Evaluation of Energy Use and Some Environmental Impacts for Greenhouse Tomato Production in the High Altitude Tropics

Medina, Antonio Ramírez; Cooman, Alexander; Parrado, Carmen Alicia; Schrevens, Eddie

doi:10.17660/actahortic.2006.718.48

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of reported energy use is lower than that of this study (figure 3c). This partially owes to studies performed in warmer regions, which results in little or no input for heating (Medina et al 2006;Muñoz et al 2008;Cellura et al 2012). In these cases, the largest energy consumer was construction, which agrees with the results at hand.…”

Section: Comparison With Literaturesupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Comparison of results of this study with assessments of tomato production in greenhouses available in literature regarding (A) GHG emissions (• Biel et al ;

Boulard et al ; □ Cellura et al ; Δ Muñoz et al ; ⨯ Williams et al ; ○ Torrellas et al ); (B) water consumption (⊠ Aldaya and Hoekstra ; □ Cellura et al ;

De Pascale and Maggio ; ∇ Medina et al ; Muñoz et al ; * Chapagain and Orr ; ♦ Antón ; • Biel et al ); (C) energy use (• Biel et al ;

Boulard et al ; □ Cellura et al ; ⊗ Hatirli et al ; ∇ Medina et al ; Δ Muñoz et al ). (

Boulard et al ; □ Cellura et al ; ⊗ Hatirli et al ; ∇ Medina et al ; Δ Muñoz et al ; ○ Torrellas et al ; • Biel et al ). kg CO 2 eq kg –1 = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram; l = liters; MJ = megajoules.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Indicators such as carbon (CF) and water footprints (WF) are widely accepted as straightforward, resonant communication tools of food products' environmental sustainability (Aldaya and Hoekstra 2010;Chapagain and Orr 2009;Pandey fifth-most produced agricultural commodity in monetary value in Southern Europe. For this reason, LCAs of agricultural products frequently evaluate different circumstances of tomato production, such as comparative studies on open field versus greenhouse or on different types of greenhouses (Elings et al 2005;Martínez-Blanco et al 2011;Muñoz et al 2008), as well as region-and market-specific cases (Boulard et al 2011;Cellura et al 2012;Pluimers et al 2000;Roy et al 2008;Stoessel et al 2012;Medina et al 2006). In 2011, Italy was the sixth producer of tomato in the world and the second tomato producer country in Europe (FAO 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Almeida

Achten

Verbist

et al. 2014

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Literaturesupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Comparison of results of this study with assessments of tomato production in greenhouses available in literature regarding (A) GHG emissions (• Biel et al ;

Boulard et al ; □ Cellura et al ; Δ Muñoz et al ; ⨯ Williams et al ; ○ Torrellas et al ); (B) water consumption (⊠ Aldaya and Hoekstra ; □ Cellura et al ;

De Pascale and Maggio ; ∇ Medina et al ; Muñoz et al ; * Chapagain and Orr ; ♦ Antón ; • Biel et al ); (C) energy use (• Biel et al ;

Boulard et al ; □ Cellura et al ; ⊗ Hatirli et al ; ∇ Medina et al ; Δ Muñoz et al ). (

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Almeida

Achten

Verbist

et al. 2014

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, an energy gain was achieved in the solar collector greenhouse at the end of the experiment (Figure 7). Comparable values were determined in Spain and in the tropics of Columbia as well (Elings et al, 2005;Medina, Cooman, Parrado, & Schrevens, 2006). With respect to these countries, an EUE level of 1.97 MJ kg -1 and 1.11 MJ kg -1 was estimated, respectively, where this low energy input for crop production was a result of unheated greenhouses.…”

Section: Influenmentioning

confidence: 83%

Plant Production in Solar Collector Greenhouses - Influence on Yield, Energy Use Efficiency and Reduction in CO2 Emissions

Dannehl¹,

Schuch²,

Schmidt³

2013

JAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A semi-closed solar collector greenhouse was tested to evaluate the yield and the energy saving potential compared with a commercial greenhouse. As such, new algorithm for ventilation, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) enrichment, as well as for cooling and heating purposes initiated by a heat pump, cooling fins under the roof and a low temperature storage tank were developed. This cooling system showed that the collector greenhouse can be kept longer in the closed operation mode than a commercial one resulting in high levels of CO 2 concentrations, relative humidity and temperatures. Based on these conditions, the photosynthesis and associated CO 2 fixations within the plant population were promoted during the experiment, resulting in a yield increase by 32%. These results were realized, although the mean light interception by energy screens and finned tube heat exchangers was increased by 11% compared to the reference greenhouse. The energy use efficiency was improved by 103% when the collector greenhouse was considered as energy production facility. In this context, the energy saving per kilogram produced tomatoes in the collector greenhouse is equivalent to the combustion of high amounts of different fossil fuels, where the reduced CO 2 emissions ranged between 2.32 kg and 4.18 kg CO 2 per kg produced tomatoes. The generated total heat was composed of approximately one-third of the latent heat and over two-thirds of the sensible heat, where a maximum collector efficiency factor of 0.7 was achieved.

show abstract

“…Se utilizan diferentes tipos de plástico; en cuanto al color, varía dependiendo de las necesidades del cultivo y la región, cada uno de ellos posee determinadas características, que dan lugar a efectos diferentes sobre los cultivos. Es preciso que el agricultor antes de utilizarlos conozca los efectos de cada uno para tomar las decisiones más correctas, de acuerdo al cultivo que va a establecer y las condiciones climáti-cas de la época y región en que se encuentra (Medina et al 2006). Los productores enfrentan serios problemas cuando el tipo y el color del plástico empleado no es el correcto o cuando se emplea en una zona y época donde los efectos climatológicos no actúan favorablemente en combinación con el color del acolchado empleado: Estos se ven fuertemente modificados por los diferentes colores, provocando efectos impredecibles pudiendo ser favorables o desfavorables para el cultivo, cuando no se tiene el conocimiento necesario (Medina et al 2006).…”

Section: Bunclassified

Plásticos en la agricultura: beneficio y costo ambiental: una revisión

Polanía

Baracaldo

2013

Rev. U.D.C.A Act. & Div. Cient.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use in agriculture of diverse plastic elements, such as bags, covers, hoses, between others, and the inappropriate destruction, translates into environmental and visual pollution of the Colombian field. The present manuscript presents an analysis of the main uses of these products, of their useful life, of its positive or negative bio-degradability and its potential environmental cost, based on recommendations of its management, described in the literature, field observations and suggestions of ways to dispose of this "rubbish", once the elements comply with its purpose. Also, an analysis of a possible replacement of the "plastic" by other elements, less polluting, but potentially usable for the purposes are included in the interest of the agricultural fruit production, soil protection, weed management, between other agronomic practices. We conclude that despite the wide acceptance of the plasticulture technology this is not based on indigenous research that proves its benefits, but in adopting foreign knowledge. Substantial research activity is however being performed in the country in search of biodegradable polymers that could replace the synthetic ones.

show abstract

Evaluation of Energy Use and Some Environmental Impacts for Greenhouse Tomato Production in the High Altitude Tropics

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Plant Production in Solar Collector Greenhouses - Influence on Yield, Energy Use Efficiency and Reduction in CO2 Emissions

Plásticos en la agricultura: beneficio y costo ambiental: una revisión

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About