Evaluating the feasibility of Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) for achieving Net Zero Emissions in Northern Nigeria

Evaluating the feasibility of Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) for achieving Net Zero Emissions in Northern Nigeria | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluating the feasibility of Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) for achieving Net Zero Emissions in Northern Nigeria Taiwo Bintu Ayinde, Charles F. Nicholson, Benjamin Ahmed This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032825/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Achieving Net Zero Emissions in vegetable production systems is a critical challenge in dryland climates of low- and middle-income countries, yet limited data exists to assess the feasibility of such systems. This study employs life cycle inventory methods to evaluate key performance metrics, including yield per land area, production costs, cumulative energy demand (CED), global warming potential (GWP), and water use (WU) for Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) in screen houses and field-based tomato production systems in Northern Nigeria. The findings reveal that CEA, despite its high production cost of ₦3,538,407 per 147 m², achieves the highest yield of 4,200 kg per 147 m². Additionally, CEA demonstrates superior efficiency, exhibiting the lowest CED (0.025 MJ/kg) and GWP (0.76 CO₂-eq/kg). In contrast, rainfed field production, while having the lowest cost (₦584,464 per 10000m²), results in the lowest yield (800 kg/10000m²) and the highest GWP (34,545.8%). Irrigated field production performs moderately, with a production cost of ₦1,503,829 per 10000m², a yield of 2,200 kg per 10000 m², and a GWP of 12,572.4%. A key factor influencing yield variation across production systems is the difference in tomato varieties cultivated in open-field and CEA environments. CEA relies on hybrid varieties optimized for controlled conditions, whereas open-field farming utilizes varieties adapted to outdoor environmental fluctuations, contributing to disparities in yield potential. This study highlights the trade-offs between cost, yield, energy efficiency, and environmental impact across different production models. The results underscore the advantages of adopting more efficient and controlled cultivation methods like CEA, offering potential pathways for sustainable and environmentally responsible agricultural practices in regions facing climate and resource constraints. Agricultural Economics & Policy Evaluation Feasibility Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) Net Zero Emissions Agriculture Nigeria 1 Introduction In 2015, the Nigerian agricultural sector was reported to be responsible for about 67% of the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to the [ 1 ]. These emissions amounted to over 82 million tonnes of CO 2 , with a per capita CO 2 emission rate of 0.44 tonnes [ 2 ].. Projections indicate that by 2050, Nigeria’s agricultural GHG emissions are expected to increase by 94% relative to 2010 levels, worsening the impacts of climate change in Nigeria and other locations[ 3 ]. Northern Nigeria’s hot and dry climate has already began to experience acute water scarcity [4; 5]. Farmers have experienced consistent declines in the yields of field-based vegetable production systems[ 6 ]. One affected crop is tomatoes, for which Nigeria is one of the largest producers in sub-Saharan Africa [7;8]. Over 80% of tomato farmers in Nigeria continue to use traditional methods and Open Pollinated Varieties (OPV), resulting in decreased aver age yield from 4 to 7 tonnes per hectare [ 9 ] to about 2 tonnes per hectare [ 10 ]. These yields are also significantly lower than other countries like the Netherlands and Israel, where tomato yields can reach up to 100 tonnes per hectare. In comparison, the global average tomato yield is approximately 37.1 tonnes per hectare [ 11 ], further highlighting the yield gap between Nigerian tomato production and global standards. Traditional practices in Nigeria’s agricultural systems result in substantial land use and food waste, with most arable land already in use and largely degraded [ 12 ]. Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) may be a viable option for creating a climate-resilient, pest- and disease-resistant environment, enabling year-round vegetable production [ 13 – 15 ]. This production system can lead to much higher yields per unit growing area, increasing food supply with less use of water, fertilizers, and pesticides [ 16 – 18 ]. CEA production systems are diverse, ranging from traditional greenhouses to fully closed systems such as plant factories. The technology can be integrated with renewable energy sources, such as solar or biogas, with carbon sequestration and utilization technology in local vegetable production [ 19 ]. If CEA production is located closer to demand locations, its use can reduce GHG emissions due to transportation [ 20 ], although some CEA systems are energy-intensive [ 15 ]. The scalability of CEA technology has potential to create employment and stimulate local economies [21; 22]. However, the feasibility of CEA production technologies has been evaluated for only a few locations. The practicality of CEA in Northern Nigeria hinges on overcoming the significant investment costs associated with CEA infrastructure and ensuring reliable renewable energy supplies [ 19 ]. Addressing these factors is essential for the successful implementation of CEA production technology. CEA production systems are often based on hydroponic production practices. Hydroponic systems typically have higher yields than field-based systems[ 23 – 27 ]. CEA greenhouses in Netherland have achieved yields of up to 400 tonnes per hectare of tomato[ 10 ]. However, [ 22 ] emphasized the need for a trade-off between economic and environmental performance for conventional (field-based) and CEA supply chains for leaf lettuce in New York City and Chicago, USA. [ 12 ] conducted a systematic literature review of literature from 2006 to 2022 to assess the efficiency and impact of CEA methods. The study examined how vertical farms (VFs) and greenhouses (GHs) can influence the sustainability and environmental footprint of urban micro-climates through local food production. Their review highlights the potential of CEA to reduce the environmental footprint of food production. Nevertheless, the environmental benefits of CEA are highly dependent on the specific production system used. Many systems that incorporate heating and cooling are energy-intensive and may not be more environmentally friendly than traditional field production [ 23 – 27 ]. [ 28 – 32 ] reviewed CEA technologies for vegetable production in Africa. Their findings highlight the potential opportunities, including increased food availability, resource efficiency, higher yields, reduced pesticide use, and the potential for urban agriculture. They also note the challenges such as high initial costs, significant energy consumption, the need for technical expertise, market acceptance, and potential environmental impact due to energy use and construction materials. Despite these obstacles, CEA may have the potential to substantively alter vegetable production systems by providing high yields for year-round produce cultivation. Previous reviews highlight the importance of performance indicators such as yields per land area, costs, cumulative energy demand (CED), global warming potential (GWP), and water use (WU) in comparing CEA with conventional field-based production. However, due to the relatively recent introduction of CEA technology and the limited number of commercial operations in Nigeria [ 33 ], there is a scarcity of literature on the environmental impacts of vegetable production systems [ 2 ]. This is particularly true for the rainfed and “ Fadama ”/“ lam-bu ” production system practiced in the dry lowlands of Northern Nigeria [ 34 – 36 ]. Research on vegetable production systems predominantly focuses on tomatoes [2; 28–31; 36–37],, with limited attention given to other vegetables such as okra, cabbage, spinach, lettuce, and pepper. Although the rainfed and irrigated “ Fadama ”/“ Lam-bu ” vegetable production system can enhance soil organic carbon, it contributes to GHG emissions, mainly due to the energy required for irrigation pumps and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in both systems [ 31 ]. Increasing cropping intensity can accelerate the decomposition of soil organic matter, leading to the release of CO 2 . Similarly, while the use of nitrogen fertilizers can boost soil organic carbon, their use can also result in higher emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent GHG [ 38 ]. However, compared to other arable crops, vegetables generally have lower carbon footprints due to their shorter growth cycles and more efficient water use [ 39 ]. Soil management often provides a means of sequestering carbon [40; 41]. Despite this, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) often focuses on GHG sources, with less emphasis on soil carbon sinks. The lack of reliable data on key soil properties, such as bulk density, inorganic carbon, total carbon, total nitrogen, organic matter, soil organic carbon (SOC), and active carbon [42;43], may constrain the development of farm-level methodologies aimed at achieving a Net Zero Emissions footprint. Improvements are needed in estimates of the environmental impacts of vegetable crop production with more site-specific details about how emissions related to the use of farm inputs (land, pesticides and fertilizers), CED, GWP and WU are calculated to estimate the yields per land area. Current methods of estimating environmental production costs and impacts typically rely on simplified representations of land, labour, water, and energy use, either in aggregate (for a ha or a cropping season) or per unit product. There are limited data on emissions from specific management practices, including the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Previous research does not treat different types of CEA consistently or calculate production costs [e.g., 44] or emissions for specific vegetables. To address these knowledge gaps, we develop a life cycle inventory and assess energy use, water use and GHG emissions for CEA and two field-based (rainfed and irrigated “ Fadama ”/“ Lam-bu ”) tomato production systems in the Kudan Local Government Area (LGA) of Kaduna State, Nigeria. The study site in Nigeria was chosen because that country is the largest producer and consumer of vegetables in sub-Saharan Africa. The country is a large producer of tomatoes with Kaduna and Kano states producing 43% of the national production [ 29 ]. Data from the [ 45 ] indicate that Nigeria produced 1.5 million metric tonnes (MT) of tomatoes annually, with 0.7 million MT lost to post-harvest. The annual demand for tomatoes in Nigeria is 2.2 million MT, resulting in a trade deficit of 1.4 million MT; thus, approximately 700,000 metric tonnes need to be imported. 2 Materials and method Our principle objective is to compare the CED, GWP, WU, and production costs for three production methods: CEA and two types of conventional field-based production (rainfed and irrigated “ Fadama”/“Lam-bu ”) in the Kudan LGA. High temperatures in open-field tomato production in the tropics lead to heat stress. Tomatoes are highly sensitive to heat stress, which can result in complete yield loss. An increase in night temperature, in particular, can reduce pollen viability and female fertility, thus affecting fruit set and causing a reduction in yield [ 30 ]. The study area of Kudan LGA covers a total area of 400 square kilometers with an average temperature and wind speed of 32 0 C and 10 km/h, respectively. The LGA experiences two distinct seasons: the rainy season from May to September and the dry season from October to April. During the dry season, rainfall is minimal, and the weather is generally warm and dry [ 46 ]. The CEA tomato production system represented by the National Agricultural Extension Research and Liaison Services (NAERLS) tomato screen-house at Likoro in Kudan LGA, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, effectively reduces the intensity of solar radiation and maintains optimal temperatures during the day (21 to 29.5°C) and night (18.5 to 21°C) [ 30 ]. Tomato seeds germinate best at 25°C, while seedling growth is optimal at 18°C night-time minimum and 27°C daily maximum [ 29 ]. It also provides light intensity ranging between 75 and 330 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹. The cover must have high light transmission, particularly photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) within the range of 400–700 nanometers [22; 47–48; 29]. During cold weather, a CO 2 concentration of 1000 ppm is recommended during the day, whereas in summer, when ventilation is essential, supplementing with 400 ppm CO 2 is economically beneficial in other countries [49; 29]. Horizontal air movement in a greenhouse, with an airspeed of about 1 meter per second (m/s), is highly beneficial. It helps distribute moisture and CO 2 evenly, aiding photosynthesis and potentially pollination (Table 1 A). This airflow improves the greenhouse environment's uniformity, enhancing crop productivity and energy conservation. Overall, it creates a more stable and efficient growing environment for plants [ 29 ]. We adapt the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology of the ISO Standard (ISO 14044, 2006) described by [ 28 ] in accordance with the ILCD Handbook (European Commission, 2010) and the LCA’s cradle-to-farm gate system boundary. This requires meticulous tracking of all inputs and outputs within the production system. Background data for energy production, material production, fertilizer production, and pesticide production will be compared with data from the Ecoinvent database v2.2 from [ 28 ], and [ 50 ], as cited in [ 22 ]. Additionally, the calculation of average seasonal farm-level emissions of GHG, methane, and nitrous oxide were adapted for the study. Due to the logistical complexities associated with importing energy, materials, and inputs to Africa, their transport is excluded from the inventories of tomato production for the 2022/2023 season. We use information about the conventional field-based production systems, including rainfed and irrigated " Fadama"/"Lam-bu ", from a 10,000 m² tomato farm in the Kudan LGA of Kaduna State. The functional unit for comparison is 1 kg/m² of saleable tomatoes from production to the farm gate. Most open-field tomato farmers in the area still cultivate tomatoes using Open Pollinated Varieties (OPV) of seeds [ 29 ]. However, the screen house uses the hybrid Anna F1 indeterminate variety of seeds [ 29 – 30 ] in Table 2 A. These hybrid varieties can grow as tall as 8 to 12 feet and are often staked in screen houses. They continue to grow until they are killed by disease or adverse weather conditions. According to the [ 51 ] and [ 10 ], tomato prices in Nigeria follow a cyclical pattern with peak and off-peak periods. The price spikes occur annually, especially during the rainy season (April to July), which is off-season, motivating farmers to cultivate tomatoes at this time due to the higher prices. During the peak price season, a 50–60 kg basket of tomatoes can see price increases of 300–500% compared to off-peak prices typically ranging from 24,000 to 30,000 due to increased supply [ 52 ]. The average exchange rate for that period was approximately ₦454 per USD [ 53 ]. However, growing tomatoes during the rainy season is challenging due to the high incidence of pests and diseases, unpredictable rainfall patterns caused by climate change, soil erosion, and water logging, which lead to poor yields. Farmers often experience high input costs and lack of sufficient labor. To mitigate these challenges, tomato farmers typically prepare nursery beds close to a main field and is particularly beneficial near the Kudan Earth Dam. The nursery bed is about 50cm width and varying length, and may use plastic trays filled with topsoil mixed with animal manure. Seedlings are ready for transplanting between 4 to 5 weeks after sowing, or when they are about 10 cm tall. These seedlings are then arranged on prepared beds with 50cm x 75cm spacing within and between rows, providing a plant population of 26,667 plants per 10 000 m². These plants are ready for harvesting 12–18 weeks after sowing, with reported yields of up to 2 tonnes per 10,000 m². During dry season, conditions are better for cultivating irrigated " Fadama" or "Lam-bu " tomatoes. Production of these tomatoes typically peaks between September and February, although prices tend to be low during this period. " Fadama" or "Lam-bu " irrigated tomatoes cultivated from January to April are estimated to have the highest profitability [ 10 ]. During these months, the quality and yield of tomatoes improves due to lower incidences of viral and fungal diseases. Additionally, the harvesting period extends into the lean season, allowing farmers to sell their produce at premium prices. Irrigation is crucial for field-based tomato cultivation during the dry season, with drip irrigation (surface or sub-surface) being the most efficient method [ 37 ] because it allows for efficient uptake of water and nutrients when mixed with fertilizer. This system conserves water by delivering it directly to the plant roots thereby reducing nutrient loss by leaching or soil fixation. Also, the vegetative part of the plant does not come in contact with water, which reduces the growth of infection. Farmers cultivating irrigated " Fadama" or "Lam-bu " tomatoes reported an average yield of up to 5.5 tonnes per 10,000 m² for Open Pollinated Varieties (OPV) of tomato each year [ 9 ] and 7 to 10 tons [ 29 ]. In some cases, yields as high as 15 tons per 10,000 m² have been reported. However, up to 60% of the output is lost due to poor handling, processing, and preservation practices in Nigeria [45; 54]. Farmers also face challenges from the Tuta Absoluta (tomato leaf miner), commonly known as Ebola tomato, which devastates harvests [ 29 ]. Although farming projects with hybrid seeds, such as those by Olam Agri, a leading global agribusiness company [ 55 ], have achieved yields of up to 40 tonnes per hectare [ 56 ], these figures are still lower than those produced by NAERLS tomato screen-houses, which operate throughout the year. The freestanding 79’× 20’ NAERLS tomato screen-house resembles those displayed by [ 29 ] and [ 30 ] or the hoop houses described by [ 57 ]. Covering an area of approximately 147 m² (1580 ft²), it features insect-proof netting material that creates a controlled environment by regulating temperature, humidity, light, and air circulation. This netting helps protect crops from pests and diseases, reducing the need for chemical pesticides and promoting healthier plant growth. The tomato screen-house operations are non-automated systems and are assumed to be situated close to a location with an existing irrigation facility. However, local farmers are more familiar with the land requirements for rainfed and irrigated “ Fadama”/“Lam-bu ” cultivation in the assumed production area. Non-production land area for parking and loads typically account for around 56% of the total land area in such setups [58; 22]. Loads include wires, lighting, heating, cooling, irrigation systems, shading screens, thermal screens and loads from crops that require vertical development that include staking [ 12 ]. The screen-house has six production levels, with an average population of 600 Anna F1 indeterminate tomato plants per level. Each tomato plant yields an average of 2.5 kg per plant, resulting in a total average yield of 1500 kg 147 m − 2 per production season. Yields were estimated in kg m − 2 Tomato seedlings are staked, preferably with bamboo stakes that are at least 1m high. When staked, these plants can grow as tall as 10 feet, allowing for continuous harvesting over a period of more than 7 months. The fruits are harvested after 60 to 90 days, depending on the variety, and seedlings are typically managed in nurseries for 3 to 4 weeks. Big hotels and high-end retailers often pay premium prices for these tomatoes. The functional unit for comparison is based 1 kg per saleable product. Land inputs, varieties, cropping frequency and yields are very different for the three systems (Table 2 A). 2.1 Calculation of Economic and Environmental Indicators 2.2 Production Costs The production costs for field-based tomato farming systems, including rainfed and irrigated methods, were assessed using semi-structured questionnaires distributed to randomly selected farmers across both dry and rainy seasons in the Local Government Area (LGA) [ 52 ]. Revenue calculations (₦/m² were based on product yield (kg/m²) and market prices, while total costs included both variable and fixed expenses [ 22 ]. Inputs assessed include seeds, herbicides, fertilizers, sprayers, farm tools, and human labor costs, encompassing both hired labor and opportunity costs for farming activities such as seeding, transplanting, harvesting, and packaging [Table 3 A; 52]. For flood irrigation systems ("Fadama"/"Lam-bu"), conducted primarily during the dry season, additional costs for diesel, irrigation structures, and specialized equipment were analyzed [ 59 ]. The system operates by allowing water to infiltrate the soil, requiring strategic management to prevent over-irrigation and water wastage. Cost evaluations covered wells (₦45,000–₦120,000), water pumps (₦180,000 per m²), main canals (₦150,000–₦300,000), PVC pipes, sprinklers (₦30,000–₦50,000), and control valves [ 60 ]. Furrows and lining materials (₦1,503,829/10,000 m²) were included as necessary infrastructure for irrigation efficiency [61; 62 ; 54]. Additionally, a screen-house system was installed using rebar metal rods, PVC pipes, EMT conduits, insect netting, and wooden support structures to ensure stability and controlled growing conditions [ 12 ]. Costs associated with installation included labor expenses, anchoring, and net securing techniques, totaling approximately ₦3.5 million per 147 m² (Table 4 A). Energy usage comparisons between CEA and open-field operations were conducted, with electric pump energy consumption estimated at 250–350 kWh per season, while diesel usage varied based on farm scale [58; 22]. The study evaluated the impact of unreliable electricity supply, leading to alternative energy solutions such as gasoline, diesel, and solar power for irrigation sustainability[62; 37] 2.3 Cumulative Energy Demand The study evaluates energy usage in tomato production under open-field (flood irrigation) and screen-house systems using both diesel and electric pumps. The open-field system accommodates 26,667 plants per 10,000 m², while the screen-house system supports 600 plants within 147 m². For diesel-powered irrigation, the standard energy content of diesel fuel is 35.8 megajoules per liter (MJ/L), equating to 135 MJ per gallon (3.79 liters). The total diesel energy usage in the open field setup was 170 liters per season, equivalent to 6,086 MJ per season, with a daily average usage of 16.67 MJ and 0.00063 MJ per plant per day. Comparatively, the screen-house system used 2.499 liters per season, corresponding to 89.5 MJ, with an average daily consumption of 0.245 MJ and 0.00041 MJ per plant per day (Table 5A). For electric-powered irrigation, the estimated energy consumption in the open field system ranged from 250 to 350 kWh per season (900,000,000 to 1,260,000,000 MJ), translating to an average daily usage of 2,465.75 to 3,452.05 MJ and 0.0924 to 0.1295 MJ per plant per day. The screen-house system utilized 4.41 kWh per season (15,876,000 MJ), averaging 43.49 MJ daily and 0.0004 MJ per plant per day (Table 6A). Energy units were standardized based on the International System of Units (SI), with 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) equal to 3.6 megajoules (MJ). The energy usage per square meter for the open field setup was 0.025 to 0.035 kWh/m², while the screen-house system used approximately 0.03 kWh/m². 2.4 Global Warming Potential (GWP) This study utilized Tier 1 default methods and emission factors (EFs) from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from nitrogen fertilizer applications in managed soils [ 63 ]. Nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions were calculated based on direct emissions (1% of nitrogen inputs) and indirect emissions from manure management systems (MMS) (1% of NH₃ emitted) and managed soils (MS) (0.75% of NO₃ emitted) [ 58 ]. Additional N₂O emissions from manure, nitrite (NO₃), and ammonia (NH₃) were included, and all emissions were converted to CO₂ equivalents (CO₂-eq) using Global Warming Potential (GWP) values from the [64; 65]. For a 100-year horizon, the study applied GWPs of 298 for N₂O, 0.014 for NH₃, and 0.001 for NO₃ (IPCC, 2014). The emission factors included 4% for NPK fertilizer and NH₃, 20% for manure, and 25% for urea [ 22 ]. Since GWP values for pesticides, nitrate leaching, potassium nitrate, and humate were unavailable, these emissions were considered negligible [ 62 ]. Despite variations in estimation methods, the IPCC guidelines remain the most widely accepted standard for emission calculations [ 63 ]. To assess emissions from rainfed and irrigated tomato production, NPK 20:10:10 fertilizer was applied at 100 kg, leading to 4 kg of N₂O emissions and contributing 1192 kg CO₂-eq to the GWP. For Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) in screen-house production, NPK 15:15:15 was applied at 4.5 kg, generating 0.18 kg of N₂O emissions and 53.64 kg CO₂-Eq. [ 58 ]. 2.5 Water Use (WU) In tropical regions, water for greenhouse tomato production can be sourced from rivers, ponds, reservoirs, rain, groundwater (boreholes), and municipal supplies (tap water) [ 29 ]. Manual irrigation systems are the most economical option but lack precision in regulating the quantity of water and nutrients administered. The frequency of irrigation is influenced by substrate rooting volume and water-holding capacity, while plant water requirements vary based on growth stage and season [ 37 ]. Generally, water consumption increases as plants grow, and irrigation is either gravity-fed or pumped using small-scale machines. The study analyzed average water requirements for tomato production in open-field flood irrigation and screen-house systems. The open-field flood irrigation system, which accommodates 26,667 plants per 10,000 m², has an annual water requirement of 320 kg/m², averaging 0.877 kg/m² per day. In contrast, the 147 m² screen-house system, housing 600 plants, requires 128.919 kg/day, equating to 0.215 kg per plant per day. 3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Results The analysis revealed significant seasonal price variations, with rainy season tomato prices ranging between ₦100,000 and ₦150,000 per 50kg basket, whereas dry season prices dropped to ₦27,000 [ 52 ]. Rainfed farming demonstrated cost efficiency with a total production cost of ₦572,905 per 10,000 m², although its productivity remained lower compared to irrigated farming (Table 3 A). For flood irrigation systems, the findings indicate that high initial investments yield greater productivity, highlighting a trade-off between irrigation costs and improved output [60 ; 12]. Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) proved to be energy-intensive, with manual flood irrigation requiring significant diesel consumption, whereas electric pumps exhibited more controlled energy usage [ 58 ] . The study underscores that CEA demands substantial investment yet provides higher yield efficiency, whereas field-based systems remain more cost-effective but highly susceptible to seasonal fluctuations. Efficient energy management and cost control are essential for sustainable tomato production in Nigeria [ 62 ]. A comparative assessment of diesel consumption revealed that open-field systems require significantly higher fuel volumes than screen-house systems, making them less energy-efficient on a per-plant basis. Specifically, diesel energy consumption per plant per day was higher for open-field production (0.00063 MJ/plant/day) compared to screen-house production (0.00041 MJ/plant/day). Regarding electricity-powered irrigation, open-field systems exhibited greater seasonal energy usage, ranging between 250 and 350 kWh, whereas screen-house production required only 4.41 kWh per season. This underscores higher energy efficiency in screen-house farming, characterized by lower per-plant energy consumption and reduced overall energy expenditure. This suggest that screen-house production is more energy-efficient, requiring less fuel and electricity than open-field farming. While rainfed production was assumed to have minimal energy use, detailed energy costs were evaluated exclusively for dry season irrigation and screen-house farming, with rainfed systems excluded from energy assessments (Table 1 ). Table 1 Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) System Area (m²) Plant Population Energy Equivalent (MJ) MJ/kg Open Field (Rainfed) 10,000 26,667 1,080 1.35 Open Field (Flood Irrigation) 10,000 26,667 7,166 3.26 Screen House 147 600 105.34 0.025 Note : Data Source: Authors’ calculations Further findings demonstrate significant environmental impacts stemming from fertilizer application, particularly manure usage, which accounted for the highest emissions. For instance, 3500 kg of manure produced 700 kg of N₂O, contributing 208,600 kg CO₂-eq to the GWP [ 22 ]. Smaller quantities, such as 51.45 kg of manure, generated 10.29 kg of N₂O, equating to 3066.42 kg CO₂-eq (Table 2 ). Table 2 Total GWP Calculation for Open Field and Screen House Tomato Production in Kudan LGA of Kaduna State Growing System Area(m²) Plant Population (plants per hectare) Total GWP (kg CO₂-eq) YIELD(kg) GWP/kg Product Open Field (Rainfed 1 hectare) 10000 26,667 209,972 800 262.47 Open Field (Irrigated 1 hectare) 10000 26,667 210,430 2200 95.65 Screen House (147m²) 147 600 3,173 4200 0.76 Source: Authors’ calculations.*Accurate assessments require using country-specific emission factors, as these can differ based on local regulations, fuel quality, and vehicle technology. Ignoring these variations may lead to inaccurate environmental impact estimates and ineffective policies. This is especially crucial for fertilizers and manure, which emit greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and methane (CH 4 ). Understanding these emissions accurately is essential for effective mitigation strategies. A comparison of diesel energy consumption between Open Field and Screen House systems revealed stark contrasts. In open-field flood irrigation, 170 liters of diesel resulted in 455.6 kg of CO₂ emissions, 0.051 kg of CH₄ emissions, and 0.0034 kg of N₂O emissions, with a total GWP of 457.89 kg CO₂-Eq. [ 62 ]. By contrast, the Screen House system used only 2.5 liters of diesel, producing 6.7 kg of CO₂, 0.00075 kg of CH₄, and 0.00005 kg of N₂O, leading to a total GWP of 6.73 kg CO₂-Eq. [ 37 ] .. Regarding electric energy consumption, Screen House systems were significantly more efficient, utilizing 4.41 kWh per season, whereas open-field systems required 300 kWh per season [ 20 ]. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) impact for screen-house production was 1.76 kg CO₂-eq, considerably lower than 120 kg CO₂-eq for open-field systems [ 65 ]. Findings also demonstrated variability in water consumption across systems. [ 37 ] reported that smallholder drip irrigation requires 4.275 kg/m² per day, substantially higher than the 0.877 kg/m² per day recorded for open-field flood irrigation (Table 3 ). This suggests that drip irrigation may consume more water per square meter but in a more controlled manner, leading to better water distribution and efficiency per plant. Similarly, [ 29 ] documented 7.5 kg/m² per day as the average water requirement for screen-house tomato production under drip irrigation, with values ranging between 0.4 and 5.6 kg per plant per day. These figures far exceed the study’s screen-house water consumption levels, which averaged 0.215 kg per plant per day or 0.877 kg/m² per day. The high variability in reported values likely reflects differences in environmental conditions, management techniques, and irrigation precision. Table 3 Water Usage for Tomato Production in Open Field and Screen House Systems Growing System Area (m²) Plant Population Average Water Requirement per Day (kg/m²/ day) Total Average Water Requirement per Day (kg/day) Total Average Water Requirement per season(kg/season) YIELD (kg) Water Use (liter)/kg Product Open Field 10000 26667 0.877 8770 920850 2,200 418.57 Screen House 147 600 0.877 128.919 13536 4200 3.22 Source: Authors’ calculations. Growing period: 90 to 120 days (approximately 0.25 years) *Given the likelihood that different systems operate at varying efficiencies—resulting in differing water needs despite identical requirements—we have opted to use the same values for average water requirement per day (kg/m²/day) across the different systems due to the constraints of limited information 3.2 Discussion The performance metrics presented in Table 4 provide a comparative assessment of three tomato production systems in Likoro, Kudan LGA of Kaduna State: Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA), Rainfed Field, and Irrigated Field. Key metrics analyzed include production cost, yield, cost per yield, cumulative energy demand (CED), water use (WU), and global warming potential (GWP). CEA demonstrated the highest production cost, amounting to ₦3,538,407 per 147 m², reflecting the advanced technology and controlled conditions required for this system. In contrast, rainfed field production had the lowest cost at ₦584,464 per 10,000 m², whereas irrigated field production fell between at ₦1,503,829 per 10,000 m². Yield comparisons revealed CEA as the highest-yielding system, producing 4,200 kg per 147 m², benefiting from optimized growing conditions. Rainfed field production recorded the lowest yield at 800 kg per 10,000 m², while irrigated field production yielded 2,200 kg per 10,000 m². The cost per unit of yield was highest in CEA at ₦842 per kilogram, followed by rainfed field at ₦731 per kilogram, and irrigated field at ₦684 per kilogram. This suggests that while CEA results in higher yields, its operational expenses are also significantly greater, affecting its overall economic feasibility. An additional consideration influencing yield disparities is the difference in tomato varieties used in open-field and CEA systems. CEA cultivates specialized hybrid varieties with greater productivity under controlled conditions, whereas open-field farming relies on conventional varieties more adapted to outdoor environmental fluctuations. These genetic differences contribute to the significant yield variations observed between production systems. Energy efficiency, measured as CED per kilogram of yield, was lowest in CEA at 0.025 MJ/kg, indicating high energy efficiency. Rainfed field production exhibited a CED of 1.35 MJ/kg, whereas irrigated field production had the highest CED at 3.257 MJ/kg, due to the energy demands of irrigation infrastructure. Water usage followed a similar trend, with CEA consuming only 3.22 liters per kilogram, while irrigated field production required 418.57 liters per kilogram, demonstrating higher water consumption associated with irrigation-dependent systems. Regarding environmental impacts, CEA exhibited the lowest GWP at 0.76 CO₂-eq per kilogram, reflecting minimal emissions per unit of production. Rainfed field production recorded the highest GWP at 262.47 CO₂-eq per kilogram, while irrigated field production had a GWP of 95.65 CO₂-eq per kilogram. These findings underscore the reduced environmental impact of CEA systems in comparison to traditional open-field methods. Table 4 Performance Metrics for Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA), Rainfed Field, and Irrigated Field Tomato Production Performance Metric Units CEA Rainfed Field Irrigated Field Production cost ₦/m² 3,538,407 584,464 1,503,829 Yield kg/ m² 4,200 800 2,200 Cost / Yield ₦/Kg 842 731 684 CED MJ/kg 0.025 1.35 3.257 Water Use liters/kg 3.22 418.57 GWP CO 2 eq/kg 0.76 262.47 95.65 Note : Data Source: Authors’ calculations Overall, these results suggest that screen-house systems offer lower energy consumption, reduced water usage, and lower GWP than field-based production systems, positioning CEA as a potentially more sustainable approach to tomato cultivation. However, it is important to weigh these advantages against the higher infrastructure investments and higher per-unit operational costs associated with CEA. The adoption of screen-house farming could be particularly beneficial in regions facing water scarcity or where reducing agricultural carbon footprints is a priority. Policymakers and agricultural advisors should consider providing incentives and support for CEA adoption, assisting farmers in transitioning to more efficient, sustainable production methods. This comparative analysis highlights the potential of screen-house systems to improve resource efficiency and sustainability in tomato production, ultimately contributing to more favorable environmental and economic outcomes. 4 Conclusions This study evaluated the feasibility of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) for achieving Net Zero Emissions in tomato production systems in Northern Nigeria, comparing it with rainfed and irrigated field production. The findings demonstrate that CEA offers superior efficiency, achieving the highest yield (4,200 kg/m²) with the lowest Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED). However, it incurs higher production costs compared to conventional farming methods. Field-based production methods exhibit lower costs but face significant resource limitations, particularly in terms of water use efficiency, carbon footprint, and yield stability. The disparity in tomato varieties cultivated across different production systems further influences yield variations, underscoring the need for variety optimization within sustainable agricultural models. These results highlight the trade-offs between economic viability, environmental sustainability, and production efficiency, emphasizing that adopting more resource-efficient cultivation methods can contribute to sustainable agricultural practices. Future research should focus on integrating cost-effective solutions to enhance the feasibility of CEA in low-resource settings, particularly through hybrid varieties, renewable energy applications, and policy support mechanisms to scale adoption. Declarations Author contribution: All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Taiwo Ayinde, Charles F. Nicholson, and Benjamin Ahmed. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Taiwo Ayinde and all authors commented on previous. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Funding: This study was conducted with the financial support of the CLIFF-GRADS Alliance. We also acknowledge with appreciation grants from the Norman E Borlaug Leadership Enhancement in Agriculture Program (LEAP) of USAID. Consent for publication: All due consents have been sought. Consent to participate: All due consents have been sought. Availability of data and materials: All data, materials, and software applications used for the study conformed to standard practice. Ethical approval: All due consents have been sought. Disclaimer: However, the views expressed in this research do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of CCAFS nor the views of Borlaug LEAP. Ethics declarations: Ethics and consent to participate Plant Guidelines The use of plants in the present study complies with international, national and/or institutional guidelines. Clinical Trial Not applicable References National Climate Change Policy (2021) Federal Ministry of Environment Department of Climate Change. National Climate Change Policy For Nigeria 2021–2030. Retrieved from https://climatechange.gov.ng/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/NCCP_NIGERIA_REVISED_2-JUNE-2021.pdf Oguntade SS et al (2023) The Impact of Climate Change on the State of Carbon Footprint in Nigeria. In: Egbueri JC, Ighalo JO, Pande CB (eds) Climate Change Impacts on Nigeria. Springer Climate. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21007-5_9 Dioha MO, Kumar A (2020) Exploring greenhouse gas mitigation strategies for agriculture in Africa: The case of Nigeria. Ambio 49:1549–1566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01293-9 Ani KJ, Anyika VO, Mutambara E (2021) The impact of climate change on food and human security in Nigeria. Int J Clim Change Strategic Manag 14(2):148 Muoghalu LN, Akanwa AO (2021) Ecological Intensification for Sustainable Agriculture: The Nigerian Perspective. In: Jhariya MK, Meena RS, Banerjee A (eds) Ecological Intensification of Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4203-3_15 Ain-ul-Abad S, Zaheer AK, Shakeel HC, Irfan AS, Mian N, Hussain AA, Zohaib RB, Shahzad HD, Ghous BB (2021) Comparative Assessment of Hydroponic and Geoponic Cultivation Systems for Sustainable Spinach Cultivation. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research 34 (4):679. https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 102.91.4.79, on 08/05/24 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2018) Agriculture in Nigeria A review of the Sector UNDP (2022) Resilient Food Systems| Farmers in Nigeria improve productivity through sustainable farming methods. Retrieved from https://www.resilientfoodsystems.co/news/farmers-in-nigeria-improve- productivity-through-sustainable-farming-methods Ojewale C (2020), March 20 Achieving 30 ton/ha of tomato, lessons from Olam’s project. Business day. Retrieve September 19, 2024 from https://businessday.ng/agriculture/article/achieving-30-ton-ha-of-tomato- lessons-from-olams-project/ Veggie, Grow (2024) Tomato farming in 2024 (The Ultimate Guide). Retrieved September 21, 2024 from https://veggiegrow.ng/tomato-farming-in-nigeria/ Tomato News (2024) Worldwide (total fresh) tomato production exceeds 187 million tonnes in 2020. Retrieved April 26, 2025 from https://www.tomatonews.com/en/worldwide-total-fresh-tomato-production- exceeds-187-million-tonnes-in-2020_2_1565.html Vatistas C, Avgoustaki DD, Bartzanas TA (2022) Systematic Literature Review on Controlled-Environment Agriculture: How Vertical Farms and Greenhouses Can Influence the Sustainability and Footprint of Urban Microclimate with Local Food Production. Atmosphere 13:1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos1308125 Giacomelli GA (2019) Controlled Environment Agriculture: A Guide to Producing Fresh Produce Year-Round. NASDA Matton NS (2020) CEA: A Sustainable and Efficient Way. to Grow Crops.AIPH Nicholson CF, Eaton M, Gómez MI, Mattson NS (2023) Economic and Environmental Performance of Controlled-Environment Supply Chains for Leaf Lettuce. Eur Rev Agric Econ. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jabd016 Kacira M (2018) Water Use in Controlled Environment Agriculture. University of Arizona’s Controlled Environment Agriculture Center Igwebuike I (2022) Political Economy of Net Zero: Nigeria. Retrieved from https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CS_Briefing- notes_Nigeria-09-09.pdf Krein DDC, Rosseto M, Cemin F, Massuda LA, Dettmer A (2023) Recent trends and technologies for reduced environmental impacts of fertilizers: a review. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20:12903–12918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04929-2 Ogbonna CG, Nwachi CC, Okeoma IO, Fagbami OA (2023) Understanding Nigeria’s transition pathway to carbon neutrality using the Multilevel Perspective. Carbon Neutrality 2, 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-023-00065-5 IRENA statistics, UNSD); UN World Population Prospects; UNSD Energy Balances; UN COMTRADE; World Bank World Development Indicators (2024) plus data from the following sources: UN SDG Database (original sources: WHO; World Bank; IEA; IRENA; and ; EDGAR; REN21 Global Status Report; IEA-IRENA Joint Policies and Measures Database; IRENA Global Atlas; and World Bank Global Solar Atlas and Global Wind Atlas. Retrieve January 3, 2025 from https://www.irena.org/- /media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/Statistical_Profiles/Africa/Nigeria_Afr ica_RE_SP.pdf Badiane O et al (2019) Nigeria’s Agricultural Policy.A Review of the Past and Present. J Agricultural Policy 28(1):34–48 Nicholson CF, Harbick K, Gómez MI, Mattson NS (2020) An Economic and Environmental Comparison of Conventional and Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Supply Chains for Leaf Lettuce to US Cities. In: Aktas E, Bourlakis M (eds) Food Supply Chains in Cities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34065-0_2 Raneem G, Khawlah A, Khadija M, Ajwan J, Abeer G (2018) Comparison between Growing Plants in Hydroponic System and Soil Based System. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering (MCM'18) Madrid, Spain – August 16–18, 2018 Paper No. ICMIE 131 10.11159/icmie18.131 Goh YS, Hum YC, Lee YL, Lai KW, Yap W-S, Yee Kai Tee (2023) A meta-analysis: Food production and vegetable crop yields of hydroponics. Sci Hort 321(112339) ISSN 0304–4238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112339 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304423823005101 Kumar P, Singh J (2024) Hydroponic: An Eco-friendly Future. In: Kumar N (ed) Hydroponics and Environmental Bioremediation. Springer Water. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53258-0_9 Khan MM et al (2024) Hydroponic Systems for Cultivation of Horticultural Crops. In: Kumar N (ed) Hydroponics. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3993-1_8 Al Meselmani MA (2024) Hydroponics: The Future of Sustainable Farming. In: Kumar N (ed) Hydroponics. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3993-1_6 Perrin A, Basset-Mens C, Huat J, Benoit G (2017) The variability of field emissions is critical to assessing the environmental impacts of vegetables: A Benin case-study. Journal Clean Production 153:104–113 Olabisi O, Nofiu A (2022) Principles for the Production of Tomatoes in the Greenhouse. IntechOpen. 10.5772/intechopen.106975 Amoako Ofori P, Owusu-Nketia S, Opoku-Agyemang F, Agbleke D, Amissah N, J (2022) Greenhouse Tomato Production for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security in the Tropics. IntechOpen. 10.5772/intechopen.105853 Ayinde BT, Nicholson FC, Ahmed B (2024) A Review of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Vegetable Production in Africa with Emphasis on Tomatoes, Onions and Cabbage. IntechOpen. 10.5772/intechopen.113249 Nwanojuo MA, Anumudu CK, Onyeaka H (2025) Impact of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) in Nigeria, a Review of the Future of Farming in Africa. Agriculture 15(2):117 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2024) New hydroponic garden paves the way for experimentation on better resource management in soil-less agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/new-the- way-for- experimentation-resource-management-in-soil-less/en Worldbank (2015) Fadama Project Turns Nigerian Farmers into Agro-preneurs. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/02/fadama-takes- nigerian-farmers-to-higher-level The Borgen Project (2017) The National Fadama Development Project in Nigeria. Retrieved from https://borgenproject.org/national-fadama- development- project/ Worldbank (2022) Delivering development: collaboration the key to success in Nigeria’s FADAMA projects. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/nasikiliza/delivering-development- collaboration-key-success-nigerias-fadama-projects Obiajulu OD, Abubakar OM, Evonameh IH, Ismail H (2024) Yield, water productivity and economic return of deficit drip-irrigated tomatoes in Kaduna (Nigeria). Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Belgrade) DOI: 10.2298/JAS2304413O. https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/ipdf/1450- 8109/2023/1450-81092304413O.pdf Kim DG, Grieco E, Bombelli A, Hickman JE, Sanz-Cobena A (2021) Challenges and opportunities for enhancing food security and greenhouse gas mitigation in smallholder farming in sub-Saharan Africa. A review. Food Secur 13:457–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01149-9 Ritchie H (2022) Rosado, Pablo and Max Roser - Environmental Impacts of Food Production Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved December 29th 2024 from: ' https://ourworldindata.org/environmental- impacts-of-food Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Climate Portal (2021) Soil- Based Carbon Sequestration. Retrieved from | https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/soil- based-carbon-sequestration Abdulkadir A, Mohammed I, Daudu CK (2021) Organic Carbon in Tropical Soils: Current Trends and Potential for Carbon Sequestration in Nigerian Cropping Systems. In: Leal Filho W, Luetz J, Ayal D (eds) Handbook of Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22759-3_307-1 Farzadfar S, Knight JD, Congreves KA (2021) Soil organic nitrogen: an overlooked but potentially significant contribution to crop nutrition. Plant Soil 462:7–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-04860-w Shahzad K, Sintim H, Ahmad F, Abid M, Nasim W (2022) Importance of Carbon Sequestration in the Context of Climate Change. In: Jatoi WN, Mubeen M, Ahmad A, Cheema MA, Lin Z, Hashmi MZ (eds) Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79408-8_23 Muhammed Alhassan (2023) A Comprehensive Guide to Starting Hydroponic Farming in Nigeria: Capital, Profitability, and More. Retrieved from https://www.agriculturenigeria.com/a-comprehensive-guide-to-starting- hydroponic-farming-in-nigeria-capital-profitability-and-more/ Bailey B (2023), July 26 Opportunities seen in Nigeria’s 60% tomato post- harvest losses. Business day. Retrieved September 19, 2024 from https://businessday.ng/agriculture/article/opportunities-seen-in-nigerias-60- tomato-post-harvest-losses/ Weather Spark (2024) Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Kaduna Nigeria. Kaduna-Nigeria-Year- Round. https://weatherspark.com/y/55104/Average-Weather-in- Vanlommel W, Huysmans M, Bosmans L, Vanderbruggen R, Van Delm T (2020) Optimal artificial light intensity for protected tomato cultivation under LEDs. Acta Hortic 1296:575–582. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.74 Appolloni E, Orsini F, Pennisi G, Xavier DG, Paucek I,Gianquinto Giorgio (2021) Supplemental LED Lighting Effectively Enhances the Yield and Quality of Greenhouse Truss Tomato Production: Results of a Meta-Analysis. Front Plant Sci 12. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant- Arias JE, Moises Gutierrez, Monserrat Morn Castillo (2015) Nubia Ilia Ponce de Leon Puig, Eladio Flores Mena, Design of an Optimal Control for Carbon Dioxide Enrichment in a Tomato Crop of Greenhouse Based on a Dynamic System. International Journal of Energy And Environment 9. https://www.naun.org/main/NAUN/energyenvironment/2015/a082011- 081.pdf Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2024) LCA, LCI, LCIA, LCC: What’s the difference? Retrieved from https://www.athenasmi.org/resources/about- lca/whats-the-difference/ National Horticultural Research Institute (NIHORT) (2024) Production Guide for Tomatoes. Retrieved from https://nihort.gov.ng/wp- content/uploads/2020/07/PRODUCTION-GUIDE- ON-TOMATO.pdf Oni A (2024), August 11 From N150k to N60k’ — basket of tomatoes price drops amid new harvest. The cable.ng. /https://www.thecable.ng/from- n150k- to-n60k-basket-of-tomatoes-price-drops-amid-new-harvest/ Exchange-rates.org (2025) US Dollar (USD) To Nigerian Naira (NGN) Exchange Rate History for 2023. Retrieved April 26, 2025 from https://www.exchange- rates.org/exchange-rate-history/usd-ngn-2023 Onu OB, Ani OA, Asoiro FU, Uzoejinwa BB, Ugwu SN, Abu N, Uguru M (2022) Evaluation of different packaging types for adoption in safe handling and transportation of fresh tomato fruits in Nigeria. Agricultural Eng International: CIGR J I(4):309–318 Mediacraft (2020), February 24 Olam Nigeria’s Pilot Farming Project To Boost Nigeria’s Tomato Value Chain. https://mediacraft.ng/olam-nigerias- pilot-farming-project-to-boost-nigerias-tomato-value-chain/ News (2022) Nigeria: Olam helps improve tomato farm yields. Retrieved September 19, 2024 from https://www.tomatonews.com/en/nigeria-olam- helps-improve- tomato-farm-yields_2_1631.html Wang K-H, Sugano J, Fukuda S, Uyeda J, Meyer D, Ching S (2017) DIY Screenhouse for insect management in the Tropics: Part I. HānaiʻAi Newsletter 28: Dec, Jan, Feb 2017. https://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/soap/HanaiAi.aspx Eaves J, Eaves S (2018) Comparing the profitability of a greenhouse to a vertical farm in Quebec. Can J Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d’agroeconomie 66(1):43–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12161 Nemali K (2017) Controlled Environment Agriculture. Retrieved December 25th 2024 from https://www.purdue.edu/hla/sites/cea/wp- content/uploads/sites/15/2017/04/Controlled-Environment-Agriculture.pdf AgronoBlog – Agriculture Blog (2024) Flood Irrigation – Irrigation Systems. Retrieved December 12th 2024 from https://agronoblog.com/irrigation- systems/flood-irrigation-irrigation-systems/ science/articles/ 10.3389/fpls.2021.596927 DOI = 10.3389/fpls.2021.596927 . ISSN = 1664-462X Veggie, Concept (2022) Tomato Farming: Business Plan, Cost, Revenue and Profit Retrieved September 19, 2024 from https://veggieconcept.ng/tomato- business-plan-cost-revenue-and-profit/ Omorogbe P (2021), June 28 Epileptic power supply costs Nigeria ₦10 trillion annually. Business Top News. Nigeria Tribune. https://tribuneonlineng.com/epileptic-power-supply-costs-nigeria n10-trillion- annually-world-bank/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) climate change 2007: I mpacts, adaptation.and vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change. Cambridge UK: IPCC (AR5)i. i Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.‐F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Retrieved 29 (2014) th 2024 from https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential - Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf?form = MG0AV3 Ritchie H, Roser M, Rosado P (2020) - CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved January 3, 2025 from: ' https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse- gas- emissions' [Online Resource] Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files ModifiedSupplementaryMaterialSubmittedtoDiscoverAgriculture.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7032825","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":479850369,"identity":"848d06cd-351a-4f67-b1e0-e50ab6d99f8a","order_by":0,"name":"Taiwo Bintu Ayinde","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8250-8806","institution":"Samaru College of Agriculture, Division of Agricultural Colleges, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Taiwo","middleName":"Bintu","lastName":"Ayinde","suffix":""},{"id":479850370,"identity":"27d7af67-5a41-43b4-b8f1-488b5d63d865","order_by":1,"name":"Charles F. Nicholson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Charles","middleName":"F.","lastName":"Nicholson","suffix":""},{"id":479850371,"identity":"0cf6edc7-9437-46b0-bae7-e60368ec7af9","order_by":2,"name":"Benjamin Ahmed","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Agricultural Economics, ABU Zaria","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Benjamin","middleName":"","lastName":"Ahmed","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-02 22:59:55","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032825/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032825/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85995620,"identity":"bc3af426-9889-44ef-b243-9180cc691459","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-04 06:02:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":921496,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7032825/v1/d9d88651-2d2f-43f4-aec6-134990d972ec.pdf"},{"id":85994938,"identity":"a97f875b-3bb7-47e2-a71e-0bf5e192e9a0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-04 05:54:37","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":37259,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ModifiedSupplementaryMaterialSubmittedtoDiscoverAgriculture.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7032825/v1/55cbe8b43134885374c5c870.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEvaluating the feasibility of Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) for achieving Net Zero Emissions in Northern Nigeria\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn 2015, the Nigerian agricultural sector was reported to be responsible for about 67% of the country\u0026rsquo;s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to the [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. These emissions amounted to over 82\u0026nbsp;million tonnes of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, with a per capita CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e emission rate of 0.44 tonnes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].. Projections indicate that by 2050, Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s agricultural GHG emissions are expected to increase by 94% relative to 2010 levels, worsening the impacts of climate change in Nigeria and other locations[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Northern Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s hot and dry climate has already began to experience acute water scarcity [4; 5]. Farmers have experienced consistent declines in the yields of field-based vegetable production systems[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne affected crop is tomatoes, for which Nigeria is one of the largest producers in sub-Saharan Africa [7;8]. Over 80% of tomato farmers in Nigeria continue to use traditional methods and Open Pollinated Varieties (OPV), resulting in decreased aver age yield from 4 to 7 tonnes per hectare [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e] to about 2 tonnes per hectare [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. These yields are also significantly lower than other countries like the Netherlands and Israel, where tomato yields can reach up to 100 tonnes per hectare. In comparison, the global average tomato yield is approximately 37.1 tonnes per hectare [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e], further highlighting the yield gap between Nigerian tomato production and global standards. Traditional practices in Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s agricultural systems result in substantial land use and food waste, with most arable land already in use and largely degraded [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eControlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) may be a viable option for creating a climate-resilient, pest- and disease-resistant environment, enabling year-round vegetable production [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR14\" citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. This production system can lead to much higher yields per unit growing area, increasing food supply with less use of water, fertilizers, and pesticides [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR17\" citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. CEA production systems are diverse, ranging from traditional greenhouses to fully closed systems such as plant factories. The technology can be integrated with renewable energy sources, such as solar or biogas, with carbon sequestration and utilization technology in local vegetable production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. If CEA production is located closer to demand locations, its use can reduce GHG emissions due to transportation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], although some CEA systems are energy-intensive [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scalability of CEA technology has potential to create employment and stimulate local economies [21; 22]. However, the feasibility of CEA production technologies has been evaluated for only a few locations. The practicality of CEA in Northern Nigeria hinges on overcoming the significant investment costs associated with CEA infrastructure and ensuring reliable renewable energy supplies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Addressing these factors is essential for the successful implementation of CEA production technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCEA production systems are often based on hydroponic production practices. Hydroponic systems typically have higher yields than field-based systems[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24 CR25 CR26\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. CEA greenhouses in Netherland have achieved yields of up to 400 tonnes per hectare of tomato[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. However, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] emphasized the need for a trade-off between economic and environmental performance for conventional (field-based) and CEA supply chains for leaf lettuce in New York City and Chicago, USA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] conducted a systematic literature review of literature from 2006 to 2022 to assess the efficiency and impact of CEA methods. The study examined how vertical farms (VFs) and greenhouses (GHs) can influence the sustainability and environmental footprint of urban micro-climates through local food production. Their review highlights the potential of CEA to reduce the environmental footprint of food production. Nevertheless, the environmental benefits of CEA are highly dependent on the specific production system used. Many systems that incorporate heating and cooling are energy-intensive and may not be more environmentally friendly than traditional field production [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24 CR25 CR26\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR29 CR30 CR31\" citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] reviewed CEA technologies for vegetable production in Africa. Their findings highlight the potential opportunities, including increased food availability, resource efficiency, higher yields, reduced pesticide use, and the potential for urban agriculture. They also note the challenges such as high initial costs, significant energy consumption, the need for technical expertise, market acceptance, and potential environmental impact due to energy use and construction materials. Despite these obstacles, CEA may have the potential to substantively alter vegetable production systems by providing high yields for year-round produce cultivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious reviews highlight the importance of performance indicators such as yields per land area, costs, cumulative energy demand (CED), global warming potential (GWP), and water use (WU) in comparing CEA with conventional field-based production. However, due to the relatively recent introduction of CEA technology and the limited number of commercial operations in Nigeria [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], there is a scarcity of literature on the environmental impacts of vegetable production systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis is particularly true for the rainfed and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eFadama\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;/\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003elam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; production system practiced in the dry lowlands of Northern Nigeria [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR35\" citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Research on vegetable production systems predominantly focuses on tomatoes [2; 28\u0026ndash;31; 36\u0026ndash;37],, with limited attention given to other vegetables such as okra, cabbage, spinach, lettuce, and pepper. Although the rainfed and irrigated \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eFadama\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;/\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eLam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; vegetable production system can enhance soil organic carbon, it contributes to GHG emissions, mainly due to the energy required for irrigation pumps and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in both systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Increasing cropping intensity can accelerate the decomposition of soil organic matter, leading to the release of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e. Similarly, while the use of nitrogen fertilizers can boost soil organic carbon, their use can also result in higher emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent GHG [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, compared to other arable crops, vegetables generally have lower carbon footprints due to their shorter growth cycles and more efficient water use [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Soil management often provides a means of sequestering carbon [40; 41]. Despite this, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) often focuses on GHG sources, with less emphasis on soil carbon sinks. The lack of reliable data on key soil properties, such as bulk density, inorganic carbon, total carbon, total nitrogen, organic matter, soil organic carbon (SOC), and active carbon [42;43], may constrain the development of farm-level methodologies aimed at achieving a Net Zero Emissions footprint.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImprovements are needed in estimates of the environmental impacts of vegetable crop production with more site-specific details about how emissions related to the use of farm inputs (land, pesticides and fertilizers), CED, GWP and WU are calculated to estimate the yields per land area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent methods of estimating environmental production costs and impacts typically rely on simplified representations of land, labour, water, and energy use, either in aggregate (for a ha or a cropping season) or per unit product. There are limited data on emissions from specific management practices, including the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Previous research does not treat different types of CEA consistently or calculate production costs [e.g., 44] or emissions for specific vegetables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these knowledge gaps, we develop a life cycle inventory and assess energy use, water use and GHG emissions for CEA and two field-based (rainfed and irrigated \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eFadama\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;/\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eLam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;) tomato production systems in the Kudan Local Government Area (LGA) of Kaduna State, Nigeria. The study site in Nigeria was chosen because that country is the largest producer and consumer of vegetables in sub-Saharan Africa. The country is a large producer of tomatoes with Kaduna and Kano states producing 43% of the national production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Data from the [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] indicate that Nigeria produced 1.5\u0026nbsp;million metric tonnes (MT) of tomatoes annually, with 0.7\u0026nbsp;million MT lost to post-harvest. The annual demand for tomatoes in Nigeria is 2.2\u0026nbsp;million MT, resulting in a trade deficit of 1.4\u0026nbsp;million MT; thus, approximately 700,000 metric tonnes need to be imported.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Materials and method","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur principle objective is to compare the CED, GWP, WU, and production costs for three production methods: CEA and two types of conventional field-based production (rainfed and irrigated \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eFadama\u0026rdquo;/\u0026ldquo;Lam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;) in the Kudan LGA. High temperatures in open-field tomato production in the tropics lead to heat stress. Tomatoes are highly sensitive to heat stress, which can result in complete yield loss. An increase in night temperature, in particular, can reduce pollen viability and female fertility, thus affecting fruit set and causing a reduction in yield [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. The study area of Kudan LGA covers a total area of 400 square kilometers with an average temperature and wind speed of 32 \u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003eC and 10 km/h, respectively. The LGA experiences two distinct seasons: the rainy season from May to September and the dry season from October to April. During the dry season, rainfall is minimal, and the weather is generally warm and dry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CEA tomato production system represented by the National Agricultural Extension Research and Liaison Services (NAERLS) tomato screen-house at Likoro in Kudan LGA, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, effectively reduces the intensity of solar radiation and maintains optimal temperatures during the day (21 to 29.5\u0026deg;C) and night (18.5 to 21\u0026deg;C) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Tomato seeds germinate best at 25\u0026deg;C, while seedling growth is optimal at 18\u0026deg;C night-time minimum and 27\u0026deg;C daily maximum [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. It also provides light intensity ranging between 75 and 330 \u0026micro;mol m⁻\u0026sup2; s⁻\u0026sup1;. The cover must have high light transmission, particularly photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) within the range of 400\u0026ndash;700 nanometers [22; 47\u0026ndash;48; 29].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring cold weather, a CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e concentration of 1000 ppm is recommended during the day, whereas in summer, when ventilation is essential, supplementing with 400 ppm CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e is economically beneficial in other countries [49; 29]. Horizontal air movement in a greenhouse, with an airspeed of about 1 meter per second (m/s), is highly beneficial. It helps distribute moisture and CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e evenly, aiding photosynthesis and potentially pollination (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA). This airflow improves the greenhouse environment's uniformity, enhancing crop productivity and energy conservation. Overall, it creates a more stable and efficient growing environment for plants [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe adapt the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology of the ISO Standard (ISO 14044, 2006) described by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] in accordance with the ILCD Handbook (European Commission, 2010) and the LCA\u0026rsquo;s cradle-to-farm gate system boundary. This requires meticulous tracking of all inputs and outputs within the production system. Background data for energy production, material production, fertilizer production, and pesticide production will be compared with data from the Ecoinvent database v2.2 from [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e], as cited in [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, the calculation of average seasonal farm-level emissions of GHG, methane, and nitrous oxide were adapted for the study. Due to the logistical complexities associated with importing energy, materials, and inputs to Africa, their transport is excluded from the inventories of tomato production for the 2022/2023 season.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe use information about the conventional field-based production systems, including rainfed and irrigated \"\u003cem\u003eFadama\"/\"Lam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\", from a 10,000 m\u0026sup2; tomato farm in the Kudan LGA of Kaduna State. The functional unit for comparison is 1 kg/m\u0026sup2; of saleable tomatoes from production to the farm gate. Most open-field tomato farmers in the area still cultivate tomatoes using Open Pollinated Varieties (OPV) of seeds [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the screen house uses the hybrid Anna F1 indeterminate variety of seeds [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA. These hybrid varieties can grow as tall as 8 to 12 feet and are often staked in screen houses. They continue to grow until they are killed by disease or adverse weather conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e] and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e], tomato prices in Nigeria follow a cyclical pattern with peak and off-peak periods. The price spikes occur annually, especially during the rainy season (April to July), which is off-season, motivating farmers to cultivate tomatoes at this time due to the higher prices. During the peak price season, a 50\u0026ndash;60 kg basket of tomatoes can see price increases of 300\u0026ndash;500% compared to off-peak prices typically ranging from 24,000 to 30,000 due to increased supply [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. The average exchange rate for that period was approximately ₦454 per USD [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, growing tomatoes during the rainy season is challenging due to the high incidence of pests and diseases, unpredictable rainfall patterns caused by climate change, soil erosion, and water logging, which lead to poor yields. Farmers often experience high input costs and lack of sufficient labor. To mitigate these challenges, tomato farmers typically prepare nursery beds close to a main field and is particularly beneficial near the Kudan Earth Dam. The nursery bed is about 50cm width and varying length, and may use plastic trays filled with topsoil mixed with animal manure. Seedlings are ready for transplanting between 4 to 5 weeks after sowing, or when they are about 10 cm tall. These seedlings are then arranged on prepared beds with 50cm x 75cm spacing within and between rows, providing a plant population of 26,667 plants per 10 000 m\u0026sup2;. These plants are ready for harvesting 12\u0026ndash;18 weeks after sowing, with reported yields of up to 2 tonnes per 10,000 m\u0026sup2;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring dry season, conditions are better for cultivating irrigated \"\u003cem\u003eFadama\" or \"Lam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\" tomatoes. Production of these tomatoes typically peaks between September and February, although prices tend to be low during this period. \"\u003cem\u003eFadama\" or \"Lam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\" irrigated tomatoes cultivated from January to April are estimated to have the highest profitability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. During these months, the quality and yield of tomatoes improves due to lower incidences of viral and fungal diseases. Additionally, the harvesting period extends into the lean season, allowing farmers to sell their produce at premium prices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIrrigation is crucial for field-based tomato cultivation during the dry season, with drip irrigation (surface or sub-surface) being the most efficient method [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] because it allows for efficient uptake of water and nutrients when mixed with fertilizer. This system conserves water by delivering it directly to the plant roots thereby reducing nutrient loss by leaching or soil fixation. Also, the vegetative part of the plant does not come in contact with water, which reduces the growth of infection. Farmers cultivating irrigated \"\u003cem\u003eFadama\" or \"Lam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\" tomatoes reported an average yield of up to 5.5 tonnes per 10,000 m\u0026sup2; for Open Pollinated Varieties (OPV) of tomato each year [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e] and 7 to 10 tons [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. In some cases, yields as high as 15 tons per 10,000 m\u0026sup2; have been reported. However, up to 60% of the output is lost due to poor handling, processing, and preservation practices in Nigeria [45; 54].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFarmers also face challenges from the \u003cem\u003eTuta Absoluta\u003c/em\u003e (tomato leaf miner), commonly known as Ebola tomato, which devastates harvests [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Although farming projects with hybrid seeds, such as those by Olam Agri, a leading global agribusiness company [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e], have achieved yields of up to 40 tonnes per hectare [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e], these figures are still lower than those produced by NAERLS tomato screen-houses, which operate throughout the year.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe freestanding 79\u0026rsquo;\u0026times; 20\u0026rsquo; NAERLS tomato screen-house resembles those displayed by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] or the hoop houses described by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]. Covering an area of approximately 147 m\u0026sup2; (1580 ft\u0026sup2;), it features insect-proof netting material that creates a controlled environment by regulating temperature, humidity, light, and air circulation. This netting helps protect crops from pests and diseases, reducing the need for chemical pesticides and promoting healthier plant growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe tomato screen-house operations are non-automated systems and are assumed to be situated close to a location with an existing irrigation facility. However, local farmers are more familiar with the land requirements for rainfed and irrigated \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eFadama\u0026rdquo;/\u0026ldquo;Lam-bu\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; cultivation in the assumed production area. Non-production land area for parking and loads typically account for around 56% of the total land area in such setups [58; 22]. Loads include wires, lighting, heating, cooling, irrigation systems, shading screens, thermal screens and loads from crops that require vertical development that include staking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. The screen-house has six production levels, with an average population of 600 Anna F1 indeterminate tomato plants per level. Each tomato plant yields an average of 2.5 kg per plant, resulting in a total average yield of 1500 kg 147 m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e per production season. Yields were estimated in kg m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTomato seedlings are staked, preferably with bamboo stakes that are at least 1m high. When staked, these plants can grow as tall as 10 feet, allowing for continuous harvesting over a period of more than 7 months. The fruits are harvested after 60 to 90 days, depending on the variety, and seedlings are typically managed in nurseries for 3 to 4 weeks. Big hotels and high-end retailers often pay premium prices for these tomatoes. The functional unit for comparison is based 1 kg per saleable product. Land inputs, varieties, cropping frequency and yields are very different for the three systems (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Calculation of Economic and Environmental Indicators\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Production Costs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe production costs for field-based tomato farming systems, including rainfed and irrigated methods, were assessed using semi-structured questionnaires distributed to randomly selected farmers across both dry and rainy seasons in the Local Government Area (LGA) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. Revenue calculations (₦/m\u0026sup2; were based on product yield (kg/m\u0026sup2;) and market prices, while total costs included both variable and fixed expenses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Inputs assessed include seeds, herbicides, fertilizers, sprayers, farm tools, and human labor costs, encompassing both hired labor and opportunity costs for farming activities such as seeding, transplanting, harvesting, and packaging [Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA; 52].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor flood irrigation systems (\"Fadama\"/\"Lam-bu\"), conducted primarily during the dry season, additional costs for diesel, irrigation structures, and specialized equipment were analyzed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. The system operates by allowing water to infiltrate the soil, requiring strategic management to prevent over-irrigation and water wastage. Cost evaluations covered wells (₦45,000\u0026ndash;₦120,000), water pumps (₦180,000 per m\u0026sup2;), main canals (₦150,000\u0026ndash;₦300,000), PVC pipes, sprinklers (₦30,000\u0026ndash;₦50,000), and control valves [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. Furrows and lining materials (₦1,503,829/10,000 m\u0026sup2;) were included as necessary infrastructure for irrigation efficiency [61; 62 ; 54].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, a screen-house system was installed using rebar metal rods, PVC pipes, EMT conduits, insect netting, and wooden support structures to ensure stability and controlled growing conditions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Costs associated with installation included labor expenses, anchoring, and net securing techniques, totaling approximately ₦3.5\u0026nbsp;million per 147 m\u0026sup2; (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy usage comparisons between CEA and open-field operations were conducted, with electric pump energy consumption estimated at 250\u0026ndash;350 kWh per season, while diesel usage varied based on farm scale [58; 22]. The study evaluated the impact of unreliable electricity supply, leading to alternative energy solutions such as gasoline, diesel, and solar power for irrigation sustainability[62; 37]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Cumulative Energy Demand\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study evaluates energy usage in tomato production under open-field (flood irrigation) and screen-house systems using both diesel and electric pumps. The open-field system accommodates 26,667 plants per 10,000 m\u0026sup2;, while the screen-house system supports 600 plants within 147 m\u0026sup2;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor diesel-powered irrigation, the standard energy content of diesel fuel is 35.8 megajoules per liter (MJ/L), equating to 135 MJ per gallon (3.79 liters). The total diesel energy usage in the open field setup was 170 liters per season, equivalent to 6,086 MJ per season, with a daily average usage of 16.67 MJ and 0.00063 MJ per plant per day. Comparatively, the screen-house system used 2.499 liters per season, corresponding to 89.5 MJ, with an average daily consumption of 0.245 MJ and 0.00041 MJ per plant per day (Table\u0026nbsp;5A).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor electric-powered irrigation, the estimated energy consumption in the open field system ranged from 250 to 350 kWh per season (900,000,000 to 1,260,000,000 MJ), translating to an average daily usage of 2,465.75 to 3,452.05 MJ and 0.0924 to 0.1295 MJ per plant per day. The screen-house system utilized 4.41 kWh per season (15,876,000 MJ), averaging 43.49 MJ daily and 0.0004 MJ per plant per day (Table\u0026nbsp;6A).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy units were standardized based on the International System of Units (SI), with 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) equal to 3.6 megajoules (MJ). The energy usage per square meter for the open field setup was 0.025 to 0.035 kWh/m\u0026sup2;, while the screen-house system used approximately 0.03 kWh/m\u0026sup2;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Global Warming Potential (GWP)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study utilized Tier 1 default methods and emission factors (EFs) from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from nitrogen fertilizer applications in managed soils [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e]. Nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions were calculated based on direct emissions (1% of nitrogen inputs) and indirect emissions from manure management systems (MMS) (1% of NH₃ emitted) and managed soils (MS) (0.75% of NO₃ emitted) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. Additional N₂O emissions from manure, nitrite (NO₃), and ammonia (NH₃) were included, and all emissions were converted to CO₂ equivalents (CO₂-eq) using Global Warming Potential (GWP) values from the [64; 65].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor a 100-year horizon, the study applied GWPs of 298 for N₂O, 0.014 for NH₃, and 0.001 for NO₃ (IPCC, 2014). The emission factors included 4% for NPK fertilizer and NH₃, 20% for manure, and 25% for urea [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Since GWP values for pesticides, nitrate leaching, potassium nitrate, and humate were unavailable, these emissions were considered negligible [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite variations in estimation methods, the IPCC guidelines remain the most widely accepted standard for emission calculations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess emissions from rainfed and irrigated tomato production, NPK 20:10:10 fertilizer was applied at 100 kg, leading to 4 kg of N₂O emissions and contributing 1192 kg CO₂-eq to the GWP. For Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) in screen-house production, NPK 15:15:15 was applied at 4.5 kg, generating 0.18 kg of N₂O emissions and 53.64 kg CO₂-Eq.\u0026nbsp;[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Water Use (WU)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn tropical regions, water for greenhouse tomato production can be sourced from rivers, ponds, reservoirs, rain, groundwater (boreholes), and municipal supplies (tap water) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Manual irrigation systems are the most economical option but lack precision in regulating the quantity of water and nutrients administered. The frequency of irrigation is influenced by substrate rooting volume and water-holding capacity, while plant water requirements vary based on growth stage and season [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Generally, water consumption increases as plants grow, and irrigation is either gravity-fed or pumped using small-scale machines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study analyzed average water requirements for tomato production in open-field flood irrigation and screen-house systems. The open-field flood irrigation system, which accommodates 26,667 plants per 10,000 m\u0026sup2;, has an annual water requirement of 320 kg/m\u0026sup2;, averaging 0.877 kg/m\u0026sup2; per day. In contrast, the 147 m\u0026sup2; screen-house system, housing 600 plants, requires 128.919 kg/day, equating to 0.215 kg per plant per day.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed significant seasonal price variations, with rainy season tomato prices ranging between ₦100,000 and ₦150,000 per 50kg basket, whereas dry season prices dropped to ₦27,000 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. Rainfed farming demonstrated cost efficiency with a total production cost of ₦572,905 per 10,000 m\u0026sup2;, although its productivity remained lower compared to irrigated farming (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor flood irrigation systems, the findings indicate that high initial investments yield greater productivity, highlighting a trade-off between irrigation costs and improved output [60 ; 12]. Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) proved to be energy-intensive, with manual flood irrigation requiring significant diesel consumption, whereas electric pumps exhibited more controlled energy usage [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e] .\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study underscores that CEA demands substantial investment yet provides higher yield efficiency, whereas field-based systems remain more cost-effective but highly susceptible to seasonal fluctuations. Efficient energy management and cost control are essential for sustainable tomato production in Nigeria [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comparative assessment of diesel consumption revealed that open-field systems require significantly higher fuel volumes than screen-house systems, making them less energy-efficient on a per-plant basis. Specifically, diesel energy consumption per plant per day was higher for open-field production (0.00063 MJ/plant/day) compared to screen-house production (0.00041 MJ/plant/day).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding electricity-powered irrigation, open-field systems exhibited greater seasonal energy usage, ranging between 250 and 350 kWh, whereas screen-house production required only 4.41 kWh per season. This underscores higher energy efficiency in screen-house farming, characterized by lower per-plant energy consumption and reduced overall energy expenditure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis suggest that screen-house production is more energy-efficient, requiring less fuel and electricity than open-field farming. While rainfed production was assumed to have minimal energy use, detailed energy costs were evaluated exclusively for dry season irrigation and screen-house farming, with rainfed systems excluded from energy assessments (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCumulative Energy Demand (CED)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArea (m\u0026sup2;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant Population\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy Equivalent (MJ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMJ/kg\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpen Field (Rainfed)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26,667\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,080\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpen Field (Flood Irrigation)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26,667\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7,166\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eScreen House\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e147\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e105.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e: Data Source: Authors\u0026rsquo; calculations\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther findings demonstrate significant environmental impacts stemming from fertilizer application, particularly manure usage, which accounted for the highest emissions. For instance, 3500 kg of manure produced 700 kg of N₂O, contributing 208,600 kg CO₂-eq to the GWP [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Smaller quantities, such as 51.45 kg of manure, generated 10.29 kg of N₂O, equating to 3066.42 kg CO₂-eq (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal GWP Calculation for Open Field and Screen House Tomato Production in Kudan LGA of Kaduna State\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowing System\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArea(m\u0026sup2;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant Population (plants per hectare)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal GWP (kg CO₂-eq)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYIELD(kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGWP/kg Product\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpen Field (Rainfed 1 hectare)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26,667\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e209,972\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e800\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e262.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpen Field (Irrigated 1 hectare)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26,667\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e210,430\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eScreen House (147m\u0026sup2;)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e147\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,173\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Authors\u0026rsquo; calculations.*Accurate assessments require using country-specific emission factors, as these can differ based on local regulations, fuel quality, and vehicle technology. Ignoring these variations may lead to inaccurate environmental impact estimates and ineffective policies. This is especially crucial for fertilizers and manure, which emit greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide (N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO) and methane (CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e). Understanding these emissions accurately is essential for effective mitigation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comparison of diesel energy consumption between Open Field and Screen House systems revealed stark contrasts. In open-field flood irrigation, 170 liters of diesel resulted in 455.6 kg of CO₂ emissions, 0.051 kg of CH₄ emissions, and 0.0034 kg of N₂O emissions, with a total GWP of 457.89 kg CO₂-Eq.\u0026nbsp;[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. By contrast, the Screen House system used only 2.5 liters of diesel, producing 6.7 kg of CO₂, 0.00075 kg of CH₄, and 0.00005 kg of N₂O, leading to a total GWP of 6.73 kg CO₂-Eq.\u0026nbsp;[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] ..\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding electric energy consumption, Screen House systems were significantly more efficient, utilizing 4.41 kWh per season, whereas open-field systems required 300 kWh per season [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) impact for screen-house production was 1.76 kg CO₂-eq, considerably lower than 120 kg CO₂-eq for open-field systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings also demonstrated variability in water consumption across systems. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] reported that smallholder drip irrigation requires 4.275 kg/m\u0026sup2; per day, substantially higher than the 0.877 kg/m\u0026sup2; per day recorded for open-field flood irrigation (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that drip irrigation may consume more water per square meter but in a more controlled manner, leading to better water distribution and efficiency per plant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] documented 7.5 kg/m\u0026sup2; per day as the average water requirement for screen-house tomato production under drip irrigation, with values ranging between 0.4 and 5.6 kg per plant per day. These figures far exceed the study\u0026rsquo;s screen-house water consumption levels, which averaged 0.215 kg per plant per day or 0.877 kg/m\u0026sup2; per day. The high variability in reported values likely reflects differences in environmental conditions, management techniques, and irrigation precision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater Usage for Tomato Production in Open Field and Screen House Systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowing System\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArea (m\u0026sup2;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant Population\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage Water Requirement per Day (kg/m\u0026sup2;/ day)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Average Water Requirement per Day (kg/day)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Average Water Requirement per season(kg/season)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYIELD\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater Use (liter)/kg Product\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpen Field\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26667\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.877\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8770\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e920850\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e418.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eScreen House\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e147\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.877\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e128.919\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource: Authors\u0026rsquo; calculations. Growing period: 90 to 120 days (approximately 0.25 years) *Given the likelihood that different systems operate at varying efficiencies\u0026mdash;resulting in differing water needs despite identical requirements\u0026mdash;we have opted to use the same values for average water requirement per day (kg/m\u0026sup2;/day) across the different systems due to the constraints of limited information\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe performance metrics presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e provide a comparative assessment of three tomato production systems in Likoro, Kudan LGA of Kaduna State: Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA), Rainfed Field, and Irrigated Field. Key metrics analyzed include production cost, yield, cost per yield, cumulative energy demand (CED), water use (WU), and global warming potential (GWP).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCEA demonstrated the highest production cost, amounting to ₦3,538,407 per 147 m\u0026sup2;, reflecting the advanced technology and controlled conditions required for this system. In contrast, rainfed field production had the lowest cost at ₦584,464 per 10,000 m\u0026sup2;, whereas irrigated field production fell between at ₦1,503,829 per 10,000 m\u0026sup2;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYield comparisons revealed CEA as the highest-yielding system, producing 4,200 kg per 147 m\u0026sup2;, benefiting from optimized growing conditions. Rainfed field production recorded the lowest yield at 800 kg per 10,000 m\u0026sup2;, while irrigated field production yielded 2,200 kg per 10,000 m\u0026sup2;. The cost per unit of yield was highest in CEA at ₦842 per kilogram, followed by rainfed field at ₦731 per kilogram, and irrigated field at ₦684 per kilogram. This suggests that while CEA results in higher yields, its operational expenses are also significantly greater, affecting its overall economic feasibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn additional consideration influencing yield disparities is the difference in tomato varieties used in open-field and CEA systems. CEA cultivates specialized hybrid varieties with greater productivity under controlled conditions, whereas open-field farming relies on conventional varieties more adapted to outdoor environmental fluctuations. These genetic differences contribute to the significant yield variations observed between production systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy efficiency, measured as CED per kilogram of yield, was lowest in CEA at 0.025 MJ/kg, indicating high energy efficiency. Rainfed field production exhibited a CED of 1.35 MJ/kg, whereas irrigated field production had the highest CED at 3.257 MJ/kg, due to the energy demands of irrigation infrastructure. Water usage followed a similar trend, with CEA consuming only 3.22 liters per kilogram, while irrigated field production required 418.57 liters per kilogram, demonstrating higher water consumption associated with irrigation-dependent systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding environmental impacts, CEA exhibited the lowest GWP at 0.76 CO₂-eq per kilogram, reflecting minimal emissions per unit of production. Rainfed field production recorded the highest GWP at 262.47 CO₂-eq per kilogram, while irrigated field production had a GWP of 95.65 CO₂-eq per kilogram. These findings underscore the reduced environmental impact of CEA systems in comparison to traditional open-field methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Metrics for Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA), Rainfed Field, and Irrigated Field Tomato Production\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance Metric\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCEA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRainfed Field\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIrrigated Field\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduction cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e₦/m\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,538,407\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e584,464\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,503,829\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYield\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ekg/ m\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e800\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCost / Yield\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e₦/Kg\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e842\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e731\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e684\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCED\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMJ/kg\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.257\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater Use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eliters/kg\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e418.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGWP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eeq/kg\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e262.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e: Data Source: Authors\u0026rsquo; calculations\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, these results suggest that screen-house systems offer lower energy consumption, reduced water usage, and lower GWP than field-based production systems, positioning CEA as a potentially more sustainable approach to tomato cultivation. However, it is important to weigh these advantages against the higher infrastructure investments and higher per-unit operational costs associated with CEA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe adoption of screen-house farming could be particularly beneficial in regions facing water scarcity or where reducing agricultural carbon footprints is a priority. Policymakers and agricultural advisors should consider providing incentives and support for CEA adoption, assisting farmers in transitioning to more efficient, sustainable production methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis comparative analysis highlights the potential of screen-house systems to improve resource efficiency and sustainability in tomato production, ultimately contributing to more favorable environmental and economic outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study evaluated the feasibility of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) for achieving Net Zero Emissions in tomato production systems in Northern Nigeria, comparing it with rainfed and irrigated field production. The findings demonstrate that CEA offers superior efficiency, achieving the highest yield (4,200 kg/m\u0026sup2;) with the lowest Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED). However, it incurs higher production costs compared to conventional farming methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eField-based production methods exhibit lower costs but face significant resource limitations, particularly in terms of water use efficiency, carbon footprint, and yield stability. The disparity in tomato varieties cultivated across different production systems further influences yield variations, underscoring the need for variety optimization within sustainable agricultural models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results highlight the trade-offs between economic viability, environmental sustainability, and production efficiency, emphasizing that adopting more resource-efficient cultivation methods can contribute to sustainable agricultural practices. Future research should focus on integrating cost-effective solutions to enhance the feasibility of CEA in low-resource settings, particularly through hybrid varieties, renewable energy applications, and policy support mechanisms to scale adoption.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contribution:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll authors contributed to the study\u0026rsquo;s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Taiwo Ayinde, Charles F. Nicholson, and Benjamin Ahmed. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Taiwo Ayinde and all authors commented on previous.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003eThis study was conducted with the financial support of the CLIFF-GRADS Alliance. We also \u0026nbsp;acknowledge with appreciation grants from the Norman E Borlaug \u0026nbsp; Leadership Enhancement in Agriculture Program (LEAP) of USAID.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll due consents have been sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Consent to participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll due consents have been sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u003c/strong\u003e All data, materials, and software applications used for the study conformed to standard practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ethical approval:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll due consents have been sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclaimer:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHowever, the views expressed in this research do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of CCAFS nor the views of Borlaug LEAP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics declarations:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eEthics and consent to participate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plant Guidelines\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of plants in the present study complies with international, national and/or institutional guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Climate Change Policy (2021) Federal Ministry of Environment Department of Climate Change. National Climate Change Policy For Nigeria 2021\u0026ndash;2030. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://climatechange.gov.ng/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/NCCP_NIGERIA_REVISED_2-JUNE-2021.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://climatechange.gov.ng/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/NCCP_NIGERIA_REVISED_2-JUNE-2021.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOguntade SS et al (2023) The Impact of Climate Change on the State of Carbon Footprint in Nigeria. In: Egbueri JC, Ighalo JO, Pande CB (eds) Climate Change Impacts on Nigeria. Springer Climate. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21007-5_9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-031-21007-5_9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDioha MO, Kumar A (2020) Exploring greenhouse gas mitigation strategies for agriculture in Africa: The case of Nigeria. Ambio 49:1549\u0026ndash;1566. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01293-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13280-019-01293-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAni KJ, Anyika VO, Mutambara E (2021) The impact of climate change on food and human security in Nigeria. Int J Clim Change Strategic Manag 14(2):148\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuoghalu LN, Akanwa AO (2021) Ecological Intensification for Sustainable Agriculture: The Nigerian Perspective. In: Jhariya MK, Meena RS, Banerjee A (eds) Ecological Intensification of Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer, Singapore. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4203-3_15\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-981-33-4203-3_15\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAin-ul-Abad S, Zaheer AK, Shakeel HC, Irfan AS, Mian N, Hussain AA, Zohaib RB, Shahzad HD, Ghous BB (2021) Comparative Assessment of Hydroponic and Geoponic Cultivation Systems for Sustainable Spinach Cultivation. \u003cem\u003ePakistan Journal of Agricultural Research\u003c/em\u003e 34 (4):679. https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 102.91.4.79, on 08/05/24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2018) Agriculture in Nigeria A review of the Sector\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNDP (2022) Resilient Food Systems| Farmers in Nigeria improve productivity through sustainable farming methods. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.resilientfoodsystems.co/news/farmers-in-nigeria-improve- productivity-through-sustainable-farming-methods\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.resilientfoodsystems.co/news/farmers-in-nigeria-improve- productivity-through-sustainable-farming-methods\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOjewale C (2020), March 20 Achieving 30 ton/ha of tomato, lessons from Olam\u0026rsquo;s project. Business day. Retrieve September 19, 2024 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://businessday.ng/agriculture/article/achieving-30-ton-ha-of-tomato- lessons-from-olams-project/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://businessday.ng/agriculture/article/achieving-30-ton-ha-of-tomato- lessons-from-olams-project/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVeggie, Grow (2024) Tomato farming in 2024 (The Ultimate Guide). Retrieved September 21, 2024 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://veggiegrow.ng/tomato-farming-in-nigeria/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://veggiegrow.ng/tomato-farming-in-nigeria/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTomato News (2024) Worldwide (total fresh) tomato production exceeds 187 million tonnes in 2020. Retrieved April 26, 2025 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.tomatonews.com/en/worldwide-total-fresh-tomato-production- exceeds-187-million-tonnes-in-2020_2_1565.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.tomatonews.com/en/worldwide-total-fresh-tomato-production- exceeds-187-million-tonnes-in-2020_2_1565.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVatistas C, Avgoustaki DD, Bartzanas TA (2022) Systematic Literature Review on Controlled-Environment Agriculture: How Vertical Farms and Greenhouses Can Influence the Sustainability and Footprint of Urban Microclimate with Local Food Production. Atmosphere 13:1258. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/atmos1308125\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/atmos1308125\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiacomelli GA (2019) Controlled Environment Agriculture: A Guide to Producing Fresh Produce Year-Round. NASDA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatton NS (2020) CEA: A Sustainable and Efficient Way. to Grow Crops.AIPH\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicholson CF, Eaton M, G\u0026oacute;mez MI, Mattson NS (2023) Economic and Environmental Performance of Controlled-Environment Supply Chains for Leaf Lettuce. Eur Rev Agric Econ. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jabd016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/erae/jabd016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKacira M (2018) Water Use in Controlled Environment Agriculture. University of Arizona\u0026rsquo;s Controlled Environment Agriculture Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIgwebuike I (2022) Political Economy of Net Zero: Nigeria. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CS_Briefing- notes_Nigeria-09-09.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CS_Briefing- notes_Nigeria-09-09.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrein DDC, Rosseto M, Cemin F, Massuda LA, Dettmer A (2023) Recent trends and technologies for reduced environmental impacts of fertilizers: a review. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20:12903\u0026ndash;12918. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-04929-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13762-023-04929-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgbonna CG, Nwachi CC, Okeoma IO, Fagbami OA (2023) Understanding Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s transition pathway to carbon neutrality using the Multilevel Perspective. Carbon Neutrality 2, 24 (2023). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-023-00065-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s43979-023-00065-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIRENA statistics, UNSD); UN World Population Prospects; UNSD Energy Balances; UN COMTRADE; World Bank World Development Indicators (2024) plus data from the following sources: UN SDG Database (original sources: WHO; World Bank; IEA; IRENA; and ; EDGAR; REN21 Global Status Report; IEA-IRENA Joint Policies and Measures Database; IRENA Global Atlas; and World Bank Global Solar Atlas and Global Wind Atlas. Retrieve January 3, 2025 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.irena.org/- /media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/Statistical_Profiles/Africa/Nigeria_Afr ica_RE_SP.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.irena.org/- /media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Statistics/Statistical_Profiles/Africa/Nigeria_Afr ica_RE_SP.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBadiane O et al (2019) Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s Agricultural Policy.A Review of the Past and Present. J Agricultural Policy 28(1):34\u0026ndash;48\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicholson CF, Harbick K, G\u0026oacute;mez MI, Mattson NS (2020) An Economic and Environmental Comparison of Conventional and Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Supply Chains for Leaf Lettuce to US Cities. In: Aktas E, Bourlakis M (eds) Food Supply Chains in Cities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34065-0_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-34065-0_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaneem G, Khawlah A, Khadija M, Ajwan J, Abeer G (2018) Comparison between Growing Plants in Hydroponic System and Soil Based System. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering (MCM'18) Madrid, Spain \u0026ndash; August 16\u0026ndash;18, 2018 Paper No. ICMIE 131 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.11159/icmie18.131\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.11159/icmie18.131\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoh YS, Hum YC, Lee YL, Lai KW, Yap W-S, Yee Kai Tee (2023) A meta-analysis: Food production and vegetable crop yields of hydroponics. Sci Hort 321(112339) ISSN 0304\u0026ndash;4238. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112339\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112339\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304423823005101\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304423823005101\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar P, Singh J (2024) Hydroponic: An Eco-friendly Future. In: Kumar N (ed) Hydroponics and Environmental Bioremediation. Springer Water. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53258-0_9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-031-53258-0_9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan MM et al (2024) Hydroponic Systems for Cultivation of Horticultural Crops. In: Kumar N (ed) Hydroponics. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Series. Springer, New York, NY. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3993-1_8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-0716-3993-1_8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl Meselmani MA (2024) Hydroponics: The Future of Sustainable Farming. In: Kumar N (ed) Hydroponics. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology Series. Springer, New York, NY. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3993-1_6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-0716-3993-1_6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerrin A, Basset-Mens C, Huat J, Benoit G (2017) The variability of field emissions is critical to assessing the environmental impacts of vegetables: A Benin case-study. Journal Clean Production 153:104\u0026ndash;113\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlabisi O, Nofiu A (2022) Principles for the Production of Tomatoes in the Greenhouse. IntechOpen. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5772/intechopen.106975\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5772/intechopen.106975\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmoako Ofori P, Owusu-Nketia S, Opoku-Agyemang F, Agbleke D, Amissah N, J (2022) Greenhouse Tomato Production for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security in the Tropics. IntechOpen. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5772/intechopen.105853\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5772/intechopen.105853\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAyinde BT, Nicholson FC, Ahmed B (2024) A Review of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Vegetable Production in Africa with Emphasis on Tomatoes, Onions and Cabbage. IntechOpen. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5772/intechopen.113249\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5772/intechopen.113249\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNwanojuo MA, Anumudu CK, Onyeaka H (2025) Impact of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) in Nigeria, a Review of the Future of Farming in Africa. Agriculture 15(2):117\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2024) New hydroponic garden paves the way for experimentation on better resource management in soil-less agriculture. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/new-the- way-for- experimentation-resource-management-in-soil-less/en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/new-the- way-for- experimentation-resource-management-in-soil-less/en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorldbank (2015) Fadama Project Turns Nigerian Farmers into Agro-preneurs. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/02/fadama-takes- nigerian-farmers-to-higher-level\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/02/fadama-takes- nigerian-farmers-to-higher-level\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Borgen Project (2017) The National Fadama Development Project in Nigeria. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://borgenproject.org/national-fadama- development- project/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://borgenproject.org/national-fadama- development- project/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorldbank (2022) Delivering development: collaboration the key to success in Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s FADAMA projects. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://blogs.worldbank.org/en/nasikiliza/delivering-development- collaboration-key-success-nigerias-fadama-projects\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/nasikiliza/delivering-development- collaboration-key-success-nigerias-fadama-projects\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObiajulu OD, Abubakar OM, Evonameh IH, Ismail H (2024) Yield, water productivity and economic return of deficit drip-irrigated tomatoes in Kaduna (Nigeria). Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Belgrade) DOI: 10.2298/JAS2304413O. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/ipdf/1450-\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/ipdf/1450-\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e 8109/2023/1450-81092304413O.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim DG, Grieco E, Bombelli A, Hickman JE, Sanz-Cobena A (2021) Challenges and opportunities for enhancing food security and greenhouse gas mitigation in smallholder farming in sub-Saharan Africa. A review. Food Secur 13:457\u0026ndash;476. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01149-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12571-021-01149-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRitchie H (2022) Rosado, Pablo and Max Roser - Environmental Impacts of Food Production Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved December 29th 2024 from: '\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ourworldindata.org/environmental- impacts-of-food\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ourworldindata.org/environmental- impacts-of-food\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Climate Portal (2021) Soil- Based Carbon Sequestration. Retrieved from | \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://climate.mit.edu/explainers/soil- based-carbon-sequestration\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/soil- based-carbon-sequestration\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbdulkadir A, Mohammed I, Daudu CK (2021) Organic Carbon in Tropical Soils: Current Trends and Potential for Carbon Sequestration in Nigerian Cropping Systems. In: Leal Filho W, Luetz J, Ayal D (eds) Handbook of Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22759-3_307-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-22759-3_307-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarzadfar S, Knight JD, Congreves KA (2021) Soil organic nitrogen: an overlooked but potentially significant contribution to crop nutrition. Plant Soil 462:7\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-04860-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11104-021-04860-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShahzad K, Sintim H, Ahmad F, Abid M, Nasim W (2022) Importance of Carbon Sequestration in the Context of Climate Change. In: Jatoi WN, Mubeen M, Ahmad A, Cheema MA, Lin Z, Hashmi MZ (eds) Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79408-8_23\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-79408-8_23\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuhammed Alhassan (2023) A Comprehensive Guide to Starting Hydroponic Farming in Nigeria: Capital, Profitability, and More. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.agriculturenigeria.com/a-comprehensive-guide-to-starting- hydroponic-farming-in-nigeria-capital-profitability-and-more/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.agriculturenigeria.com/a-comprehensive-guide-to-starting- hydroponic-farming-in-nigeria-capital-profitability-and-more/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBailey B (2023), July 26 Opportunities seen in Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s 60% tomato post- harvest losses. Business day. Retrieved September 19, 2024 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://businessday.ng/agriculture/article/opportunities-seen-in-nigerias-60- tomato-post-harvest-losses/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://businessday.ng/agriculture/article/opportunities-seen-in-nigerias-60- tomato-post-harvest-losses/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeather Spark (2024) Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Kaduna Nigeria. Kaduna-Nigeria-Year- Round. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://weatherspark.com/y/55104/Average-Weather-in-\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://weatherspark.com/y/55104/Average-Weather-in-\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVanlommel W, Huysmans M, Bosmans L, Vanderbruggen R, Van Delm T (2020) Optimal artificial light intensity for protected tomato cultivation under LEDs. Acta Hortic 1296:575\u0026ndash;582. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.74\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1296.74\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAppolloni E, Orsini F, Pennisi G, Xavier DG, Paucek I,Gianquinto Giorgio (2021) Supplemental LED Lighting Effectively Enhances the Yield and Quality of Greenhouse Truss Tomato Production: Results of a Meta-Analysis. Front Plant Sci 12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArias JE, Moises Gutierrez, Monserrat Morn Castillo (2015) Nubia Ilia Ponce de Leon Puig, Eladio Flores Mena, Design of an Optimal Control for Carbon Dioxide Enrichment in a Tomato Crop of Greenhouse Based on a Dynamic System. International Journal of Energy And Environment 9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.naun.org/main/NAUN/energyenvironment/2015/a082011- 081.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.naun.org/main/NAUN/energyenvironment/2015/a082011- 081.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAthena Sustainable Materials Institute (2024) LCA, LCI, LCIA, LCC: What\u0026rsquo;s the difference? Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.athenasmi.org/resources/about- lca/whats-the-difference/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.athenasmi.org/resources/about- lca/whats-the-difference/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Horticultural Research Institute (NIHORT) (2024) Production Guide for Tomatoes. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://nihort.gov.ng/wp- content/uploads/2020/07/PRODUCTION-GUIDE- ON-TOMATO.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://nihort.gov.ng/wp- content/uploads/2020/07/PRODUCTION-GUIDE- ON-TOMATO.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOni A (2024), August 11 From N150k to N60k\u0026rsquo; \u0026mdash; basket of tomatoes price drops amid new harvest. The cable.ng. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e/https://www.thecable.ng/from- n150k- to-n60k-basket-of-tomatoes-price-drops-amid-new-harvest/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http:///https://www.thecable.ng/from- n150k- to-n60k-basket-of-tomatoes-price-drops-amid-new-harvest/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eExchange-rates.org (2025) US Dollar (USD) To Nigerian Naira (NGN) Exchange Rate History for 2023. Retrieved April 26, 2025 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.exchange- rates.org/exchange-rate-history/usd-ngn-2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.exchange- rates.org/exchange-rate-history/usd-ngn-2023\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOnu OB, Ani OA, Asoiro FU, Uzoejinwa BB, Ugwu SN, Abu N, Uguru M (2022) Evaluation of different packaging types for adoption in safe handling and transportation of fresh tomato fruits in Nigeria. Agricultural Eng International: CIGR J I(4):309\u0026ndash;318\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMediacraft (2020), February 24 Olam Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s Pilot Farming Project To Boost Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s Tomato Value Chain. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://mediacraft.ng/olam-nigerias- pilot-farming-project-to-boost-nigerias-tomato-value-chain/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://mediacraft.ng/olam-nigerias- pilot-farming-project-to-boost-nigerias-tomato-value-chain/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNews (2022) Nigeria: Olam helps improve tomato farm yields. Retrieved September 19, 2024 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.tomatonews.com/en/nigeria-olam- helps-improve- tomato-farm-yields_2_1631.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.tomatonews.com/en/nigeria-olam- helps-improve- tomato-farm-yields_2_1631.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang K-H, Sugano J, Fukuda S, Uyeda J, Meyer D, Ching S (2017) DIY Screenhouse for insect management in the Tropics: Part I. HānaiʻAi Newsletter 28: Dec, Jan, Feb 2017. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/soap/HanaiAi.aspx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/soap/HanaiAi.aspx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEaves J, Eaves S (2018) Comparing the profitability of a greenhouse to a vertical farm in Quebec. Can J Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d\u0026rsquo;agroeconomie 66(1):43\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12161\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/cjag.12161\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNemali K (2017) Controlled Environment Agriculture. Retrieved December 25th 2024 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.purdue.edu/hla/sites/cea/wp- content/uploads/sites/15/2017/04/Controlled-Environment-Agriculture.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.purdue.edu/hla/sites/cea/wp- content/uploads/sites/15/2017/04/Controlled-Environment-Agriculture.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgronoBlog \u0026ndash; Agriculture Blog (2024) Flood Irrigation \u0026ndash; Irrigation Systems. Retrieved December 12th 2024 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://agronoblog.com/irrigation- systems/flood-irrigation-irrigation-systems/ science/articles/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://agronoblog.com/irrigation- systems/flood-irrigation-irrigation-systems/ science/articles/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fpls.2021.596927 DOI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.3389/fpls.2021.596927\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpls.2021.596927 DOI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.3389/fpls.2021.596927\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. ISSN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1664-462X\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVeggie, Concept (2022) Tomato Farming: Business Plan, Cost, Revenue and Profit Retrieved September 19, 2024 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://veggieconcept.ng/tomato- business-plan-cost-revenue-and-profit/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://veggieconcept.ng/tomato- business-plan-cost-revenue-and-profit/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOmorogbe P (2021), June 28 Epileptic power supply costs Nigeria ₦10 trillion annually. Business Top News. Nigeria Tribune. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://tribuneonlineng.com/epileptic-power-supply-costs-nigeria n10-trillion- annually-world-bank/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://tribuneonlineng.com/epileptic-power-supply-costs-nigeria n10-trillion- annually-world-bank/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) climate change 2007: I mpacts, adaptation.and vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change. Cambridge UK: IPCC\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(AR5)i. i Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Br\u0026eacute;on, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.‐F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Retrieved 29 (2014) th 2024 from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e- Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf?form\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;MG0AV3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRitchie H, Roser M, Rosado P (2020) - CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved January 3, 2025 from: '\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e gas- emissions' [Online Resource]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Evaluation, Feasibility, Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA), Net Zero Emissions, Agriculture, Nigeria","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032825/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032825/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAchieving Net Zero Emissions in vegetable production systems is a critical challenge in dryland climates of low- and middle-income countries, yet limited data exists to assess the feasibility of such systems. This study employs life cycle inventory methods to evaluate key performance metrics, including yield per land area, production costs, cumulative energy demand (CED), global warming potential (GWP), and water use (WU) for Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) in screen houses and field-based tomato production systems in Northern Nigeria. The findings reveal that CEA, despite its high production cost of ₦3,538,407 per 147 m\u0026sup2;, achieves the highest yield of 4,200 kg per 147 m\u0026sup2;. Additionally, CEA demonstrates superior efficiency, exhibiting the lowest CED (0.025 MJ/kg) and GWP (0.76 CO₂-eq/kg). In contrast, rainfed field production, while having the lowest cost (₦584,464 per 10000m\u0026sup2;), results in the lowest yield (800 kg/10000m\u0026sup2;) and the highest GWP (34,545.8%). Irrigated field production performs moderately, with a production cost of ₦1,503,829 per 10000m\u0026sup2;, a yield of 2,200 kg per 10000 m\u0026sup2;, and a GWP of 12,572.4%. A key factor influencing yield variation across production systems is the difference in tomato varieties cultivated in open-field and CEA environments. CEA relies on hybrid varieties optimized for controlled conditions, whereas open-field farming utilizes varieties adapted to outdoor environmental fluctuations, contributing to disparities in yield potential. This study highlights the trade-offs between cost, yield, energy efficiency, and environmental impact across different production models. The results underscore the advantages of adopting more efficient and controlled cultivation methods like CEA, offering potential pathways for sustainable and environmentally responsible agricultural practices in regions facing climate and resource constraints.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluating the feasibility of Controlled Environmental Agriculture (CEA) for achieving Net Zero Emissions in Northern Nigeria","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-04 05:54:32","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032825/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4c6e7476-44b3-4e35-8319-4734b4e823eb","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":50955985,"name":"Agricultural Economics \u0026 Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-04T05:54:32+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-04 05:54:32","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7032825","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7032825","identity":"rs-7032825","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}