Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-mrc2z Total loading time: 1.089 Render date: 2021-04-20T03:29:39.548Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Risk Analysis of Adopting Zero Runoff Subirrigation Systems in Greenhouse Operations: A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Wen-fei L. Uva
Affiliation:
Department of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticulture at Cornell University is now a senior extension associate with the Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics at Cornell University
Thomas C. Weiler
Affiliation:
Department of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticulture at Cornell University
Robert A. Milligan
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics at Cornell University
Louis D. Albright
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering at Cornell University
Douglas A. Haith
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering at Cornell University
Get access

Abstract

Zero runoff subirrigation (ZRS) technology can effectively manage fertilizer input while improving greenhouse production efficiency. However, high capital investment costs and inadequate technical information to growers are impediments for adoption. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to compare the profitability and risks of alternative ZRS system investments for greenhouse operations in the northeastern and north central United States. Results showed that the Dutch movable tray system and the flood floor system were most profitable and least risky for small potted plant and bedding crop flat production, respectively. The trough bench system was least favorable because its profitability was low and highly volatile.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aggarwal, R. editor. 1993. Capital Budgeting Under Uncertainty. Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Bauerle, B. 1990. “Subirrigation: Wave of the Future.Greenhouse Grower 8(10): 9598.Google Scholar
Beytes, C. and Shaw, J.A. 1997. GrowerTalks’ 2nd Annual Wage and Salary Survey. GrowerTalks 61(8): 3839, 42, 44–48, 50, 52.Google Scholar
Blom, T.J. and Piott, B.D. 1992. “Preplant Moisture Content and Compaction of Peatwool Using Two Irrigation Techniques on Potted Chrysanthemums.J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117(2): 220223.Google Scholar
Biernbaum, J.A. 1992. “Root-Zone Management of Greenhouse Container-Grown Crop to Control Water and Fertilizer Use.HortTechnology 2(1): 127132.Google Scholar
Bot, G.P.A. 1992. “New Greenhouse Production Control Strategy.Acta Horticulturae 312: 95100.Google Scholar
Brumfield, R.G. 1994. “Greenhouse Systems’ Costs.Greenhouse Systems—Automation, Culture, and Environment. p. 240254. In Proceedings of the 1994 Greenhouse Systems International Conference, Giacomelli, G.A. and Ting, K.C. (eds.). New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Burnside, O.C. 1982. “Greehouse Benches and Pots Designed to Facilitate Subirrigation.Weed Science 30: 450452.Google Scholar
Casler, G.L., Anderson, B.L. and Aplin, R.D. 1988. Capital Investment Analysis. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Deneke, C.F., Behe, B.K. and Olive, J. 1991. “Influences of Subirrigation on Postproduction Longevity of Poinsettias.Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report Series (7):1516.Google Scholar
Fynn, R.P. 1994. “Water and Nutrient Delivery—Ebb And Flood.Greenhouse Systems—Automation, Culture, and Environment, p. 102112. In Proceedings of the 1994 Greenhouse Systems International Conference, Giacomelli, G.A. and Ting, K.C. (eds.). New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Haver, D.L. and Schuch, U.K. 1996. “Production and Postproduction Performance of Two New Guinea Impatiens Cultivars Grown with Controlled-Release Fertilizer and No Leaching.Journal of American Society for Horticultural Science 121(5): 820825.Google Scholar
Horticultural Water Quality Alliance. 1992. Subirrigation Techniques. Clean & Green—Water Quality Action Manual for Greenhouse and Nursery Growers. Society of American Florists, Alexandria, Virginia, 6572.Google Scholar
Molitor, H.D. 1990. “The European Perspective with Emphasis on Subirrigation and Recirculation of Water and Nutrients.Acta Horticulturae 272: 165173.Google Scholar
Poole, R.T. and Conover, C.A. 1992. “Fertilizer Levels and Medium Affect Foliage Plant Growth in an Ebb and Flood Irrigation System.J. of Environ. Hort. 10(2): 8186.Google Scholar
Purvis, A., Boggess, W.G., Moss, C.B. and Holt, J. 1995. “Technology Adoption Decisions under Irreversibility and Uncertainty: An Ex Ante Approach.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77: 541551.Google Scholar
Ragsdale, C.T. 1995. Spreadsheet Modeling and Decision Analysis—A Practical Introduction to Management Science. Course Technology, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Stathacos, C.J. and White, G.B. 1981. An Economic Analysis of New York Greenhouse Enterprises. Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Uva, W.L. 1999. Economic and Risk Analysis of Adopting Zero Runoff Subirrigation Systems in Greenhouse Operations in the Northeast and North Central United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Uva, W.L., Weiler, T.C. and Milligan, R.A. 1998. “A Survey on Planning and Adoption of Zero Runoff Subirrigation Systems in Greenhouse Operations.HortScience 33(2): 193196.Google Scholar
van Os, E.A. 1986. “Technical and Economical Consequences and Mechanization Aspects of Soiless Growing Systems.Acta Horticulturae 178: 8592.Google Scholar
Vose, D. 1996. Quantitative Risk Analysis: A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulation Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York.Google Scholar
Walker, M. 1990. “Greenhouse Drainage Water Quality: Preliminary Results of a Water Quality Study at Cornell University.” Proceedings of the Greenhouses & Runoff Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Weiler, T.C. 1992. Fertilizer Management of Zero-Runoff Systems. Controlled Environment Agriculture Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 8 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 15th September 2016 - 20th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Risk Analysis of Adopting Zero Runoff Subirrigation Systems in Greenhouse Operations: A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Risk Analysis of Adopting Zero Runoff Subirrigation Systems in Greenhouse Operations: A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Risk Analysis of Adopting Zero Runoff Subirrigation Systems in Greenhouse Operations: A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *