Industrial Ecology Day 2024
Published November 11, 2024 | Version v1
Poster Open

Miscanthus and Biochar in Horticulture: An Economic and Environmental Assessment of Sustainable and Cascading Substrate Solutions

Description

Conventional substrates like peat, stone wool, and coconut coir contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture. Miscanthus and biochar offer sustainable alternatives, but their carbon footprint and economic impacts on crop yields remain understudied. This study combines life cycle carbon footprint assessment and costing to analyze the Global Warming Potential and value chain costs of substrates in tomato cultivation in North-Rhine Westphalia. We compare conventional substrates with miscanthus-based substrates, both single-use and cascading, with and without 1-2% biochar. The results show that miscanthus-based substrates, especially when combined with biochar and cascading methods, reduce emissions and are cost-effective. Miscanthus-based substrates show significant emission savings, and adding biochar can enhance this reduction further. With carbon pricing and removal certificates, these alternatives could become more economically viable, contributing to a sustainable bioeconomy.

 

Files

Poster_JohannaRuett_EnvironEconAssessmentOfHorticulturalSubstrates__IE.pdf

Files (694.4 kB)

Additional details

Related works

Has part
Journal article: 10.1016/j.spc.2024.06.016 (DOI)

Dates

Other
2024-11-11

References

  • 1. Growing Media Europe. (2023). Growing Media Europe. https://www.growing-media.eu/
  • 2. Hirschler, O., & Osterburg, B. (2022). Peat extraction, trade and use in Europe: A material flow analysis. Mires and Peat, 28(24), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2021.SNPG.StA.2315
  • 3. UNFCCC. (2021). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data—Peat extraction (4.D.1.a Peat Extraction Remaining Peat Extraction & 4.D.2.a Land Converted to Peat Extraction). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://di.unfccc.int/flex_annex1
  • 4. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2023). Gemüseerhebung—Anbau und Ernte von Gemüse und Erdbeeren (Fachserie 3 Reihe 3.1.3 - 2022). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Obst-Gemuese-Gartenbau/Publikationen/Downloads-Gemuese/gemueseerhebung-2030313227004.html
  • 5. Moelants, J., Similon, L., & Bosmans, L. (2021). Sustainable organic growing media in a commercial tomato growing system. Acta Horticulturae, 1317, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1317.35
  • 6. Peano, L., Loerincik, Y., Margni, M., & Rossi, V. (2012). Comparative life cycle assessment of horticultural growing media based on peat and other growing media constituents: Final Report. Quantis. http://epagma.eu/evidence-based
  • 7. Paoli, R., Feofilovs, M., Kamenders, A., & Romagnoli, F. (2022). Peat production for horticultural use in the Latvian context: Sustainability assessment through LCA modeling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 378, 134559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134559
  • 8. Clifton-brown, J. C., Stampfl, P. F., & Jones, M. B. (2004). Miscanthus biomass production for energy in Europe and its potential contribution to decreasing fossil fuel carbon emissions. Global Change Biology, 10(4), 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00749.x
  • 9. Kraska, T., Kleinschmidt, B., Weinand, J., & Pude, R. (2018). Cascading use of Miscanthus as growing substrate in soilless cultivation of vegetables (tomatoes, cucumbers) and subsequent direct combustion. Scientia Horticulturae, 235, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.11.032
  • 10. Nguyen, V. T. H., Elfers, J., Kühn, H., Kraska, T., & Pude, R. (2021). Different Miscanthus genotypes as growing media in soilless tomato cultivation and its subsequent use for combustion. Acta Horticulturae, 1305, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1305.41
  • 11. Vaughn, S. F., Kenar, J. A., Thompson, A. R., & Peterson, S. C. (2013). Comparison of biochars derived from wood pellets and pelletized wheat straw as replacements for peat in potting substrates. Industrial Crops and Products, 51, 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.10.010
  • 12. Antón, A., Torrellas, M., Montero, J. I., Ruijs, M., Vermeulen, P., & Stanghellini, C. (2012). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF DUTCH TOMATO CROP PRODUCTION IN A VENLO GLASSHOUSE. Acta Horticulturae, 927, 781–791. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.927.97
  • 13. Boulard, T., Raeppel, C., Brun, R., Lecompte, F., Hayer, F., Carmassi, G., & Gaillard, G. (2011). Environmental impact of greenhouse tomato production in France. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 31(4), 757–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0031-3
  • 14. Dias, G. M., Ayer, N. W., Khosla, S., Van Acker, R., Young, S. B., Whitney, S., & Hendricks, P. (2017). Life cycle perspectives on the sustainability of Ontario greenhouse tomato production: Benchmarking and improvement opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 831–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.039
  • 15. Torrellas, M., Antón, A., López, J. C., Baeza, E. J., Parra, J. P., Muñoz, P., & Montero, J. I. (2012). LCA of a tomato crop in a multi-tunnel greenhouse in Almeria. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(7), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0409-8
  • 16. Torrellas, M., Antón, A., & Montero, J. I. (2013). An environmental impact calculator for greenhouse production systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 118, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.011
  • 17. Sanyé-Mengual, E., Oliver-Solà, J., Montero, J. I., & Rieradevall, J. (2015). An environmental and economic life cycle assessment of rooftop greenhouse (RTG) implementation in Barcelona, Spain. Assessing new forms of urban agriculture from the greenhouse structure to the final product level. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0836-9
  • 18. Stanghellini, C., & Montero, J. I. (2012). RESOURCE USE EFFICIENCY IN PROTECTED CULTIVATION: TOWARDS THE GREENHOUSE WITH ZERO EMISSIONS. Acta Horticulturae, 927, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.927.9
  • 19. Eymann, L., Mathis, A., Stucki, M., & Amrein, S. (2015). Torf und Torfersatzprodukte im Vergleich: Eigenschaften, Verfügbarkeit, ökologische Nachhaltigkeit und soziale Auswirkungen. https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-1372
  • 20. Stucki, M., Wettstein, S., Mathis, A., & Amrein, S. (n.d.). Erweiterung der Studie «Torf und Torfersatzprodukte im Vergleich»: Eigenschaften, Verfügbarkeit, ökologische Nachhaltigkeit und soziale Auswirkungen.
  • 21. Peano, L., Loerincik, Y., Margni, M., & Rossi, V. (2012). Comparative life cycle assessment of horticultural growing media based on peat and other growing media constituents: Final Report. Quantis. http://epagma.eu/evidence-based
  • 22. Toboso-Chavero, S., Madrid-López, C., Villalba, G., Gabarrell Durany, X., Hückstädt, A. B., Finkbeiner, M., & Lehmann, A. (2021). Environmental and social life cycle assessment of growing media for urban rooftop farming. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(10), 2085–2102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01971-5
  • 23. Vecchietti, L., De Lucia, B., Russo, G., Rea, E., & Leone, A. (2013). ENVIRONMENTAL AND AGRONOMIC EVALUATION OF CONTAINERIZED SUBSTRATES DEVELOPED FROM SEWAGE SLUDGE COMPOST FOR ORNAMENTAL PLANT PRODUCTION. Acta Horticulturae, 1013, 431–439. https://ddoi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2013.1013.54
  • 24. Paoli, R., Feofilovs, M., Kamenders, A., & Romagnoli, F. (2022). Peat production for horticultural use in the Latvian context: Sustainability assessment through LCA modeling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 378, 134559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134559
  • 25. Fryda, L., Visser, R., & Schmidt, J. (2019). BIOCHAR REPLACES PEAT IN HORTICULTURE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF COMBINED BIOCHAR & BIOENERGY PRODUCTION. Detritus, 5, 0. https://doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2019.13778
  • 26. Hernández, F., Martínez-Nicolás, J. J., Melgarejo, P., Núñez-Gómez, D., Lidón, V., Martínez-Font, R., & Legua, P. (2022). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Substrate Mixes Containing Port Sediments for Sustainable 'Verna' Lemon Production. Foods, 11(19), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11193053
  • 27. Legua, P., Hernández, F., Tozzi, F., Martínez-Font, R., Jorquera, D., Jiménez, C. R., Giordani, E., Martínez-Nicolás, J. J., & Melgarejo, P. (2021). Application of LCA Methodology to the Production of Strawberry on Substrates with Peat and Sediments from Ports. Sustainability, 13(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116323
  • 28. Hernandez-Apaolaza, L., Gascó, A. M., Gascó, J. M., & Guerrero, F. (2005). Reuse of waste materials as growing media for ornamental plants. Bioresource Technology, 96(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.028
  • 29. Vinci, G., & Rapa, M. (2019). Hydroponic cultivation: Life cycle assessment of substrate choice. British Food Journal, 121(8), 1801–1812. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2019-0112
  • 30. Dorr, E., Sanyé-Mengual, E., Gabrielle, B., Grard, B. J.-P., & Aubry, C. (2017). Proper selection of substrates and crops enhances the sustainability of Paris rooftop garden. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(5), 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0459-1
  • 31. Allaire, S. E., & Lange, S. F. (2017). Report: Horticultural substrates containing biochar: Performance and economy (CRMR-2017-SA-3). Centre de Recherche sur les Matériaux Renouvelables, Université Laval. http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.80968
  • 32. Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., & Pagan, R. (2011). Environmental life-cycle costing: A code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess.