Carbon and Water Footprints and Energy Use of Greenhouse Tomato Production in Northern Italy

Abstract

SummaryThis study reports on the carbon, water, and energy footprints of tomatoes grown in a greenhouse in Northern Italy and two possible future variations of heating and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) fertilization on the current setup. The heat supply in place, consisting of natural gas (NG) and canola oil combustion, is compared to cogeneration and incineration of municipal solid waste for heating and CO 2 from industrial exhaust for fertilization. As a benchmark, the current system is also compared to a conventional system, in which heat is delivered solely based on NG. Each kilogram (kg) of fresh tomatoes ("Cuore di Bue" variety) produced in the current greenhouse emits 2.28 kg CO 2 equivalents (eq) and uses 95.5 megajoules (MJ) eq energy and 122 liters (L) of water. Relative to the system in place, the carbon footprint (CF) is 57.5% and 18% higher with conventional NG heating and cogeneration and is 40% lower with waste valorization. Further, 33%, 55%, and 63% less energy and 9%, 96%, and 14% less water are used in the conventional, cogeneration, and waste valorization scenarios, respectively. This confirms that there are multiple strategies to reduce the impact of the tomato production under consideration. Keywords:agriculture cogeneration eco-labeling industrial ecology life cycle assessment (LCA) life cycle energy analysis Supporting information is available on the JIE Web site

The emerging role of water footprint in supply chain management: A critical literature synthesis and a hierarchical decision-making framework

“…Following the previous study of Hess et al (2015), Hess et al (2016) (Almeida et al, 2014) and cereals (Jeswani et al, 2015) production, the study supports that water availability impact is mainly attributed to water consumption from irrigation operations. Ridoutt et al (2009) and Manzardo et al (2016) assess the WF during the life cycle of tomato sauces in Australia and the USA, respectively.…”

“…Moreover, 4% of the articles utilize international standards as individual methodologies in order to calculate freshwater consumption and pollution. Specifically, Almeida et al (2014) and Brodt et al (2013) The quantity of papers that assess water use at each supply chain echelon is depicted in Figure 6.…”

Considerations for reducing food system energy demand while scaling up urban agriculture

“…An average of three Moroccan protected tomato operations had energy inputs of diesel and electricity for fertigation and pesticide application of 460 MJ Mg −1 (Payen et al 2015). With hothouse operations, energy input can increase further, with a selection of studies focusing on tomato cultivation showing energy inputs ranging from 425, 28 500, 76 000 MJ Mg −1 for case studies in Northern Italy, France, and Iran, respectively (Heidari and Omid 2011, Boulard et al 2011, Almeida et al 2014. In the French case, heated operations required six times more energy per unit of weight than the protected system (Boulard et al 2011).…”

Life cycle perspectives on the sustainability of Ontario greenhouse tomato production: Benchmarking and improvement opportunities

“…Ontario, it has been consistently pointed out that environmental performance of 91 greenhouse production is highly influenced by technology and geographical location 92 (Almeida et al, 2014;Brodt et al, 2013;Page et al, 2014). If Ontario producers are to 93 address environmental issues, then LCA research needs to be focused on obtaining 94 technologically and geographically relevant data.…”

“…are also included. Nitrous oxide emissions 181to air from N fertilizer application were not included since this is a soil-less system and 182 nitrous oxide emissions are either considered negligible or there is no consensus on whether 183 emissions occur from these substrates(Almeida et al, 2014). Additionally, it is assumed 184 that there are no other fertilizer emissions to the environment as the fertilizer is delivered 185 through a closed-loop fertigation system.…”