Production Costs of Field-grown Cercis canadensis L. ‘Forest Pansy’ Identified during Life Cycle Assessment Analysis

Abstract

<jats:p>University researchers have recently quantified the value of carbon sequestration provided by landscape trees (Ingram, 2012, 2013). However, no study to date has captured the economic costs of component horticultural systems while conducting a life cycle assessment of any green industry product. This study attempts to fill that void. The nursery production system modeled in this study was a field-grown, 5-cm (2-in) caliper <jats:italic>Cercis canadensis</jats:italic> ‘Forest Pansy’ in the Lower Midwest. Partial budgeting modeling procedures were also used to measure the sensitivity of related costs and potential benefits associated with short-run changes in cultural practices in the production systems analyzed (e.g., transport distance, post-harvest activities, fertilization rates, and plant mortality). Total variable costs for the seedling and liner stages combined amounted to $2.93 per liner, including $1.92 per liner for labor, $0.73 for materials, and $0.27 per liner for equipment use. The global warming potential (GWP) associated with the seedling and liner stages combined included 0.3123 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e) for materials and 0.2228 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e for equipment use. Total farm-gate variable costs (the seedling, liner, and field production phases combined) amounted to $37.74 per marketable tree, comprised of $9.90 for labor, $21.11 for materials, and $6.73 for equipment use, respectively. However, post-harvest costs (e.g., transportation, transplanting, take-down, and disposal costs) added another $33.78 in labor costs and $27.08 in equipment costs to the farm-gate cost, yielding a total cost from seedling to end of tree life of $98.60. Of this, $43.68 was spent on labor, $21.11 spent on materials, and $33.81 spent on equipment use during the life cycle of each marketable tree. As per an earlier study, the life cycle GWP of the described redbud tree, including greenhouse gas emissions during production, transport, transplanting, take-down, and disposal, would be a negative 63 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e (Ingram et al., 2013). These combined data can be used to communicate to the consuming public the true (positive) value of trees in the landscape.</jats:p>

Comparison of Three Production Scenarios for Buxus microphylla var. japonica ‘Green Beauty’ Marketed in a No. 3 Container on the West Coast Using Life Cycle Assessment

“…2. Bottom heat to maintain an average substrate temperature of 21°C during the winter propagation periods would be provided by a propanefueled boiler circulating heated water through tubes under the trays as calculated for previous studies (Hall and Ingram, 2014). Well water use was assumed in propagation and the impact of pumping per liner was negligible.…”

Economics of Utilizing Alternative Containers in Ornamental Crop Production Systems

“…The time was multiplied by a factor of 1.25 to account for non-productive time such as set-up, cleanup, etc. (Hall and Ingram, 2014). Labor costs were estimated using the Adverse Effect Wage Rate from 2014 for each state, which is the wage level that must be offered and paid to U.S. and alien workers by agricultural employers of nonimmigrant H-2A agricultural workers (Hall and Ingram, 2014;U.S.…”

“…Input costs for total cost of production (COP), cost per plant, cost per acre, and proportion of average COP for 'Green Velvet' boxwood and 'Dark Knight' bluebeard grown in wood pulp pots in Michigan (MI), Kentucky (KY), Tennessee (TN), Mississippi (MS), and Texas (TX). Labor and water costs calculated separately for five locations where experimental results were collected.Labor costs based on 5 min of labor per plant multiplied by a factor of 1.25 for nonproductive time, paid at the Adverse Effect Wage Rate plus 7% for fringe costs and an additional $2 per h for transportation and housing(Hall and Ingram, 2014; U.S. Department of Labor, 2014). 20…”

“…Labor and water costs calculated separately for five locations where experimental results were collected. Labor costs based on 5 min of labor per plant multiplied by a factor of 1.25 for nonproductive time, paid at the Adverse Effect Wage Rate plus 7% for fringe costs and an additional $2/h for transportation and housing(Hall and Ingram, 2014; U.S. Department of Labor, 2014).…”

Life Cycle Assessment Used to Determine Potential Midpoint Environment Impact Factors and Water Footprint of Field-grown Tree Production Inputs and Processes

“…The major contributor (71% to 76%) to the GWP during production of field-grown trees was shown to be equipment use or diesel and gasoline consumption (Ingram, 2012(Ingram, , 2013Ingram and Hall, 2013). Equipment use also contributes significantly to the variable costs of production (Hall and Ingram, 2014).…”