Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T01:35:54.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy efficiency of organic pear production in greenhouses in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2010

Yuexian Liu ,
Henning Høgh-Jensen ,
Henrik Egelyng  and
Vibeke Langer
Yuexian Liu*
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Ecology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegaard Alle 9, DK-2630Taastrup, Denmark. Information Institute, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, Beijing100094, P.R. China.
Henning Høgh-Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Policy Analysis, National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000Roskilde, Denmark.
Henrik Egelyng
Affiliation:
Danish Institute for International Studies, Strandgade 56, DK-1401Copenhagen, Denmark.
Vibeke Langer
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Ecology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegaard Alle 9, DK-2630Taastrup, Denmark.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The development of organic protected cultivation taking place in densely populated areas has raised the question whether it is an environmentally friendly production system. The present study investigated energy consumption of organic pear production in two production systems, namely in traditional Chinese solar greenhouses and in the open field. In both production systems, energy output/input ratio and energy productivity were used as indicators to determine the energy efficiency; yield, cost of production, net economic return per land area unit and benefit/cost ratio were used to evaluate economic productivity. The analysis results indicated that energy input and energy output per land area unit in the solar greenhouse were higher than in the open field; whereas energy efficiency in terms of output/input ratio and energy productivity were lower in the solar greenhouse than those in the open field. However, if energy input sequestered in the protected structure was excluded in the solar greenhouse production system, energy efficiency was higher in the greenhouse system than in the open-field system. Our analysis further showed that the economic costs, the yield, cost of production, gross product value and net income per land area unit in the greenhouse were more than twice as high as those in the open field due to a higher tree density and a premium price. However, the production taking place in the open field used a great share of renewable energy and higher energy efficiency, which may comply more with the principles of organic farming than the greenhouse production system.

Keywords

organic pearenergy efficiencyeconomic analysisgreenhouse
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 196 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Zhang, Z. 2006. Shading net application in protected vegetable production in China. Acta Horticulturae 719:479–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Luo, W. 2006. Roles and prospects of models in traditional Chinese solar greenhouse crop and climate management. Acta Horticulturae 718:245–254.Google Scholar
3Fluck, R.C. and Shaw, L.N. 1977. Energy analysis of the use of full-bed plastic mulch on vegetables. Proceedings of Florida State Horticultural Society 90:382–385.Google Scholar
4Stanhill, G. 1980. The energy cost of protected cropping: a comparison of six systems of tomato production. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 25:145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Biondi, P., Monarca, D., and Panaro, V. 1991. Energy requirements in Italian Horticulture. Acta Horticulturae 295:53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6El-Helepi, M.M. 1997. Energy and economic analyses of pepper production under plasticulture and conventional systems. MSc thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
7Reganold, J.P., Glover, J.D., Andrews, P.K., and Hinman, H.R. 2001. Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature 410:926–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Chen, D. 2001. Theory and practice of energy-saving solar greenhouse in China. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 17(1):22–26.Google Scholar
9Chen, F. 2002. Agricultural Ecosystem (Chinese). Chinese Agricultural University Press, Beijing. p. 131–140.Google Scholar
10Fluck, R.C. and Baird, C.D. 1980. Agricultural Energetics. AVI Publications, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
11Yin, J., Gao, Z.Q., Zhang, B.L., and Zhen, Y.Y. 1998. A study of the energy conversion system in farming. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University 18(2):95–98.Google Scholar
12Green, M.B. 1987. Energy in pesticide manufacture, distribution and use. In Helsel, Z.R. (ed.). Energy in Plant Nutrition and Pest Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam. p. 165–177.Google Scholar
13Cervinka, V. 1980. Fuel and energy efficiency. In Pimental, D. (ed.). Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 15–21.Google Scholar
14Berry, R.S., Long, T.V., and Makino, H. 1975. An international comparison of polymers and their alternatives. Energy Policy 3(2):144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Wen, D.Z. 1987. The study method of energy flow in agro-ecosystems (in Chinese). Rural Eco-Environment 1:47–52.Google Scholar
16Parr, J.F. and Colacicco, D. 1987. Organic materials as alternative nutrient sources. In Helsel, Z.R. (ed.). Energy in Plant Nutrition and Pest Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam. p. 81–98.Google Scholar
17Galletta, G.J. and Funt, R.C. 1980. Representative United States strawberry energy budget. In Pimentel, D. (ed.). Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 35–44.Google Scholar
18Haseltine, B.A. 1975. Comparison of energy requirements for building materials and structures. Structural Engineer 53(9):357–365.Google Scholar
19Gartner, E.M. and Smith, M.A. 1976. Energy costs of house construction. Energy Policy 4(2):144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Prince, L., Worrell, E., Sinton, J., and Jiang, Y. 2001. Industrial Energy Efficiency Policy in China, presented at the 2001 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry.Google Scholar
21Hannon, B., Stein, R.G., Segal, B.Z., and Serber, D. 1978. Energy and labour in the construction sector. Science 202(4370):837–847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Stout, B.A. 1990. Handbook of Energy for World Agriculture. Elsevier Applied Science, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Hülsbergen, K.J., Feil, B., Biermann, S., Rathke, G.W., Kalk, W.D., and Diepenbrock, W. 2001. A method of energy balancing in crop production and its application in a long-term fertilizer trial. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 86:303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Deike, S., Pallutt, B., and Christen, O. 2008. Investigations on the energy efficiency of organic and integrated farming with specific emphasis on pesticide use intensity. European Journal of Agronomy 28:461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Schilling, G. 1987. Plant Nutrition and Fertilization. Part II—Fertilization. German Agriculture Press, Berlin.Google Scholar
26Ozkan, B., Fert, C., and Karadeniz, C.F. 2007. Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape production. Energy 32:1500–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Baker, L.B.B., Henning, J.C., Jenni, S., and Stewart, K.A. 2000. An economic and energy analysis of melon production using plasticulture. Acta Horticulture 519:231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Munoz, P., Anton, A., Nunez, M., Paranjpe, A., Arino, J., Castells, X., and Montero, J.I. 2007. Comparing the environmental impacts of greenhouse versus open-field tomato production in the Mediterranean region. Acta Horticulturae 801:1591–1596.Google Scholar