecological Modelling. 333:51-65.

27 

Zhang, F.; Wang, Q.; Hong, J.; Chen, W.; Qi, C. and Ye, L. 2017. Life cycle assessment of diammonium and monoammonium-phosphate fertilizer production in China. Paises Bajos. Journal of Cleaner Production. 141:1087-1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.107.