## 4 Results and Discussion
### Agricultural Stage  
Figure 5 shows the results of the carbon, water, and energy footprint of the agricultural stage. For the carbon footprint, fertilization contributed 53.5% of the environmental impacts, which were related to the manufacture, transportation, and supply of these products. While irrigation contributed 22.1% due to the use of the motor pump for water extraction, the manufacturing of plastic and steel pipes from the distribution network was also included. Land preparation contributed 12.9% of impacts, which were associated with the manufacturing and use of plastic for the covering of the soil. With a lower contribution to this category we find plague control, seedbed site, as well as the stage of growth and maturation of the fruit, each of them contributing a share of around 4% of the total environmental impact.  
For water footprint, the water supply from irrigation and rainwater (blue water and green water) contributed 96.7%. Irrigation was related to the extraction and use of water during the dry months, while only the proportion of rainwater that was useful for the plant was quantified [54]. With a much lesser contribution to impact (calculated by the water footprint) was the use of agrochemicals, which together contributed just over 3.3%. Regarding the energy footprint, it had a great similarity to the impact of the carbon footprint due to its close relationship with the supply and combustion of fossil fuels. The application of fertilizers had the greatest contribution, with an impact of 50%, mainly due to the manufacture of agrochemicals. Electricity consumption for irrigation and land preparation each contributed about 18%. Nazri [55] reported a share of 45.7% as a result of the consumption of fertilizers from the fruit cultivation stage, which is a value close to that shown in the current LCA.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **CF** & **WF** & **EF** \\ \cline{2-4}  & **kg CO2 eq** & **L** & **MJ** \\ \hline Agriculture stage (1 kg of fresh pineapple) & 0.47 & 78.60 & 9.09 \\ Packaging (1 kg of packed pineapple) & 0.58 & 82.28 & 11.03 \\ In Syrup (1 kg of in syrup pineapple) & 1.12 & 103.19 & 19.28 \\ Dehydrated (1 kg of dehydrated pineapple) & 5.12 & 782.66 & 97.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Packaging, In Syrup and Dehydrated processes, included environmental impact from the agriculture stage.  
\end{table}
Table 6: Environmental impacts per impact category.  
Figure 6 shows the comparison of the results of the carbon and water footprints in the agricultural stage from the literature to the current LCA for the production of 1 kg of fresh pineapple. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [18] quantified a low value in the carbon footprint (0.172 kg of CO\({}_{2}\) eq.). This could be because bioorganic fertilizers were used in their process. While [PERSON] [21] and [PERSON] [56] reported results ranging from 0.364 to 0.520 kg of CO\({}_{2}\) eq., respectively, in both studies, particular conditions of cultivated land scales, transportation, and different varieties of cultivated pineapple were analyzed with respect to the current study.  
In the case of the water footprint, the current LCA quantified 78.6 L, an impact similar to that reported by [PERSON] [57] of 69.8 L. Due to local conditions, no additional irrigation was required. [PERSON] [21] reported a higher value, 174.5 L. In this study, intensive irrigation water was estimated through farmer surveys. [PERSON] et al. [58] reported a very high water footprint value, greater than 600 L since the total amount of rainwater that occurred in the study area was included as a value of water supply for the cultivation of the fruit. Besides, this study was performed in a tropical zone with abundant rainfall throughout the year.  
Figure 5: Environmental impacts associated with the agronomic stage.  
Figure 6: Comparison of the carbon footprint and water footprint between different authors [18; 21; 56; 57; 58].