Most recent

14 Sep 2017

The Payoff of Recycling Nursery Water

Pitton, B.J.L., Oki, L.R., Haver, D.L., Johnson, G.E. (University of California Davis)

A large nursery in southern California installed an irrigation runoff capturing system to reduce water expenses and the production quality if the water supply was interrupted. They use a large amount of water, about 1,000 ac-ft/yr at a cost of $944 per ac-ft, so it is also a large expense. In two years, the nursery reused 1,022 ac-ft or about 50% of total water used for irrigation. For those two years, recycling irrigation runoff water saved $809,000. Even though the cost of the project was $900,000, it was recovered in the first year by grants, rebates, and water savings.

See the article in the link bellow

http://www.amerinursery-digital.com/#&pageSet=11

 

29 Aug 2017

2017 California Nursery Conference: Part One

Bridget Behe (Michigan State University), Joshua Knight and Dewayne Ingram (University of Kentucky), Alexa Lamm and Peyton Beattie (University of Florida)

This conference, held on July 27, 2017 in Irvine, CA, focused on Water Management in Nursery and Greenhouse Production. The Clean WateRteam presented their research studies. This first part (of three) covers carbon and water footprint, water conservation, and economic cost of water. The topics covered are:

1-1WaterFootprintofNurseryProduction (2668 KB)     1-2EnvironmentalImpactPotentialandCostNurseryProduction (2704 KB)     1-3EcosystemServicesLandscapePlants (1349 KB)     1-4MarketingWaterUsetoConsumers (1099 KB)     1-5HowGrowersMakeDecisions (716 KB)

4 Aug 2017

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

Ingram, D.L., Knight, J. (University of Kentucky), Hall, C.R. (Texas A&M)

The impact of west coast production scenarios for boxwood marketed in a #3 container on carbon footprint (CF; kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2e)) and variable costs at the nursery gate for Scenario A (propagation to #1 to #3 container) was 2.198 kg CO2e with variable costs of $4.043.  Scenario B (propagation to field to #3 container) was a CF of 1.717 kg CO2e with variable costs of $2.880 and take a year longer in production than the other two models.  The CF of Scenario C (propagation to #1 to #2 to #3 containers) would be 3.364 kg CO2e with variable costs of $5.733. Containers, transplants/transplanting, irrigation, and fertilization accounted for the greatest portion of CF and variable costs in each scenario.  

See the link here

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/52/3/357.abstract

Key
pdfYou will need Adobe's Reader to view this file. Download the reader for free from Adobe's web site

  •   1  
  •   2  
  •   3  
  •   4  

 

×