Productividad y su relación con la huella de carbono en fincas cafeteras del municipio de Santa María Huila
Loading...
Date
Authors
Pérez Ordóñez, Óscar Alirio
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad de Manizales
Referencia bibliográfica
Abstract
En el proceso productivo del café, las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero conllevan a contabilizar la huella de carbono. Aunque la fertilización nitrogenada es el principal hotspot de emisiones, se genera el interrogante ¿por qué, dentro de un mismo territorio y organización, unas fincas son más eficientes que otras? Este estudio analizó 40 fincas cafeteras asociadas a la Asociación de Caficultores Café Nevado del Huila, en Santa María (Huila). Se calculó la huella de carbono por kilogramo de café pergamino seco utilizando factores de emisión del IPCC y la UPME.
Los resultados muestran que la fertilización aportó el 67,8% y el secado con cisco de café el 24,7% de las emisiones totales. La huella promedio fue de 0,593 kg CO₂eq/kg CPS, con una variación de 0,186 a 1,425 entre fincas. Se identificaron tres perfiles técnicos en carbono, ecoeficiente (0,371), intermedio (0,519) e intensivo (0,867). La productividad por árbol reduce la huella; los gramos de fertilizante por árbol y el secado mecánico la aumentan. La calidad del café no se relacionó con la huella. Se concluyó que la huella no depende del volumen producido, sino de la configuración técnica de cada finca. Es pertinente priorizar la reducción de emisiones sobre el secuestro de carbono, y diseñar intervenciones diferenciadas por perfil que combinen eficiencia en el nitrógeno, manejo eficiente del secado y mejora de la productividad por árbol, mediante el diseño de políticas que combinen asistencia técnica y financiera, como compensación por el esfuerzo ambiental.
In the coffee production process, greenhouse gas emissions lead to the accounting of the carbon footprint. Although nitrogen fertilization is the main hotspot of emissions, the question arises: why, within the same territory and organization, are some farms more efficient than others? This study analyzed 40 coffee farms associated with the Café Nevado del Huila Coffee Growers Association in Santa María (Huila). The carbon footprint per kilogram of dry parchment coffee was calculated using emission factors from the IPCC and UPME. The results show that fertilization contributed 67.8% and coffee cherry husk drying contributed 24.7% of total emissions. The average footprint was 0.593 kg CO₂eq/kg DPC, ranging from 0.186 to 1.425 across farms. Three technical carbon profiles were identified: eco-efficient (0.371), intermediate (0.519), and intensive (0.867). Productivity per tree reduces the footprint; grams of fertilizer per tree and mechanical drying increase it. Coffee quality was not related to the footprint. It was concluded that the footprint does not depend on the volume produced, but rather on the technical configuration of each farm. It is relevant to prioritize emission reduction over carbon sequestration, and to design differentiated interventions by profile that combine nitrogen efficiency, efficient drying management, and improvement of productivity per tree, through the design of policies that combine technical and financial assistance, such as compensation for environmental efforts.
In the coffee production process, greenhouse gas emissions lead to the accounting of the carbon footprint. Although nitrogen fertilization is the main hotspot of emissions, the question arises: why, within the same territory and organization, are some farms more efficient than others? This study analyzed 40 coffee farms associated with the Café Nevado del Huila Coffee Growers Association in Santa María (Huila). The carbon footprint per kilogram of dry parchment coffee was calculated using emission factors from the IPCC and UPME. The results show that fertilization contributed 67.8% and coffee cherry husk drying contributed 24.7% of total emissions. The average footprint was 0.593 kg CO₂eq/kg DPC, ranging from 0.186 to 1.425 across farms. Three technical carbon profiles were identified: eco-efficient (0.371), intermediate (0.519), and intensive (0.867). Productivity per tree reduces the footprint; grams of fertilizer per tree and mechanical drying increase it. Coffee quality was not related to the footprint. It was concluded that the footprint does not depend on the volume produced, but rather on the technical configuration of each farm. It is relevant to prioritize emission reduction over carbon sequestration, and to design differentiated interventions by profile that combine nitrogen efficiency, efficient drying management, and improvement of productivity per tree, through the design of policies that combine technical and financial assistance, such as compensation for environmental efforts.
