Next Article in Journal
A Review on the Mechanism of Soil Flame Disinfection and the Precise Control Technology of the Device
Previous Article in Journal
Application of Exogenous 24-Epibrassinolide at the Silking Stage Alleviates the Effects of Post-Silking Heat Stress on Photosynthetic Performance of Waxy Maize
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 23
10.3390/agriculture15232446
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Economic Assessment of Conventional Broccoli Cultivation in Southeastern Spain

by
Felipe Egea Clemente
*,
Begoña García Castellanos
,
José García García
and
Pedro Enrique Fuster Villa
Department of Bioeconomy, Water and Environment, Murcia Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research and Development (IMIDA), 30150 Murcia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(23), 2446; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232446
Submission received: 31 October 2025 / Revised: 18 November 2025 / Accepted: 24 November 2025 / Published: 26 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Economics, Policies and Rural Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Europe ranks second in global broccoli production and first in exports, with Spain leading the sector. In Spain, cultivation is concentrated in the southeast, especially the Region of Murcia, one of the main producing areas. The study has three objectives: (1) to establish the characteristic cultivation model of the region, (2) to perform an analysis of the cost structure, and (3) to carry out a sensitivity analysis considering variability in irrigation water prices and the use of organic fertilizers to assess their cost impact. The base information was obtained from surveys conducted with representative farmers of the production sector during the year 2025. The cost structure analysis highlights the dominance of labor-related tasks. Preparation and planting, along with harvesting, are especially significant, accounting for over 34% and 18% of total costs, respectively. Despite this, broccoli generates only 0.22 AWU·ha−1, lower than other horticultural crops. Irrigation is another key cost factor, due to the high price of water. Sensitivity analysis shows that sharp increases in water costs significantly raise overall expenses. Likewise, the high cost of liquid organic fertilizers results in the crop being unfeasible, in contrast to the results obtained with solid organic and synthetic inorganic fertilizers, or the combination of solid and liquid organic fertilizers.

1. Introduction

Globally, Europe accounted for an average of 137,479 ha, and produced around 2.4 million tons of broccoli between 2019 and 2023 [1]. It is the second largest producer in the world after Asia. During this period, Asia produced about 20.8 million tons from 1,084,015 ha [1]. However, Europe leads global broccoli exports. Within Europe, Spain is the largest producer (537 thousand tons) and exporter, accounting for more than 73% of European production in the period 2019–2023. The Region of Murcia is the main production area in Spain, accounting for almost 41% of Spanish broccoli production, 38% of the cultivated area, and 66% of national exports of this product [2,3]. This region has been identified as a national benchmark in the implementation of organic management, with 33% of the cultivated area being under this production regulation [4,5], following the thresholds required by the EU for the 2030 horizon in European public policies, such as the Farm to Fork strategy. However, this production system is under-represented in outdoor horticultural crops, such as broccoli. In the Region of Murcia, only 6.04% of the hectares dedicated to broccoli cultivation are cultivated organically [6].
The Farm to Fork Strategy aims to reduce pesticide use and increase the proportion of land under organic farming, with the objective of minimizing environmental and human health impacts. In this respect, Spain, and specifically the Region of Murcia, are pioneers in the use of biological and biotechnological control, now successfully implemented in crops such as citrus fruits and greenhouse-grown peppers [7,8,9,10]. However, its use has not yet been effective in outdoor horticultural crops such as lettuce or broccoli, nor for stone fruit trees [11]. Current research efforts are focused on developing varieties resistant to pests, diseases, and stress factors [12,13,14].
The Farm-to-Fork Strategy also advocates reducing the use of synthetic inorganic fertilizers and promoting organic fertilizers instead. Likewise, Europe supports the protection of nitrate vulnerable zones, for example, through Directive 91/676/EEC. This directive aims to promote fertilization practices that are better aligned with crop nutrient requirements, in order to reduce nitrate pollution [15,16]. In this respect, several authors [7,17,18] have demonstrated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) that synthetic inorganic fertilizers are among the main environmental hotspots in agri-food production. Their excessive use can trigger environmental problems, such as those occurring in the Region of Murcia within Mar Menor [19], which is why restrictions have been implemented like those under the “Ley 3/2020, de 27 de julio” [20]. In this context, agronomic practices—such as crop rotation with legumes and the application of organic amendments—aimed at reducing the reliance on synthetic fertilizers have become increasingly widespread [21,22,23,24,25]. However, the high price of liquid organic fertilisers used in fertigation [7,26], as well as the high nutritional requirements of intensive horticultural crops, means that their application increases production costs. In this regard, it is essential to evaluate these practices economically, as they may be unviable depending on their effect on productivity and costs.
Economic and production cost studies are essential, as they provide key information for decision-making, investment planning and setting prices that cover actual production costs. In the Spanish context, the Food Chain Law [27] establishes a legal framework aimed at preventing loss of value, ensuring fair competition and protecting the most vulnerable stakeholders (producers), guaranteeing them a decent income. However, despite its relevance, there is a notable lack of scientific literature and information published by the government that comprehensively addresses this area, which limits its availability and hinders its use for the aforementioned purposes. In this context, studies such as this one promote transparency and serve as a reference for both the government and the private sector, thus contributing to improving efficiency, competitiveness and balance in commercial relations between stakeholders in the food chain.
Given the representativeness of broccoli cultivation in the Region of Murcia within Spain, the increasing importance of more transparent production costs within the agri-food chain, and the lack of scientific literature providing a comprehensive, transparent, and up-to-date cost structure for conventional broccoli cultivation in this area, the objectives of this study are:
  • To establish the most representative conventional broccoli cultivation model in the Region of Murcia.
  • To perform an economic assessment of this model using the cost accounting method in order to determine its cost structure.
  • To conduct a sensitivity analysis, assigning variability to the elements identified as relevant to observe their impact on production costs.
The relevance of this study extends beyond broccoli cultivation, serving as a representative case for assessing the economic and resource challenges faced by the fruit and vegetable sector and other agricultural industries. The analyses and recommendations presented can be generalized to similar production systems, particularly in water-scarce regions such as Murcia and other arid and semiarid areas, providing valuable insights to enhance the resilience and sustainability of crop production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Characterization of the Study Area

The Region of Murcia is located in the southeast of Spain (Figure 1). This region covers a total surface of 1,131,646 hectares, of which 358,830 hectares are classified as utilized agricultural area. Irrigated crops account for 45.8% of the utilized agricultural area, and 32% of the irrigated area (53,053 hectares) is dedicated to horticultural crops [4].
The climate in this area is semi-arid, characterized by dry, hot summers, mild winters and autumns with sporadic but abundant rain [28]. Precipitation in the region is scarce, averaging 320 mm per year, and is both irregular and variable [29].
Soils are usually in water deficit due to low precipitation and high evapotranspiration rates [30]. They have a clayey loam or clayey sandy loam texture with a low amount of organic matter, high pH, and high contents of calcium carbonate and active limestone [7,31,32].

2.2. Data Collection

The data on the production process for the establishment of the production model was obtained during 2025 through 15 in situ surveys conducted with producers from 3 regional companies specialized in horticulture. The technicians from these companies selected professional representative farmers who were willing to provide specific information about the production process. The established plot size corresponds to the common size reported by farmers in the surveys. The survey included all the technical and economic data described in the production cost structure: production model (planting density, productivity, non-fresh marketable production, etc.), infrastructure (irrigation network, irrigation equipment, shed, etc.), inputs, and labor and machinery performance in the different field operations. The information was collected in three stages. The first stage consisted of an open interview with the respondents; in the second, a structured questionnaire—designed by the IMIDA (Murcian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Development and Research) research team—was administered. This questionnaire gathered detailed information on the production system and related investments, production performance indicators, labor requirements, and other production costs. Finally, once the production model had been defined, the survey information was validated through specific follow-up questions to the respondents [33].
The Bioeconomy Team of IMIDA has published several studies on the production structure and cost analysis of multiple agricultural products in the Region of Murcia. These studies aim to establish representative cost structures for public administration purposes and, in most cases, are representative of production systems in southeastern Spain [7,34]. Broccoli has been one of the crops analyzed, both conventional [35] and organic [36]. Based on previous studies, a review and an update of the cultivation system have been carried out. Prices have been updated from the IMIDA Bioeconomy Team internal database, which includes unit prices of inputs, yields, costs, and technical and economic data for a wide range of crops, derived from in situ surveys as mentioned above.
Based on this information, a production model was established for the main broccoli production system in the Region of Murcia. The model encompasses the representative practices of broccoli cultivation in southeast of Spain. The study is limited to the production system described, which is the most widespread in the area, but it is naturally subject to market variability and socioeconomic constraints.

2.3. Establishment of Production Model

A representative system was established for conventional outdoor broccoli cultivation. A professional farm model was designed with an area of 5 hectares.
There are usually two cycles: the summer-autumn cycle with production in winter (from September to November), and the spring cycle (from March to June). They usually last approximately 90 to 110 days from transplanting to harvesting. The plantation has a spacing scheme of 1 m × 0.4 m with paired rows (50,000 plants·ha−1). The average gross production is 18,500 kg·ha−1 with around 5% of the broccoli being non-fresh marketable. The plastic mulching of the rows was also taken into account, along with the use of drip irrigation consisting of 25,000 drippers·ha−1 with a flow rate of 2 dm3·h−1 (1 dripper·plant−1). The water supply is 3250 m3·ha−1.
Table 1 shows the general descriptive information based on data collected through surveys, which were later used to define the production process and, consequently, to calculate the production cost structure.

2.4. Economic and Financial Assessment: Accounting Analysis

In order to evaluate the system described in Table 1, an economic financial analysis was carried out from cost accounting perspective, and the cost–benefit production structure established for a single cycle of broccoli cultivation. The cost structure is based on euros (EUR) per unit of surface area (hectare) and per unit of mass (kilogram). Input prices and production resources used for the cost calculations were taken from the aforementioned database.
Costs were subdivided into fixed and variable and for each of them, opportunity cost was also taken into account [37,38,39,40]. Opportunity costs are calculated as the alternative use of money in risk-free saver bank accounts [34,41], in this case, 1.5%.

2.4.1. Fixed Costs

Fixed costs are those linked to the amortization of assets. The straight-line method was used to calculate amortization [32,34,35,36]. The investments associated with this crop included the infrastructure necessary for irrigation (irrigation equipment, irrigation network, and irrigation reservoir); shed for equipment; auxiliary material (tools).
For the sizing of the irrigation equipment, the flow per unit area required by the emitters and the size of the farm (5 hectares) were taken into account. The irrigation equipment has a flow rate of 50 m3·h−1, divided into five sectors (1 hectare per sector) and includes solenoid valves, filters, fertilizers tanks with agitators and a pump. The irrigation network was sized in the same way, with polyethylene pipes (with diameters of 63 mm, 50 mm in the case of distribution pipes and 16 mm in lines of droppers) with integrated self-compensating drippers (2 dm3·h−1). The reservoir was sized to store between 15 and 30 days of the water required in the month with maximum water requirements. The shed size is 80 m2. The auxiliary materials include gloves, plastic baskets, and other tools.

2.4.2. Variable Costs

Variable costs are those that can vary in the short term, in this case for a production cycle of 3 months. The following sections present the accounting categories corresponding to variable costs in each production cycle:
  • Preparation and planting
The preparation and planting phase involves the following operations: removal of the previous crop using a disc harrow; turning with a moldboard plow; shallow harrowing; levelling; and application of organic matter. All operations are performed using a 120 HP tractor, except for the moldboard plowing, which requires more power and a 160 HP tractor. This phase also includes installation and removal of the irrigation system, manual planting, purchased seedlings, and the placement of the plastic mulching.
  • Manual weeding
A common task for various arable crops, it counts as wage labor specific to blanching (Table 2); it is associated with the early growth stages after transplanting.
  • Production insurance
Broccoli is not usually insured, but its cost was calculated for information purposes (Table 3). The cost of insurance was calculated using the report “Coste medio del seguro de la Comunidad Autónoma de Murcia” written by Agroseguro [35].
  • Machinery
This includes the use of machinery and implements in activities such as phytosanitary treatments and herbicide treatments (Table 4). It was considered that farms hire external services. The cost of machinery was determined using the market unit cost: tractor + implement + labor.
  • Fertilizers
The total fertilizer requirement for conventional broccoli production is 230-80-278-100-28 (N-P2O5-K2O-CaO-MgO). These quantities are established based on information extracted from surveys and the specific technical literature on crop requirements [35,42].
Owing to the low quantities of organic matter of soils in the Region, it is very common for farmers to provide it in the form of manure (usually sheep–goat manure (N-P2O5-K2O-CaO-MgO): 1.48-0.56-2.35-2.96-0.91) during land preparation. This is also associated with periodic soil disinfection through biosolarization. The amount of organic matter provided averages around 5000 kg per cycle and it is applied only at the beginning, with approximately 10,000 kg of organic matter distributed between the two crops grown during the two rotation cycles within the same year (e.g., broccoli–lettuce or broccoli–melon). Therefore, the total fertilization units (FU) were corrected to adjust to the contributions previously described, obtaining the following nutrient requirements: 156-52-161-0-0, which is applied by fertigation (Table 5).
  • Phytosanitary treatments
Phytosanitary treatments vary annually owing to agroclimatic factors. The main pests/pathogens on broccoli are: Botrytis cinerea, Brevicoryne, Aphis, Myzus, Macrosyphum, Nasonovia, Hellix spp. and Plutella xylostella. Currently, four treatments are applied per cycle, using a broth of 1000 dm3·ha−1 (Table 6).
  • Herbicides
Only one annual pre-emergence preventive treatment is carried out with pendimethalin (Table 7). To apply herbicide, extendable bar equipment is used.
  • Maintenance
The maintenance cost was obtained as an annual percentage (1.50%) of the cost of fixed assets: shed, irrigation equipment, irrigation reservoir, and irrigation network. It is important to note that this percentage is divided, as producers usually carry out two cycles per year.
  • Electrical energy (irrigation)
Electricity consumption by fertigation pumps and it is based on the irrigation hours and flow mentioned above (Table 8).
  • Water
The average water requirements for the cycle have been established as 3250 m3·ha−1 (Table 9). The current prices of the water resource are derived from the Comunidad de Regantes (CCRR) of Campo de Cartagena, which is the community with the largest territory and representativeness in south-eastern Spain [43].
  • Harvesting
Harvesting includes both the labor used in harvesting and the mechanical means used in transporting the loads to the warehouse. Average yields from the harvest are obtained through surveys (Table 10).
  • Permanent staff
Farm owners typically work on management-related tasks: purchasing inputs, scheduling and controlling irrigation, hiring external services such as pruning, etc. This is reflected cost in hours per hectare and year (Table 11). This cost is calculated as a proportion of the corresponding salary for 1 AWU·ha−1 (1840 h); in this case, 25 hectares is the typical farm size in the region according to the surveys.
Additionally, employment per hectare (AWU·ha−1) was calculated as an indicator of the generation of direct employment in the rural environment. The Agricultural Work Unit (AWU) corresponds to the work carried out by a person employed on a full-time basis at a farm (1 AWU = 1840 h) [7,44].

2.5. Sensitivity Analysis

Due to the importance of water and fertilizers, both economically and environmentally, in the production structure of broccoli, as is the case of other crops, a sensitivity analysis is carried out on these production factors.
  • Irrigation water
Water supply in southeastern Spain comes from various sources (groundwater, surface water, desalinated water, the Tajo-Segura transfer, and reclaimed water) and its characteristics vary significantly between areas due to the mixing of different origins [10,34,45]. Additionally, there is significant annual variability depending on climatic conditions. Furthermore, reductions in water allocations from the transfer have become increasingly frequent [45]. Due to these challenges, the fluctuation of water prices and their impact on the economic analysis of this crop will be examined. To this end, a decrease in water supply from the Tajo-Segura transfer is simulated, compensated by desalinated water, whose share in the characterized area has increased.
Therefore, the four water mixes established for the sensitivity analysis are: (1) E0: 19.8% surface water; 23.4% groundwater; 7.6% reclaimed water; 32.2% from the Tajo-Segura transfer; 17% desalinated water (price: 0.350 EUR·m3). It was established as the reference mix, provided by CCRR of Campo de Cartagena and described by Martin-Gorriz et al. [45]. (2) Mix 1: 19.8% surface water; 23.4% groundwater; 7.6% reclaimed water; 21.5% from the Tajo-Segura transfer; 27.7% desalinated water (price: 0.403 EUR·m3). The analysis also considered an intermediate scenario involving a higher input of desalinated water. (3) Mix 2: 19.8% surface water; 23.4% groundwater; 7.6% reclaimed water; 0% from the Tajo-Segura transfer; 49.2% desalinated water (price: 0.508 EUR·m3). The most adverse scenario proposed by Martin-Gorriz et al. [45] and García García y García García [10] is also included, in which transfer water is completely replaced by desalinated water, while maintaining the same proportions of surface, groundwater, and reclaimed water. (4) Mix 3: 7.6% reclaimed water; 92.4% desalinated water (price: 0.592 EUR·m3). The final scenario was the least favourable, consisting solely of desalinated and reclaimed water. For the calculation of reclaimed water costs, an estimation is used based on information provided by Martin-Gorriz et al. [45] and Expósito et al. [46].
  • Organic fertilizer
As emphasized in the introduction, fertilization now is a crucial focus of public policy. Europe advocates the efficient use of fertilizers (adjusted to crop needs) and the reduction in synthetic inorganic fertilization in favour of organic alternatives, seeking to achieve more efficient production systems with the lowest possible environmental impact [21,23,25]. Based on these premises, the aim was to compare various fertilization scenarios (Table 12): (E0) Synthetic inorganic fertilization (conventional). (B1) Liquid organic fertilization. (B2) Solid organic fertilization with an organic amendment sheep–goat manure. (B3) Solid organic fertilization mix (sheep–goat manure + pelleted fertilizer). (B4) Solid organic fertilization (sheep–goat manure + pelleted fertilizer) combined with liquid organic fertilization.
The results of these analyses were evaluated using the relative difference (RD) of the irrigation costs.
RD (%) = 100 × (E0 − En)/E0, where En is the proposed scenario (Mix n or Bn depending on the analysis) and E0 is the initial scenario.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Economic Analysis

At the time of initial investment, the irrigation infrastructure (irrigation equipment, network and reservoir) is particularly important, accounting for up to 76% of total investment (Table 13). Although broccoli involves a large initial investment, its weight is diluted over the useful life of the installation. Furthermore, it is important to note that the value of the amortizations is distributed over two cycles, as this crop is usually alternated with others like lettuce.
In outdoor horticulture, fixed costs (FCs) represent a very small proportion of the total cost, around 5% in several crops (considering preparation and planting as a variable cost: [35,39]. In the crop analysed, FCs account for 4.37% of the total cost (TC) (Table 14 and Figure 2). This is because it is an annual crop and its main cost is associated with the preparation and planting phases that repeat themselves each cycle; thus, it is classified as a variable cost. In artichoke, another outdoor crop, FC are relatively more important than in broccoli, since, with it being a biennial crop, preparation and planting must be counted as fixed assets. The fixed costs of greenhouse horticulture are much higher than those of horticulture in the open air, mainly due to the structure of the greenhouse itself. This raises the relative weight of fixed costs in the total to 11–14% compared to 5% for outdoor crops [10]. Within the fixed costs, the impact of the irrigation infrastructure is once again worth noting.
The most important component in the cost structure is preparation and planting (land preparation, planting material and manual planting), which accounts for 34% of total costs (Table 14 and Figure 2). The magnitude of this is linked to the use of labor (62% of the section), with manual planting being the most important. Likewise, if we add to the labor used in this chapter the labor used in manual weeding, harvesting, permanent staff and machinery, the figure rises to 57% of the total costs, which highlights the importance of labor in this crop. Among these last 4 tasks, harvesting is the one with the highest relative importance in the structure, reaching 18% of the TC. Scuderi et al. [47] point out that something very similar happens in conventional broccoli cultivation in southern Italy, where labor and the sections associated with it (such as harvesting) are also very important. According to García García [35], manual harvesting can account for up to 30% of TC in other outdoor crops (e.g., Iceberg or Little gem lettuce) due to their high yields.
In terms of employment, conventional broccoli cultivation generates a total of 0.22 AWU gross ha−1, of which 0.10 AWU·ha−1 corresponds to harvesting. This again highlights harvesting as a relevant section in terms of costs. Compared to other horticultural crops such as greenhouse-grown pepper or tomato, and outdoor lettuce or celery, the employment generated is significantly lower being, for example, 1.78 AWU in the case of greenhouse-grown pepper or 0.58 AWU·ha−1 in the case of Little Gem lettuce [10,35]. This may be due to the high intensification, productivity and specific manual staking of such crops with respect to broccoli [35]. However, it should be noted that in this region, it is customary to undertake a minimum of two annual cycles of cultivation in different outdoor fields, including those dedicated to the cultivation of broccoli and melons or lettuces. Consequently, this would also imply a higher generation of employment per hectare.
Finally, the third most relevant category within the structure is that of irrigation, which encompasses both irrigation water and energy. The importance of irrigation is frequently highlighted in the cost structures of various crops in south-eastern Spain. García Castellanos et al. [7,34] analyse the irrigation practices employed in the cultivation of lemons in this area. The study indicates that, depending on the management system (conventional vs. organic) and the variety (Fino vs. Verna), irrigation is the second or third most important factor. Similarly, irrigation has been identified as a significant factor in irrigated vineyards [48] in the SE, despite low irrigation allocations (1230 m3·ha−1). In the context of greenhouse crops, such as pepper, this cost is not considered to be high relative to other factors, despite having a much higher allocation than open-air horticultural crops (8750 m3·ha−1 vs. 3250 m3·ha−1 in broccoli). This is due to the fact that greenhouse crops have very high accounting items, such as manual staking, guiding, and significant fixed costs such as the structure of the greenhouse itself [10]. In other horticultural crops cultivated outdoors, water also stands out as a significant cost [35]. Despite the increased use of drip irrigation [4] to increase production efficiency, the scarcity of water in the area and the high price of water determine the importance of this cost [34,45]. Mulching is also becoming increasingly prevalent, with approximately 52% of the Region [4] adopting this practice. This is attributed to its capacity to reduce water consumption by 20–30%, particularly during the spring-summer cycle [49]. Scuderi et al. [47] also highlights the economic significance of irrigation water in Southern Italy.

3.2. Sensitivity Analysis

3.2.1. Irrigation Water

The decline in water supply from the transfer canal, consequently resulting in elevated costs of irrigation, exerts a substantial influence on the economic structure, not only of broccoli, but also of all crops in the southeast region of Spain, including lemons and greenhouse-grown peppers [10,34].
Specifically, for broccoli, it causes a linear increase in the unit cost of production of fresh broccoli (Table 15), reaching 0.59 EUR·kg−1 in the most adverse scenario (Mix 3). This could have a direct impact on the profitability of the crop, taking into account that the average price of broccoli in 2024 is 0.57 EUR·kg−1 [4]. Due to the high volatility in the broccoli market, the effect caused by increases in the price of water can make production activity unviable. In sensitivity analyses carried out on greenhouse-grown peppers for a scenario similar to scenario 2, there is no significant relative difference in the profitability of the crop [10]. In other crops, such as lemons in southeast Spain, García Castellanos et al. [34] have demonstrated that a scenario involving a higher percentage of desalinated water can result in an increase of up to 9% in compensated production costs.
It is important to note that there is a relative difference in the cost of irrigation of 69% between the initial mix and the most unfavorable mix (Table 15). The difference is more than 20% between the most unfavorable scenario proposed (Mix 3) and the one proposed by Martin-Gorriz et al. [45] (Mix 2). This discrepancy results in irrigation becoming the second most important factor in the economic structure of the crop, thus surpassing harvesting.
The results obtained demonstrate the economic impact that a decrease in the availability of water from water transfers and other water sources, such as groundwater, can have. It is therefore always a fundamental line of research to optimize irrigation.

3.2.2. Organic Fertilizers

In scenario B1, the cost of the fertilizer increases considerably. Specifically, the cost is 4106 EUR·ha−1 compared to 681 EUR·ha−1 in the baseline scenario E0 (Table 16). The relative difference with the baseline scenario (E0) is more than 500%, and the unit cost of production increases by 0.19 EUR per kg. The utilization of liquid organic fertilization for this crop is not a viable option at this time. The primary issue is the elevated cost of liquid organic fertilizers, which hinders their utilization in an agricultural sector that, as outlined in the CAP, is required to transition to a progressively sustainable model [26,34]. A further significant challenge pertains to the scarcity of phosphorus-rich liquid organic fertilizers, which complicates the adjustment of balances.
It is evident that scenarios B2 and B3 (solid organic fertilizers) exhibit comparable costs; yet, they are more economical than conventional inorganic fertilizer (indicating a positive relative difference). Nevertheless, this particular type of fertilization does exhibit certain disadvantages when compared with liquid organic and synthetic inorganic fertilizers, given that both the latter options are applicable by means of fertigation. Solid organic fertilizers are characterized by a slow mineralization rate, which results in a gradual absorption process. Due to their application as a single, discrete event, there is no opportunity for adjustment to the crop’s phenological phases. Additionally, these organic solid fertilizers, characteristically exhibit elevated concentrations of phosphorus and potassium relative to nitrogen. This complicates the adjustment of the fertilizer to the precise balance required by the crop. Both options have been adjusted as much as possible to approach the nutrient balance required by broccoli, although the exact fertilizer units needed for this crop have not been fully achieved.
Finally, with scenario B4 (combination of liquid and solid organic fertilizers), crop balance has been achieved at a somewhat higher cost than in the conventional scenario, with a difference of 154 EUR·ha−1 between the two. In principle, solid organic fertilizers permit an economic adjustment of phosphorus in comparison to liquid organic fertilizers. Likewise, the utilization of liquid organic fertilizers has been demonstrated to enhance nutrient availability and facilitate nutrient absorption. Consequently, this final alternative is of interest as it shares the advantages of scenarios B1, B2 and B3 with a low relative difference in terms of cost compared to scenario 0. In any case, it would be necessary to investigate fertilization strategies along these lines and observe how they affect costs and crop productivity.
Another potential option is the approach proposed by Scuderi et al. [47], which suggests that utilizing the Bresov protocol (described in: CORDIS European Commission, [50]) as an innovation in organic cultivation can yield results that are highly comparable to those of conventional cultivation. This methodology significantly reduces the environmental impact through the use of pelletized organic fertilizers. However, as previously stated, the discrepancy in production can have an impact on the economic structure of the crop, and consequently its profitability.

4. Conclusions

As far as cost structure is concerned, labor plays a paramount role, especially during the plantation and harvesting phases. Despite generating less employment per hectare than other more intensively farmed crops, its employment generation rate increases significantly as it is grown in combination with other crops in two cycles per year.
As for irrigation, the analysis shows the relevance that sources of water have in the current climatic situation, and, even more in a worse scenario situation, where low water availability would make costs rise as a result of the high energy demands of desalinated water. It is therefore essential to carry out research into new cultivation systems that may provide higher yields with less water input, as well as into the use of renewable energy resources that may minimize the costs involved in the process of water desalination.
Liquid organic fertilizers have shown the large impact they have on the cost structure of the crop, even making it economically unviable. The following research lines are proposed in order to obtain crops with adequate yields and reduce the use of synthetic inorganic fertilizers: the combined use of liquid and solid organic fertilizers, synthetic inorganic fertilizers in combination with organic amendments, composting strategies with the aim of achieving specific crop balances and more research focused on the formulation of more affordable liquid organic fertilizers to facilitate the transition to organic production models.
According to the information presented on the current state of crop management, and with the aim of increasing its optimization, there are open lines of research concerning plant breeding to obtain resistant varieties, and to improve biological and biotechnological control, not only of broccoli, but also of other outdoor crops.
The importance of periodic economic studies, such as the present one, lies in their role in updating crop costs and facilitating the transparency of economic information. This, in turn, simplifies decision-making processes at both the level of producers and the Public Administrations responsible for agricultural matters. Furthermore, this information is essential to help reach the goals established by the Food Chain Law.

Author Contributions

F.E.C., J.G.G. and B.G.C. conceived and designed the present study. F.E.C., P.E.F.V. and J.G.G. collected the data from producers and companies in the area. F.E.C. made the agronomic calculations and performed the economic analysis, supervised by J.G.G. and B.G.C., F.E.C. drafted the manuscript, J.G.G. and B.G.C. supervised the entire manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by FEDER RM 23–27 C.C.822. Project: “Evaluación económica y ambiental de procesos productivos regionales” of FEDER Región de Murcia 23–27.

Data Availability Statement

All the data generated or analyzed during this study are available within the article or upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. FAOSTAT. Crops and Livestock Products; Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura: Roma, Italia, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  2. CARM. Estadística Agraria de Murcia 2022/2023; Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2023; Volume 31.
  3. FEPEX. Exportación/Importación Españolas de Frutas y Hortalizas; Federación Española de Asociaciones de Productores Exportadores de Frutas, Hortalizas y Plantas Vivas: Madrid, Spain, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  4. CARM. Estadística Agraria de Murcia 2023/2024; Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2025; Volume 32.
  5. MAPA. Estadísticas de Producción Ecológica En España 2024; Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Secretaría General de Calidad y Sostenibilidad Alimentaria: Madrid, Spain, 2025; ISBN 003-25-0391.
  6. CREM. Superficie y Producción Estimada en Agricultura Ecológica Según Tipo de Cultivo; Centro Regional de Estadística de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2025.
  7. García Castellanos, B.; García García, B.; García García, J. Economic and Environmental Assessment of Organic Lemon Cultivation: The Case of Southeastern Spain. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bouvet, J.P.R.; Urbaneja, A.; Pérez-Hedo, M.; Monzó, C. Contribution of Predation to the Biological Control of a Key Herbivorous Pest in Citrus Agroecosystems. J. Anim. Ecol. 2019, 88, 915–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Van Lenteren, J.C.; Bolckmans, K.; Köhl, J.; Ravensberg, W.J.; Urbaneja, A. Biological Control Using Invertebrates and Microorganisms: Plenty of New Opportunities. BioControl 2018, 63, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. García García, J.; García García, B. Sustainability Assessment of Greenhouse Pepper Production Scenarios in Southeastern Spain. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mpumi, N.; Machunda, R.S.; Mtei, K.M.; Ndakidemi, P.A. Selected Insect Pests of Economic Importance to Brassica Oleracea, Their Control Strategies and the Potential Threat to Environmental Pollution in Africa. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chevilly, S.; Dolz-Edo, L.; López-Nicolás, J.M.; Morcillo, L.; Vilagrosa, A.; Yenush, L.; Mulet, J.M. Physiological and Molecular Characterization of the Differential Response of Broccoli (Brassica Oleracea Var. Italica) Cultivars Reveals Limiting Factors for Broccoli Tolerance to Drought Stress. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69, 10394–10404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Xie, Q.; Wei, X.; Liu, Y.; Han, F.; Li, Z. Germplasm Enhancement and Identification of Loci Conferring Resistance against Plasmodiophora Brassicae in Broccoli. Genes 2022, 13, 1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, Q.; Branca, F.; Li, N.; Liu, N.; Ding, Y. Identification of Black Spot Resistance in Broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. italica) Germplasm Resources. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. COM. A Farm to Fork Strategy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
  16. Schebesta, H.; Candel, J.J.L. Game-Changing Potential of the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy. Nat Food 2020, 1, 586–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Falcone, G.; De Luca, A.; Stillitano, T.; Strano, A.; Romeo, G.; Gulisano, G. Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Vine-Growing Combining Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Costing and Multicriterial Analysis. Sustainability 2016, 8, 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rivela, B.; Kuczenski, B.; Sucozhañay, D. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment-Based Tools. In Assessing Progress Towards Sustainability; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 93–118. ISBN 978-0-323-85851-9. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pérez-Ruzafa, A. Informe de Seguimiento Del Estado Ecológico Del Mar Menor y Eventos de Hipoxia y Anoxia; Universidad de Murcia: Madrid, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  20. Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia. Ley 3/2020, de 27 de Julio, de Recuperación y Protección Del Mar Menor; Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE): Madrid, Spain, 2020.
  21. Moreno-Cornejo, J.; Zornoza, R.; Faz, A.; Rosales, R.M. Effects of Pepper Crop Residues and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Properties Relevant to Carbon Cycling and Broccoli Production. Soil Use Manag. 2013, 29, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Scuderi, A.; Foti, V.T.; Timpanaro, G.; Sturiale, L. Economic and Environmental Analysis of Organic Early Potatoes. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1142, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moreno-Cornejo, J.; Caballero-Lajarín, A.; Faz, Á.; Zornoza, R. Pepper Crop Residues and Chemical Fertilizers Effect on Soil Fertility, Yield and Nutritional Status in a Crop of Brassica Oleracea. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017, 17, 648–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marcos-Pérez, M.; Sánchez-Navarro, V.; Zornoza, R. Intercropping Systems between Broccoli and Fava Bean Can Enhance Overall Crop Production and Improve Soil Fertility. Sci. Hortic. 2023, 312, 111834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ollio, I.; Santás-Miguel, V.; Gómez, D.S.; Lloret, E.; Sánchez-Navarro, V.; Martínez-Martínez, S.; Egea-Gilabert, C.; Fernández, J.A.; Calviño, D.F.; Zornoza, R. Effect of Biofertilizers on Broccoli Yield and Soil Quality Indicators. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Torres, J.; Valera, D.; Belmonte, L.; Herrero-Sánchez, C. Economic and Social Sustainability through Organic Agriculture: Study of the Restructuring of the Citrus Sector in the “Bajo Andarax” District (Spain). Sustainability 2016, 8, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gobierno de España. Ley 16/2021, de 14 de Diciembre, Por La Que Se Modifica La Ley 12/2013, de 2 de Agosto, de Medidas Para Mejorar El Funcionamiento de La Cadena Alimentaria.; Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE): Madrid, Spain, 2021.
  28. Ben Abdallah, S.; Gallego-Elvira, B.; Imbernón-Mulero, A.; Martínez-Alvarez, V.; Maestre-Valero, J. Environmental Footprint of Organic and Conventional Grapefruit Production Irrigated with Desalinated Seawater in Spain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 39, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. SIAM. Informes Agrometeorológicos Regionales de Año Agrícola; Sistema de Información Agrario de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2025. Available online: http://siam.imida.es/apex/f?p=101:1:2389755590949204/ (accessed on 31 July 2025).
  30. CEDEX. Evaluación Del Impacto Del Cambio Climático En Los Recursos Hídricos En Régimen Natural; Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas: Madrid, Spain, 2010.
  31. Amestoy Alonso, J.; Amestoy García, J. Precipitaciones, Aridez, Sequía y Desertificación de La Comarca Del Campo de Cartagena. Lurralde Investig. Espac. 2009, 32, 119–154. [Google Scholar]
  32. García Castellanos, B.; García García, B.; García García, J. Economic and Environmental Effects of Replacing Inorganic Fertilizers with Organic Fertilizers in Three Rainfed Crops in a Semi-Arid Area. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. García García, J.; Contreras López, F.; Andujar Sánchez, M.; Martínez Mínguez, F. Evaluación económica y de la eficiencia en el uso del agua en el cultivo de la alcachofa; Vida Rural: Murcia, Spain, 2013; pp. 58–63. [Google Scholar]
  34. García Castellanos, B.; García García, B.; García García, J. Economic and Environmental Assessment of Conventional Lemon Cultivation: The Case of Southeastern Spain. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. García García, J. Estructura de Costes de Las Orientaciones Productivas Agrícolas de La Región de Murcia: Horticultura al Aire Libre y Bajo Invernadero; Técnica; Consejería de Agua, Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Medio Ambiente de la Región de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2020.
  36. García García, J. Estructura de Costes de Los Principales Cultivos En Agricultura Ecológica de La Región de Murcia; Técnica; Consejería de Agua, Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Medio Ambiente de la Región de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2023.
  37. Ballestero, E. Economía de La Empresa Agraria y Alimentaria; Mundi-Prensa Libros: Madrid, Spain, 2000; ISBN 978-84-7114-322-8. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sgroi, F.; Candela, M.; Trapani, A.M.D.; Foderà, M.; Squatrito, R.; Testa, R.; Tudisca, S. Economic and Financial Comparison between Organic and Conventional Farming in Sicilian Lemon Orchards. Sustainability 2015, 7, 947–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tamburini, E.; Pedrini, P.; Marchetti, M.; Fano, E.; Castaldelli, G. Life Cycle Based Evaluation of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Agricultural Productions in the Mediterranean Area. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2915–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mitrović, I.; Todorović, M.; Marković, M.; Mehmeti, A. Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Rainfed and Irrigated Maize Systems in Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Water Clim. Change 2023, 14, 4489–4505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Samuelson, P.A.; Nordhaus, D.W. Economía Con Aplicaciones a Latinoamerica; McGraw-Hill Interamericana: Madrid, Spain, 2006; ISBN 978-84-481-5154-6. [Google Scholar]
  42. MAGRAMA. Guía Práctica de La Fertilización Racional de Los Cultivos En España; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (MAGRAMA): Madrid, Spain, 2010; ISBN 987-84-491-0997-3.
  43. Soto García, M.; Martínez Álvarez, V.; Martín Górriz, B. El Regadío En La Región de Murcia. Caracterización y Análisis Mediante Indicadores de Gestión; Sindicato Central de Regantes del Acuerdo Tajo-Segura: Murcia, Spain, 2014; ISBN 978-84-697-0372-4. [Google Scholar]
  44. MAPA. Resultados Técnico-Económicos de Frutales 2017; Subdirección General de Análisis, Coordinación y Estadística, Subsecretaría, Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 2019.
  45. Martin-Gorriz, B.; Martínez-Alvarez, V.; Maestre-Valero, J.F.; Gallego-Elvira, B. Influence of the Water Source on the Carbon Footprint of Irrigated Agriculture: A Regional Study in South-Eastern Spain. Agronomy 2021, 11, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Expósito, A.; Lorenzo Lopez, A.M.; Berbel, J. How Much Does Reclaimed Wastewater Cost? A Comprehensive Analysis for Irrigation Uses in the European Mediterranean Context. Water Reuse 2024, 14, 434–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Scuderi, A.; Timpanaro, G.; Branca, F.; Cammarata, M. Economic and Environmental Sustainability Assessment of an Innovative Organic Broccoli Production Pattern. Agronomy 2023, 13, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Romero Azorín, P.; García García, J. The Productive, Economic, and Social Efficiency of Vineyards Using Combined Drought-Tolerant Rootstocks and Efficient Low Water Volume Deficit Irrigation Techniques under Mediterranean Semiarid Conditions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Patil, A.; Tiwari, K.N. Evapotranspiration and Crop Coefficient of Okra under Subsurface Drip with and without Plastic Mulch. Curr. Sci. 2018, 115, 2249–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. CORDIS European Commission. Breeding for Resilient, Efficient and Sustainable Organic Vegetable Production/BRESOV/Projekt/Fact Sheet/H2020; CORDIS European Commission: Luxembourg, 2023. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 15 02446 g001
Figure 1. Study area: Region of Murcia, Spain.
Figure 1. Study area: Region of Murcia, Spain.
Agriculture 15 02446 g001
Agriculture 15 02446 g002
Figure 2. Relative costs of broccoli cultivation.
Figure 2. Relative costs of broccoli cultivation.
Agriculture 15 02446 g002
Table 1. Agronomic data of the cultivation model of conventional broccoli production.
Table 1. Agronomic data of the cultivation model of conventional broccoli production.
Planting scheme (m × m) paired rows1 × 0.4
Nº of plants per hectare (Ud)50,000
Gross yield (kg·ha−1)18,500
Non-fresh marketable yield (%)5
Manure (kg·ha−1)5000
Fertilizers (FU) N-P2O5-K2O-CaO-MgO230-80-278-100-28
Phytosanitary treatments (Unit·cycle−1)4
Herbicide treatment (Unit·year−1)1
N° of dripper per hectare (2 dm3·ha−1)25,000
Irrigation water (m3·ha−1)3250
Table 2. Manual weeding cost.
Table 2. Manual weeding cost.
Manual Weeding Yield (h·ha−1)Unit Price (EUR·h−1)
32.009.75
Table 3. Insurance cost.
Table 3. Insurance cost.
Production Insurance Cost (EUR·kg−1)Net Production (Kg·ha−1·year−1)
0.0217,575.0
Table 4. Machinery cost.
Table 4. Machinery cost.
TasksN° Tasks·Year−1 Yield (h·ha−1)Unit Price (EUR·h−1)
Phytosanitary treatment4139.50
Herbicide treatment1139.50
Transportation to warehouse *1329.75
* The labor is not included in this section because it is accounted in harvesting.
Table 5. Fertilizer requirement of conventional broccoli production.
Table 5. Fertilizer requirement of conventional broccoli production.
FertilizersBalance N-P2O5-K2ODose (Kg or dm3)·ha−1Unit Price (EUR·ha−1)
Phosphoric acid0-52-063.10 L·ha−11.25
Urea ammonium nitrate32-0-0288.00 L·ha−10.50
Potassium nitrate13-0-46350.00 kg·ha−11.28
Table 6. Phytosanitary treatments of conventional broccoli.
Table 6. Phytosanitary treatments of conventional broccoli.
TreatmentActive IngredientsDose (Kg or dm3)·ha−1Unit Price (EUR·ha−1)
T. 1Metalaxyl-M238.00
Maxim triclopir0.342.50
Organic matter 30%1.51.60
T. 2Metaldehydo 5%73.60
T. 3Chlorantranilprol 35%0.15510.00
Fluopicolide 6.75% + Propamocarb 52.5%1.533.00
Acetamiprid 20%0.32564.00
Boron 1% + manganese 0.5% + zinc 0.5%0.52.80
T. 4Lambda cyhalotrin 10%0.52.80
Azoxystrobin 18.1% + Difenoconazole 11.3%157.00
Boron 1% + manganese 0.5% + zinc 0.5%0.52.80
Table 7. Costs associated with herbicides treatments.
Table 7. Costs associated with herbicides treatments.
TreatmentDose (L·ha−1)Unit Price (EUR·L−1)
Pendimethalin 40%418.50
Table 8. Costs associated with electrical energy (irrigation).
Table 8. Costs associated with electrical energy (irrigation).
Energy (kWh·ha−1·Year−1)Unit Price (EUR·kW−1·h−1)
485.780.27
Table 9. Costs associated with water (irrigation).
Table 9. Costs associated with water (irrigation).
Dose (m3·ha−1·Year−1)Unit Price·(EUR·m−3)
32500.35
Table 10. Costs associated with harvesting.
Table 10. Costs associated with harvesting.
Manual MeansMechanical Means
Yield (h·ha−1)Unit Price (EUR·h−1)Yield (EUR·ha−1)Unit Price (EUR·ha−1)
175.009.753.009.75
Table 11. Costs associated with personal staff.
Table 11. Costs associated with personal staff.
Yield (h·ha−1)Unit Price (EUR·h−1)
73.69.75
Table 12. Fertilizer requirement for different scenarios.
Table 12. Fertilizer requirement for different scenarios.
Fertilizers Balance N-P2O5-K2ODose (Kg or dm3)·ha−1Unit Price (EUR·ha−1)
B1B2B3B4
Organic liquid fertilizer 10.2-0-01270--4951.07
Organic liquid fertilizer 0-0-52159.5---0.95
Organic liquid fertilizer 8-0-01300---1.95
Manure 1.48-0.56-2.35-10,500375060890.04
Organic solid fertilizer 7-4-6--1435-0.27
Organic solid fertilizer 6-7-7--- 0.29
Table 13. Amortization of the investment of broccoli cultivation.
Table 13. Amortization of the investment of broccoli cultivation.
Initial Investment for the Farm (5 ha)
(EUR)		Initial Investment (EUR·ha−1)Useful Life
(Years)		Residual Value
(EUR·ha−1)		Amortization (EUR·ha−1·Year−1)Fixed Costs * (EUR·ha−1·Year−1)
Shed for equipment16,000.03200.025.0800.098.049
Irrigation equipment13,125.02625.015.00.0178.089
Irrigation network22,550.04510.010.00.0458.0229
Irrigation reservoir16,195.83239.230.0810.082.041
Auxiliary material625.0125.05.00.025.013
68,495.813,699.2 421
The fixed cost of each concept expressed in EUR·ha−1·year−1 includes the opportunity cost. * The fixed costs correspond to 1 cycle.
Table 14. Cost structure of broccoli cultivation.
Table 14. Cost structure of broccoli cultivation.
ConceptAbsolute Cost (EUR·ha−1)Relative Cost (%)
Fixed costs (FCs)
Shed for equipment490.51%
Irrigation equipment890.92%
Irrigation network2292.38%
Irrigation reservoir410.43%
Various130.13%
Total fixed costs4214.37%
Variable costs (VCs)
Preparation and planting328034.05%
Manual weeding3173.29%
Insurance3573.71%
Machinery2913.02%
Fertilizers6817.07%
Phytosanitary products3293.42%
Pesticides750.78%
Maintenance of infrastructure1041.07%
Irrigation energy1331.38%
Irrigation water115511.99%
Manual harvesting176218.29%
Permanent staff7287.56%
Total variable costs921295.63%
Total costs (TCs)9633100.00%
Compensated fresh broccoli cost * (EUR·kg−1)0.550
* Cost per kilo of fresh broccoli produced.
Table 15. Economic sensitivity analysis: variation of costs depending on the variation of water mix.
Table 15. Economic sensitivity analysis: variation of costs depending on the variation of water mix.
Price Mix (EUR·m−3)Irrigation (EUR·ha−1)RD * (%)Compensated Fresh Broccoli Cost (EUR·kg−1)
Mix 0 10.350115500.55
Mix 1 20.4031329−15.060.56
Mix 2 30.5081676−45.110.58
Mix 3 40.5921953−69.090.59
1 Mix 0: 19.8% surface water; 23.4% groundwater; 7.6% reclaimed water; 32.2% from the Tajo-Segura transfer; 17% desalinated water. 2 Mix 1: 19.8% surface water; 23.4% groundwater; 7.6% reclaimed water; 21.5% from the Tajo-Segura transfer; 27.7% desalinated water. 3 Mix 2: 19.8% surface water; 23.4% groundwater; 7.6% reclaimed water; 0% from the Tajo-Segura transfer; 49.2% desalinated water. 4 Mix 3: 7.6% reclaimed water; 92.4% desalinated water. * Irrigation cost RD (%) = 100 × (Mix 0 − Mix n)/Mix 0.
Table 16. Economic sensitivity analysis: variation of costs depending on the variation of fertilization.
Table 16. Economic sensitivity analysis: variation of costs depending on the variation of fertilization.
Fertilization (EUR·ha−1)DR (%)Compensated Fresh Broccoli Cost (EUR·kg−1)
Scenario 0 168100.55
Scenario B1 24106−502.940.74
Scenario B2 338443.610.53
Scenario B3 453022.170.54
Scenario B4 5835−22.610.56
1 E0: Synthetic inorganic fertilization (conventional). 2 B1: Liquid organic fertilization. 3 B2: Solid organic fertilization with only sheep–goat manure (N-P2O5-K2O-CaO-MgO): 1.48-0.56-2.35-2.96-0.91). 4 B3: Solid organic fertilization mix (sheep–goat manure + pelleted fertilizer). 5 B4: Solid organic fertilization (sheep–goat manure + pelleted fertilizer) combined with liquid organic fertilization. DR (%) = 100 × (E0 − Bn)/E0.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Egea Clemente, F.; García Castellanos, B.; García García, J.; Fuster Villa, P.E. Economic Assessment of Conventional Broccoli Cultivation in Southeastern Spain. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232446

AMA Style

Egea Clemente F, García Castellanos B, García García J, Fuster Villa PE. Economic Assessment of Conventional Broccoli Cultivation in Southeastern Spain. Agriculture. 2025; 15(23):2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232446

Chicago/Turabian Style

Egea Clemente, Felipe, Begoña García Castellanos, José García García, and Pedro Enrique Fuster Villa. 2025. "Economic Assessment of Conventional Broccoli Cultivation in Southeastern Spain" Agriculture 15, no. 23: 2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232446

APA Style

Egea Clemente, F., García Castellanos, B., García García, J., & Fuster Villa, P. E. (2025). Economic Assessment of Conventional Broccoli Cultivation in Southeastern Spain. Agriculture, 15(23), 2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232446

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop