Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The appropriated carrying capacity of tomato production : comparing the ecological footprints of hydroponic… Wada, Yoshihiko 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1993_fall_wada_yoshihiko.pdf [ 4.83MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0086320.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086320-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086320-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086320-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086320-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086320-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086320-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE APPROPRIATED CARRYING CAPACITY OF TOMATOPRODUCTION: COMPARING THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS OFHYDROPONIC GREENHOUSE AND MECHANIZED FIELDOPERATIONSByYoshihiko WadaB.A. Yokohama City University, 1985A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNINGWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMay 1993© Yoshihiko Wada, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree atthe University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely availablefor reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of thisthesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by hisor her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis forfinancial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.School of Community and Regional PlanningThe University of British Columbia2075 Wesbrook PlaceVancouver, CanadaV6T IZIDate:^June 30, 1993AbstractAgribusiness advocates claim that modern agro-technology has led to higher per hectareyields. In particular, hydroponic greenhouse agriculture is advanced as a new and par-ticularly productive approach to high output farming. This may contribute to the beliefthat agricultural land can be urbanized because human ingenuity is seemingly developingsubstitutes for the lost soil.This thesis challenges this assumption by examining agricultural technology from anecological perspective. It uses the concept of the ecological footprint (or appropriatedcarrying capacity) to compare the productivity of hydroponic agriculture with that ofconventional open field operations. I assess and compare the biophysical inputs requiredby these operations to produce 1000 tonnes of tomatoes. These figures are then translatedinto corresponding land areas (in various categories) necessary to produce the requiredbiophysical inputs. In contrast to common belief, hydroponic operations require 14 - 21times more land than conventional open field operations to produce the same output(including the land directly occupied by the farms).This case study demonstrates the merits of appropriated carrying capacity analysis forassessing progress toward sustainability. It shows that hydroponic agriculture is a primeexample of apparent economic success which is, in fact, ecologically unsustainable. Thereis no reason for confidence that we can pave over our agricultural lands just yet! Finally,this study demonstrates that the apparent yields of hydroponic greenhouse agricultureare partially a reflection of underpriced resource inputs, a form of subsidy which is notsustainable.Table of ContentsAbstractList of Tables^ viList of Figures^ viiAcknowledgements^ viii1 Introduction 11.1 Problem Statement ^ 11.2 Purpose ^ 31.3 Methods 41.4 Significance of the Work ^ 42 The Concept of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity 72.1 Natural Capital: A Key Word for Sustainability ^ 72.2 The Constancy of Capital Stock Criterion for Sustainability ^ 82.3 Definition of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity^. 102.4 Advantage of EF/ACC Analysis over Energy Analysis/Audit (EA) . . 102.5 Application of the Concept of Ecological Footprint/ Appropriated Carry-ing Capacity ^ 123 Methods/Procedure 133.1^Case Selection (Hydroponic Greenhouse Operations) ^ 133.2 Data Collection (Hydroponic Greenhouse Operations) ^ 143.3 Case Selection (Small-scale Field Operations)  ^153.4 Data Collection (Small-scale Field Operations)  ^153.5 Data Processing  ^164 Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^ 174.1 Separation of Data  ^174.2 Energy Intensity  ^194.3 Rate of Conversion from Energy to Land-Equivalent ^ 274.4 Renewable Inputs ^  284.5 Cost and Prices  294.6 Other Assumptions and Missing Data ^  324.7 Transportation: Means and Distance  335 Case Study^ 365.1 Definition of the Terms ^  365.2 Comparison of the Data  376 Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^466.1 Analysis  ^466.2 Policy Implications ^  476.3 Directions for Further Study  ^53Bibliography^ 55Appendices^ 62A Calculation Process of Fertilizer Energy Intensity^ 62ivB Average Figures of Energy Intensity for Pesticides^ 64C Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 65VList of TablesA.1 Estimated Energy Intensity of Chemical Fertilizers ^ 63B.2 Energy Intensity Figures of Chemical Herbicides, Insecticides, and Fungicides 64C.3 Spreadsheet for "Greenhouse A" Hydroponic Greenhouse Tomato Produc-tion  ^66C.4 Spreadsheet for "Greenhouse B" Hydroponic Greenhouse Tomato Produc-tion  ^69C.5 Spreadsheet for HillTop Gardens Field Tomato Production ^ 72C.6 Spreadsheet for Horsting Farms Field Tomato Production  74viList of Figures5.1 EF/ACC of Greenhouse and Field Operations ^  385.2 Comparison of Productivities of Total Land Areas  385.3 Growing Area Needed for Production of 1000 tonnes of Tomatoes^395.4 Productivity of Growing Area ^  405.5 Revenue of Growing Area  415.6 Profitability of Growing Area ^  415.7 Components of EF/ACC for Greenhouse A ^  425.8 Components of EF/ACC for Greenhouse B  435.9 Components of EF/ACC for HillTop Gardens Operation ^ 445.10 Components of EF/ACC for Horsting Farms Operation  45viiAcknowledgementsI do not know how to express fully my gratitude to Professor William E. Rees andProfessor Art Bomke for their advise, generous support and encouragement throughoutthe course of this research. Professor Rees has been very patient about the slow progressof my study. His guidance, in fact, has continued not only during this thesis project,but also since I arrived in Canada two years and several months ago. I have learned anumber of things from him. Professor Bomke has contributed a great deal to my researchin terms of the history of agriculture in British Columbia and North America and thetechnical side of my thesis. I owe very much to my good friend, Mathis Wackernagel, aPh. D. candidate of the school, who has given me guidance and dedicated his assistanceto me constantly and with patience. I am certain that he will make an excellent teacheras well as an outstanding scholar like the above professors.I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to my sponsors,the International Council for Canadian Studies, the Government of Canada, and theFoundation for Advanced Studies on International Development.I am grateful to Mr. Jim Portree, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,Professor Anthony Lau, Bio-Resource Engineering Department at UBC, Professor Rey-mond Cole, the School of Architecture, Dr. Lyn Pinkerton, a Research Associate ofthe Planning School, and Professor Carolyn Egri, the Faculty of Business Administra-tion at Simon Fraser University for their technical assistance and for introducing me toresource persons, the greenhouse owners and the field farmers. Dr. John Cobb, Jr.,Professor Emeritus at the School of Theology at Claremont, California kindly gave mecomments on the early version of my thesis proposal. I would like to extend my gratitudeviiito Professor Yuichi Inoue, Nara Institute of Technology, a graduate of the UBC PlanningSchool, and Ph. D. candidate of the University of Victoria who has provided advice andencouragement for the last three years.I am thankful to the greenhouse owners and managers and field farmers, Mr. WayneRice and Mr. Ted Horsting, and their families, for their continued support and the sacri-fice of their time. I feel obligated to the suppliers of agricultural equipment and materials,greenhouse builders, the chemical, utility and transportation industries, governmental or-ganizations, libraries and a museum for providing me with various information and data.I am thankful to other faculty members of the Planning School, professors Artibise,Davis, Hightower, McDaniels, Boothroyd, and Gurstein. I would like to express mysincere appreciation to administrative staff, Bonnie, Patti, and Maureen for their supportand boost.My stay in Canada would have been impossible without my precious friends in Van-couver who come from across Canada and all over the world. When I arrived in Canadatwo years and several months ago, I could not imagine how much blessing and supportI would receive through my friends, without whom my life and study in Canada wouldhave been far less fruitful, meaningful and enjoyable. I am grateful to my Japanesefriend, Mr. Hisa Kusuda, a Ph. D. candidate in Economics, who has encouraged andassisted me in editing and printing day and night and in helping me get started in themornings. Professor Nagatani, the Department of Economics, and his family have givenme precious advice and encouragement since I arrived in Vancouver. My church friendsfrom Yokohama, Yutaka and Masayo Zama who happened to study in Vancouver (theVancouver School of Theology) have given me constant support and encouragement forthe last three years. I am also thankful to my Canadian (quasi Japanese) friend, Janettewho has helped me with my English and as a coordinator for the UBC Task Force onHealthy and Sustainable Communities provided me with helpful results and information.ixHer husband Jeff helped me with the technical part of my thesis. Tamsin and Derrickfrom Nova Scotia have given me encouragement regularly and helped me in editing mythesis. John from Ontario gave me comments on the contents and language. Tony fromToronto who shared an office with me has helped me with my English, both written andoral. Dong-Ho Shin from Korea, a graduate of the Planning School and Ph. D. candidatein Urban Studies Program has provided me with appropriate advice and encouragement.Katsu and Satoko who stayed in Ottawa and later in Honolulu gave me comments onthe earlier version of my proposal. Loralee from Ottawa has given me encouragementand valuable suggestions. Aki from Japan has given suggestions and advice. Hiroko fromJapan has demonstrated me an ideal model of a graduate student. Robert from Ontariogave me comments and words of cheer.I wish to thank Rev. and Mrs. Aki, Rev. Neville Jacobs and church members,professors McGee and Edgington, Katie, the Sumi's, the Sato's, Professor Mori, ProfessorIsshu, Masa and his family, the Rev. Watanabe's, the Nagashima's, the Nakano's, Ms.Tunbridge, Jean, Nobuko, Nana, Mozaffer, Sahaji and their wives, Sudharto, Akonyu,Donna, Mark, Mark, Mike, Mike, Steve, Millie, Zarina, Bernie, Ghislain, Byron, Signe,Kim, Sue, Jerome, Sinclair, Eugeni, Jennie, Averil, Bruno, Darlene, Phil, Serena, Kyong-Ja, Norio, Hisayo, Mitsuru, Haruyo, Tomo, Kaz, Richard, Chudae, Robert and Angela,  for their encouragement and support.I am grateful to my ex-bosses and colleagues at IDCJ, professors and friends in Japanfor their moral support: Mr. Sekikawa, Ms. Yamazaki, Ms. Yasumuro, Mr. Horiguchi,Ms. Saito, Ms. Oba, Ms. Taguchi, ..., professors Ohkawa, Hara, Kohama, Hondai,Teranishi, Yoshikawa, Otsuka, Fujita, ..., Mr. Mochizuki, the Nemoto's, Dr. Takase, Dr.Honjo, Dr. Uchida, Mr. Sakamoto, Mr. Domoto, Dr. Nakashima, Mr. Kawahara, Mr.Tanaka, professors Sumi, Kuramochi, Kato and Miyazaki, Mr. Yoshida, Dr. Koizumi,Dr. Hirayama, Mr. Yohena, the Yoshikawa and Koroku family and Professor Ono andhis family, members of ESS, STET and APIC.I wish to thank the citizens of B.C., Canada and Japan for supporting my education.I would like to extend my appreciation to the late Fran Hadlock, my excellent Englishtutor and friend, who was sent to Heaven two years ago. I pray that her spirit may restin peace there.Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Keiki and Kieko, and brothers, Yasuhiko andNaohiko and aunt, Yuriko, cousin Isao and his family for their dedication and support.Without the support and encouragement from all mentioned above, I could not havecompleted the thesis project. All the defects in this thesis, of course, remain mine.xiChapter 1Introduction1.1 Problem StatementTechnological optimists believe that there are no practical constraints on food pro-duction (Simon 1981 pp. 67 - 69). For example, it is widely believed that industrializedhydroponic greenhouse farming can increase agricultural output (harvest) per hectare ofland far beyond that of conventional field agriculture (see Defreitas 1992 p. 18 and WallStreet Journal, June 6, 1987 p. 20). This belief might be used to argue the superiority ofindustrial agriculture over traditional field cultivation and could be used to weaken ar-guments for conservation of our limited arable land. It is questionable, however, whetherhigh-tech agriculture is actually more productive per unit of land than traditional fieldproduction. Hydroponic farming practice requires many energy and material inputs andthe production of these inputs "appropriates" the production of additional land often inother parts of the world.Turning to the present state of world agriculture and food security, we find a numberof trends which make us apprehensive, including soil erosion, global climate changes andthe explosion of human population. Rees states:Agriculture everywhere is increasingly constrained by ecological trends includingloss of topsoil, excessive runoff, waterlogging and salting of soil by irrigation, fallingwater tables, farmland conversion, and now possibly climate change (Rees 1990ap. 110).1Chapter 1. Introduction^ 2The problem of soil loss is critical as Pimentel et al. (1987) point out:Serious soil erosion is occurring in most of the world' major agricultural regions,.... Soil loss rates, generally ranging from 10 to 100 t /ha/yr on cultivated lands,are exceeding soil formation rates by at least tenfold ( p. 277).Due to severe soil loss, current world food production is threatened. According toShah et al. (1985), "based on current worldwide soil loss, and projections for the periodfrom 1975 to 2000, degradation of arable land will depress food production between 15to 30 %" (cited in Pimentel et al. 1987 p. 278).At the same time, human needs are growing rapidly. Rees and Brown warn us:If these data were adequate to aggregate for the world as a whole, it undoubtedlywould show that sustainable world food output is now running well below consump-tion. The annual addition to world population, estimated at 88 million in 1988, isprojected to reach 91 million in the early nineties. By the end of the decade, therewill be nearly a billion more people to feed. In the two regions with the fastest pop-ulation growth, Africa and Latin America, per capita grain production is falling.If action is not taken soon to reverse these declines, hunger and malnutrition willspread, and eventually food consumption for some will fall below the survival level(Brown 1988 pp. '7 - 8, cited in Rees 1990a p. 110).'Despite the potential decline in global agricultural productivity and rising population,some may argue that high-tech agriculture will solve these problems and that therefore'The current world population is 5.04 billion in 1987 (Teikoku Shoin Henshubu 1991). The UnitedNations (U.N.) estimate that the world population will reach 9.42 billion in 2025. Kuroda estimatesthat it will reach 10 billion in 2030 by using the U.N.'s estimate (Kuroda 1991). The U.N. estimate thatthe world population will be stabilized at 11 billion at the end of 21st century (Kuroda 1991). Sadikstates that this figure may be 14 billion if the decline in birthrates is smaller than expected (1990, citedin Kuroda 1991). If these estimates are correct, 2- 3 times more people have to be fed on this planet atthe end of the 21st century.Chapter 1. Introduction^ 3we need not worry about the soil loss or the urbanization of arable land. The importantquestion is, therefore, whether hydroponic greenhouses are really more productive thantraditional field farming. More broadly, is high-tech agriculture really a clear-cut solutionto this potential global crisis?The correct answers to such questions are central to the survival of humankind. Inparticular, the issues addressed by this study are key for determining the future directionof agriculture, land-use, and development policies. The wisdom of humankind is nowbeing tested. If we err, future generations will hold us to account for any resultant wide-spread hunger and malnutrition. We have to remember that once an environmental assetis degraded, its loss is essentially irreversible (see Inoue 1986).1.2 PurposeThe primary purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether a heated hydroponicgreenhouse can sustain higher productivity per unit area compared to traditional mech-anized open field farming practice. The research is oriented to determining which systemis actually more productive in an input-output framework on a land equivalent basis.There are three sub-objectives.1) to demonstrate the applicability of an ecological analytical framework to assessagricultural sustainability. I employ a new concept, Ecological Footprint (EF) or Appro-priated Carrying Capacity (ACC) developed by Rees and Wackernagel at the Universityof British Columbia (UBC) in 1991 (Rees 1992, Rees and Wackernagel 1992) to show thetrue "ecological footprints" of agricultural practices.2) to show an example of the conflicts between individual economic benefit and totalsocial, ecological costs. These conflicts characterize the sustainability debate! (See Rees1993c, Hara 1992).Chapter 1. Introduction^ 43) to explore policy implications for sustainable agriculture and more generally forachieving a sustainable society.1.3 MethodsIn order to achieve the above purposes, I analyse and compare two hydroponic tomatogreenhouses in Surrey, B.C. and two mechanized open field tomato farms in SpencesBridge and Cache Creek, B.C. I calculate their energy and material inputs and outputsusing both the EF/ACC analysis and an economic analysis. Details are presented inChapter 3.1.4 Significance of the WorkA comparative case study of hydroponic greenhouse and open field tomato productionis worth pursuing for the following reasons.(i) Relationship to Previous ResearchThere have been no previous comparative analyses of the ecological footprints ofalternative agricultural technologies. There have been several studies to examine theenergy requirements of field agriculture. For example, Odum (1971), Hannon (1973),Leach (1975, 1976), Udagawa (1975), Green (1978), Smil (1979), Fluck and Baird (1980),Pimentel (1979, 1980, 1984), Stanhill (1980, 1984), Rambo (1984a, 1984b), Stout (1984,1990), Geyer et al. (1987), Helsel (1987), Martinez-Alier (1987), Cleveland (1991) andothers have worked extensively on such energy audits. However, little has been reportedon the energetics of heated greenhouse crop production and I am aware of only onepublished study on greenhouse tomato growing (Stanhill 1980). Certainly there is noprevious empirical research on the energetics of greenhouse tomato production in BritishColumbia, which includes both energy directly consumed and embodied energy of theChapter 1. Introduction^ 5input materials.2One of the few studies on the energetics of greenhouse crop production is "The EnergyCost of Protected Cropping: A Comparison of Six Systems of Tomato Production" byStanhill (1980). He compared energy inputs, both direct and embodied, to six differenttypes of tomato production in California, Israel, and England, namely mechanized andlabour-intensive open field operations without protective cover, open field operationsprotected by plastic net roofs and by low plastic tunnels, unheated greenhouse and heatedgreenhouse operations. One of the cases is a heated greenhouse in England.(ii) Uniqueness of This StudyThis research, however, is distinctive from Stanhill's. First, his analysis is entirelyfocused on energetics, while my research uses the concept of Appropriated CarryingCapacity (ACC), to estimate the total ecological footprints of the competing technolo-gies. Putting it simply, I convert energy inputs and embodied energy into their land-equivalents.Second, Stanhill's greenhouses were standard heated greenhouses, whereas my sam-ples are hydroponic greenhouses, which use no soil as plant beds.Third, his research data are taken from The U.K. Tomato Manual, while my researchis based on detailed primary data collected for typical cases. The empirical aspect of theresearch deserves attention also.In addition, this research compares the conclusions from both an ecological analysisand economic analysis, and tries to demonstrate conflicts between the two.Finally, the geographical context is unique. There is no documented research onhydroponic greenhouses either in Canada or the United States in terms of either energy'This was confirmed through the interview with Professor Anthony Lau, Department of Bio-ResourcesEngineering at the University of British Columbia held on October 2, 1992, one with Professor Len Staleyof the same department held on April 21, 1993, and one with Mr. Gordon Monk, President of the WesternBiotech Engineering held on April 21, 1993.Chapter 1. Introduction^ 6analysis or ecological footprints.(iii) Why Tomatoes?The tomato is one of the most prevalent vegetables grown in greenhouses. Stan-hill calls tomatoes "the most important protected food crop" (1980, p. 145). In B.C.,tomatoes account for 44 % of all vegetable greenhouse crops by sales volume in 1991.Tomatoes have the largest share, followed by green peppers (30 %), cucumbers (23 %)and lettuce (3 %) (B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1991b). Therefore,discussion of greenhouse tomato production is a significant contribution to the debate ongreenhouses in general.Secondly, tomatoes play a key role in the North American diet. According to Stevens(1972, p. 90), the tomato is the top ranking contributor to North American's nutrientintake. The tomato's relative nutrient value is not high, but the quantity of tomatoesconsumed, including both fresh and processed, is large. In fact, a tomato's relativenutrient value per unit mass is only ranked 16th among 39 major fruits and vegetablesin the U. S. in 1970 (p. 89), but its production mass ranked 3rd (6 million tonnes),after potatoes being the first (16 million tonnes) and oranges being the second (7 milliontonnes) (p. 88). Therefore, any findings for tomato production are significant to NorthAmerican agriculture.Chapter 2The Concept of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity2.1 Natural Capital: A Key Word for SustainabilityThe primary purpose of this research is to assess the sustainability of agriculture, rec-ognizing that maintaining adequate stocks of natural capital is fundamental to ecologicalsustainability. Since "Natural Capital" is an important prerequisite for sustainability,I would like to clarify what the concept means. There are various interpretations. Forexample, Barbier identifies natural capital very narrowly as commercially available re-newable and non-renewable resources (1992). However, I feel that non-traded naturalresources (e.g. the atmosphere and the ozone layer) and nature's functions and services(e.g. the forest's carbon dioxide absorption function) are important components of nat-ural capital and that thus, broader interpretation is essential. I therefore agree with thefollowing definition by Rees, and Wackernagel and Rees:Natural capital is not just an inventory of resources; it includes those componentsof the ecosphere, and the structural relationships among them, whose integrityis essential for the continuous self-production of the system itself. Indeed, it isthis highly evolved structural and functional integration that makes of the eco-sphere the uniquely livable "environment" it is for the very organisms it comprises(Rees 1990b, 1993). Geoclimatic, hydrological, and ecological cycles do not simplytransport and distribute nutrients and energy but are among the self-regulatory,homeostatic mechanisms that stabilize conditions on Earth for all contemporarylife-forms, including humankind (Wackernagel and Rees 1992).7Chapter 2. The Concept of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity 82.2 The Constancy of Capital Stock Criterion for SustainabilityThere has been an increasing recognition among most ecological economists and someneoclassical economists that sustainability requires constant capital stocks which areat least adequate to produce sustainable flows (income) sufficient to support the humanpopulation at a satisfactory material standard (constant stocks below this level will notsustain us). Of course if population or consumption is growing, the stocks must increaseto maintain "adequate" flows (Repetto 1986, Daly and Cobb 1989, Daly 1989, Pearceand Turner 1990, Rees 1993). In essence, adherence to this criterion would require thateach generation leave the next generation an undiminished stock of productive assets.There are two interpretations of the constant capital stock idea (adapted by Rees 1993from Pearce et al. 1989):a) each generation should inherit an aggregate stock of manufactured and naturalassets no less than the stock inherited by the previous generation. This corresponds toDaly and Cobb's (1989) conditions for "weak sustainability";b) each generation should inherit a stock of natural assets alone no less than thestock of such assets inherited by the previous generation. This is a version of "strongsustainability" as defined by Daly and Cobb (1989).The first interpretation reflects the general assumption of neoclassical economics thatnatural and humanly created capitals are substitutes and that the former (e.g., forests)can rationally be liquidated through "development" as long as subsequent investmentin the latter (e.g., machinery) provides an equivalent endowment to the next generation(Rees 1993).The second interpretation better represents the ecological principles than the first1 " 'Equivalent endowment' would be defined in terms of monetary value, wealth generation potential,jobs, and similar economic criteria. (It is worth noting that humankind has regrettably failed to achieveeven the modest objectives of 'weak sustainability' in much of the world.)" (Rees 1993 p. 10)Chapter 2. The Concept of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity 9one. Particularly, maintaining natural capital stocks recognizes the multifunctionalityof biological resources everywhere, "including their role as life support systems" (Pearceet al. 1990). In this regard, "strong sustainability" recognizes that manufactured andnatural capital are complements rather than substitutes in most production functions(Daly and Cobb 1989). For example, what can be substituted for the protective functionof the ozone layer? Rees (1992) and Rees and Wackernagel (1992) and this study acceptthe "strong" definition based on biophysical assets alone.To meet this constant capital stocks criterion, Rees (1990) suggests that for the fore-seeable future, humankind must learn to live on the annual production (the "interest")generated by remaining stocks of natural capita1.2 The "interest" in this context canbe equated with the "net primary production" of the ecosphere. Living on this "netprimary production," i.e., on sustainable income flows rather than on capital becomes aprecondition for sustainability.EF/ACC is a tool for estimating, from a biophysical perspective, the amount of nat-ural capital needed to sustain a given economy or industrial process. EF/ACC measuresthe constant natural capital stock required to support our economy in land equivalents.Details of EF/ACC will be discussed in the following sections.2This concept is based on Hicksian (or sustainable) income, the level of consumption that can bemaintained from one period to the next without reducing wealth (productive assets) (Rees 1993, seeHicks 1946 and Daly and Cobb 1989).Chapter 2. The Concept of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity 102.3 Definition of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying CapacityWackernagel and Rees define the Ecological Footprint (EF) or Appropriated CarryingCapacity (ACC) for a region as:the land (and water) area in various categories required exclusively by the peoplein this regiona) to continuously provide all the resources they currently consume, andb) to continuously absorb all the waste they currently discharge.This land exists right now somewhere on the globe, although some appears tobe borrowed from the past (e.g., fossil energy) and some is being permanentlyappropriated from the future (e.g., in the form of contamination, plant growthreduction through increased UV radiation, soil degradation, etc.). (Wackernageland Rees 1992).Accordingly, I define the Ecological Footprint (EF) / Appropriated Carrying Ca-pacity (ACC) of agricultural operations (such as, hydroponic greenhouse, conventionalmechanized farming, and so on) as follows:The sum of the occupied farmland and the land-equivalent of other inputs(energy, materials, etc.) required to produce a defined unit of crop per year,using defined agricultural technology.2.4 Advantage of EF/ACC Analysis over Energy Analysis/Audit (EA)(i) EF/ACC Analysis Looks at Natural Capital More ComprehensivelyAs mentioned, EF/ACC serves as a surrogate for several ecological dimensions ofnatural capital. Energy Analysis (EA), however, is unidimensional, focusing exclusivelyon energy. EA emphasises inputs of commercial energy, i. e., fossil fuels (Murota 1979Chapter 2. The Concept of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity 11p. 141) and ignores the contribution of the functional integrity of ecosystems to economicprocesses. In other words, EA identifies fossil fuels as a limiting factor for the economy.The EF/ACC analysis considers the bioproductivity of ecosystems (land equivalents)in addition to the structural and functional relationships among components of the eco-sphere as limiting factors of economic activity. EF/ACC, therefore, raises concerns aboutchanges in the ecological conditions, such as climate change, the depletion of the ozonelayer, and so on that threaten ecosystems production. As these factors change, biopro-ductivity may change, and this would be reflected in EF/ACC computations. Hence,EF/ACC is an ecological aggregate indicator of sustainability.(ii) Land as a Limited ResourceEnergy Analysis (EA) focuses on fossil fuel consumption because of the limited andnonrenewable features of this currently predominant energy source. This might givethe illusion to society that other energy forms such as solar energy might free us fromscarcity of resources as long as means for energy conversion and storage are advancedand/or that human activity may be expanded limitlessly as far as we can utilize thisabundant energy source. Rees points out the danger of this kind of logic by stating thateven though energy is unlimitedly available, there are other factors which will limit ourgrowth. He insists on the superiority of the EF/ACC analysis, a land-based analysis,and that everyone recognises that land is limited. Therefore the EF/ACC concept willnot create the same illusion about our capacity to grow (Rees, public lecture held at theDepartment of Geography, the University of British Columbia, February 24 1993).(iii) Ease of Visualising Land AreaA given area of land is easy to imagine. We use land area comparisons in our dailylife. For example, Canada is 27 times larger than Japan. My room is half the size of myhousemate's, etc. Energy, however, is hard to visualize because it is invisible by itself andthere is no theoretical limit to its quantity. We may realize the existence and magnitudeChapter 2. The Concept of Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity 12of energy indirectly by looking at the motion of an object, measuring its temperatureand so on. In our daily conversation, however, formal units of energy such as "Joule" or"Giga joule" are seldom referred to. Although the term "calorie" is one exception, it ismainly used for dietary purposes.For the above three reasons, I would conclude that it is advantageous for us to usethe EF/ACC analysis rather than Energy Analysis (EA) for conducting more accurateresearch in examining the reality of the ecosphere.2.5 Application of the Concept of Ecological Footprint/ Appropriated Car-rying CapacityThe Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Capacity is a new concept withonly a few empirical applications to date. Studies on the land implications of Canadianconsumption patterns and rough analyses of other nations' have been in progress (Wack-ernagel et al. 1993). EF/ACC does not only serve as an effective decision-making tooltoward sustainability but it also enables comparisons between municipalities, or morespecifically, different types of possible development patterns etc. Since 1991, Rees andWackernagel, through the Task Force on Planning Healthy and Sustainable Communitiesat the University of British Columbia, have been working with staff at the City of Rich-mond, B.C. to develop and clarify the concept. They have also been giving advice ontechnical aspects of its application, etc., and have involved their citizens in the planningprocess.Chapter 3Methods/ProcedureFor this research, two hydroponic tomato greenhouse operations and two tomato fieldoperations have been empirically examined both in terms of their Appropriated CarryingCapacity and their economic performance.3.1 Case Selection (Hydroponic Greenhouse Operations)The greenhouses have been selected by five criteria:• First, that the case is a typical B.C. operation. By typical, I mean in size ofoperation, method of production and direct productivity per hectare.• Second, that the owner has the willingness and time to support my research. Co-operation from the greenhouse owner is essential for this kind of research.• Third, that the owner has on file reasonable data and information about variousinputs.• Fourth, that the owner can isolate the data for the subject tomato operation fromthat for other crops. Many greenhouses diversify their operations in terms of kindsof crops. To make the research as simple as possible, I concentrated only on toma-toes of regular size, leaving out cherry tomatoes.• Fifth, that the location is not too far from Vancouver, to make it accessible.13Chapter 3. Methods/Procedure^ 14Mr. Jim Portree, a greenhouse specialist from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fish-eries and Food stationed at Abbotsford Agriculture and Food Centre recommended twotypical hydroponic greenhouse operations in Surrey: these are referred to as "GreenhouseA" and "Greenhouse B" in this thesis.' Both greenhouses met my five criteria.3.2 Data Collection (Hydroponic Greenhouse Operations)There are more than 50 different inputs to a greenhouse, including the land occupied,the greenhouse building, irrigation, ventilation, heating, drainage pipe, carts, trucks,sawdust and rockwool (a soil-substitute), ground cover, electricity, natural gas, fertilizersand liquid CO2. Therefore the case studies required a large amount of data pertainingto a variety of areas. For each input, I collected seven pieces of information, namely:material, mass, energy intensity, expected life span, price, and distance and means oftransportation.This research relied on a variety of information sources including: the greenhouse own-ers, agricultural input suppliers, fertilizer producers, chemical engineers, utility compa-nies, greenhouse builders, shipping industries, greenhouse specialists in the Bio-ResourcesEngineering Department of the University of British Colombia, municipal governments,car dealers, the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, and UBC libraries.I visited each greenhouse 4 or 5 times. Each time I spent from 2 to 8 hours in theiroffice or at the site. Most of the time was spent measuring the mass (and/or volume) ofbuilding materials and equipments and obtaining data on mass (or volume) and cost ofoperational (variable) inputs.In order to obtain the mass of building materials, I measured the length, width andthickness of all the parts and then estimated their mass from their computed volumes.1"Greenhouse A" wished to remain anonymous because this study involves disclosure of financialinformation. "Greenhouse B" wished that their name be mentioned in the appendix.Chapter 3. Methods/Procedure^ 15Obtaining and calculating the energy intensity of materials was sometimes hard, becausebasic data was scarce and inconsistent. For inconsistent data, I estimated energy intensityby averaging the whole data set, or by using the most reasonable data.3.3 Case Selection (Small-scale Field Operations)My original plan for the research on field operations was to use the past literature,instead of carrying out empirical research. It turned out, however, that there was a lackof documented research on tomato field operations in B.C. I also felt that carrying outempirical studies on both groups would be more accurate, particularly if various casestudies were compared.I set the same criteria for the selection of field farmers as for the greenhouse selection.Carolyin Egri, a professor at Simon Fraser University, has done extensive research on thefertilizer and chemical pesticide use of B.C. farmers. She suggested one representativefield tomato farmer, Mr. Wayne Rice, who operates his farm together with his two sons,Steve and Mike, in Spences Bridge near Kamloops, 370 km away from Vancouver. Theiroperation is called "HillTop Gardens Farm Limited." In this thesis, it is referred to as"HillTop Gardens." In a phone interview, Mr. Rice assured his support. Their data werereadily available and separable.He put me in contact with another farmer in Cache Creek, 50 km north of SpencesBridge. The latter's name is Mr. Ted Horsting, and his farm is called "Horsting Farms."His operation met the first four of my five criteria.3.4 Data Collection (Small-scale Field Operations)I visited the field farmers from January 26 to 28, 1993. The data collection procedurewas similar to that for greenhouses, except less extensive. ("HillTop Gardens" had a veryChapter 3. Methods/Procedure^ 16small greenhouse used as a nursery. But it took me only 30 minutes to measure the wholestructure.) Both farmers use only 25 main inputs (see appendix C). These include theland occupied, irrigation, pesticide sprayer, tractor, ground cover, chemical fertilizers,herbicides, insecticides, nursery building and dirt (topsoil) (the last two are applicableonly for "HillTop Gardens").3.5 Data ProcessingI computed the EF/ACC and economic performance for each operation with theaid of Lotus 1-2-3 version 2.2 and Excel for Windows version 4.0, personal computerspreadsheets.Chapter 4Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data4.1 Separation of Data(i) Greenhouse AThis consists of two greenhouses on a site in Surrey: one is for tomatoes (2.56 ha)and the other for green peppers (1.70 ha). In some cases, they only had total figuresfor tomatoes and peppers. The assistant manager assured me that the ratio of variousinputs such as fertilizers and labour was 6 : 4, which was the ratio of the growing area ofeach crop. Therefore, I used 60 % of the total whenever separate data was unavailable.(ii) Greenhouse BThe owner had been specializing in tomato production until the end of 1992. Hestarted diversifying crops in 1993. For tomato production he uses an old greenhouse (37years old as of 1993) made of wood, and a new greenhouse (7 years old) with a steel andaluminium framework. I decided to examine only the new greenhouse, since the old oneis obsolete and seems energy-inefficient, and because this type of old wooden greenhouseis no longer typical.Fortunately, the owner was able to give me most of the data separately. When I hadto divide total figures into two (e.g. fuel consumption for forklift and trucks, pallet jackand so on), I used a ratio of 75 : 25 (new greenhouse : old one) which is the same as theratio of production.1 7Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^18(iii) HillTop GardensThey grow not only tomatoes but also peaches, apples, nectarines, apricots, pears,cherries, melons, corns, cucumbers, squashes and pumpkins. They have facilities andequipment for common use for these vegetables and fruits; for example, aluminium irri-gation pipe, which is 1000 meters long. The water used to irrigate the tomato field isabout 7 % of the total water consumption for all the crops. Therefore, I attributed 7 %of the total irrigation pipe to tomato production.Since they have 3 pick-up trucks and since the revenues from tomatoes are 20 % oftheir total revenues, I assessed that they used 0.6 (= 3 x 0.2) pick-up trucks for tomatoproduction.80 % of the nursery greenhouse space is used for tomato propagation.10 % of the workshop and nutrient storage is designated for tomato production.(iv) Horsting FarmsMr. Horsting grows tomatoes, potatoes, onions, apples, and other fruits. The tractorand the trucks are used for tomato production. Mr. Horsting attributes 10 % of thetotal use of these vehicles to tomato growing. Therefore I used 0.1 trucks in the masscalculation of these vehicles.10 % of the workshop is used for tomatoes. The storage shed is used only for tomatoes.For storage, therefore, I employed the figure of 100 %.For the irrigation pump, I used the figure of 13 %, since 13 % of the total water isused for tomatoes.The irrigation piping in the tomato field is exclusively for tomatoes. Therefore I used100 % for the pipes.Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^194.2 Energy Intensity(i) GlassFor flat glass, Cole and Rousseau (1992) presented five different figures on energyintensity ranging from 10.2 mega joules per kilogram (later, abbreviated as MJ/kg) to21.6 MJ/kg. Baird and Aun (1983) provide figures ranging from 8.42 MJ/kg to 29.3MJ/kg. Brown et al. (1985) give a figure of 14.2 MJ/kg. For this study I use energyintensity of 14 MJ/kg.(ii) SteelI assume the energy intensity of steel to be 30 MJ/kg. Brown et al. (1985) provide afigure of 27.7 MJ/kg. Cole and Rousseau (1992) present energy intensity of steel of fourcountries. The average of these figures is 31.1 MJ/kg. The estimate of Fritsche et al.(1989) is 30 MJ/kg.(iii) AluminiumI employ the figure of 240 MJ/kg for aluminium energy intensity. Cole and Rousseau(1992) list five figures ranging from 145.0 to 261.7 MJ/kg. In their book, Baird and Aun(1983) provide eighteen figures ranging from 52.7 to 371 MJ/kg. Fritsche et al. (1989)present a figure of 250 MJ/kg.(iv) ConcreteI employ 1.3 MJ/kg as concrete energy intensity. Cole and Rousseau (1992) presentfour figures ranging from 0.9 to 2.0 MJ/kg. Nine figures obtained by Baird and Aun(1983) range from 0.72 to 2.41 MJ/kg.(v) Other Service BuildingsEmbodied energy for service buildings such as the warehouse, workshop, boiler room,and office have been included in these calculations. Their exact geometric specificationswere not collected at the site. Instead, I used a generic energy intensity figure in termsChapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^20of the area occupied. Hannon et al. (1977) in Doering (1980) estimate energy intensityof 38 Mcal/ft2, which corresponds to:38 Mcal/ft2 x 4.19 MJ/Mcal = 159.22 MJ/ft2159.22 MJ/ft2 x 10.76 fe/m2 = 1713.2  MJ/m2 (vi) PlasticsBy 'plastic', I mean a 'synthetic plastic' which is a generic term for various kindsof polymers such as polyethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene.Wackernagel (1992) based on Brown et al. (1985) calculates a generic figure of 64 MJ/kg.Cole and Rousseau (1992) present five figures ranging from 49.3 to 122.8 MJ/kg. Bairdand Aun (1983) provide eight figures stretching from 44 to 171 MJ/kg. I use the meanof figures of Cole and Rousseau, 85 MJ/kg, in this thesis.(vii) RockwoolRockwool is used as nutrient holder, i.e., substitute for soil in hydroponic greenhouses.Wackernagel (1992) lists a figure of 28 MJ/kg for mineral wool. I use this figure.(viii) GypsumOn hot summer days, a white-wash made of gypsum powder is sprayed on the green-house glass to reduce brightness. Cole and Rousseau (1992) provide three figures rangingfrom 1.4 to 7.4 MJ/kg. Baird and Aun (1983) present five figures extending from 1.1to 7.2 MJ/kg. For this thesis, I use 4.2 MJ/kg, which is employed by the UBC TaskForce on Planning for Healthy and Sustainable Communities (Wackernagel 1992) andvery close to the average of the five figures provided by Baird and Ann.(ix) Gasoline and Diesel OilAccording to Doering (1980), gasoline energy intensity is 50.40 MJ/kg. From thesame source, energy intensity of diesel oil is given as 44.4 MJ/kg.Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^21(x) Propane GasAccording to Tuma, Handbook of Physical Calculations (1983), the energy content ofpropane gas is 48.95 MJ/kg.(xi) ElectricityElectricity consumed by greenhouses and open field operation is supplied by B.C.Hydro, the electricity company of the Province of British Columbia. The greenhouseoperations have electric generators for back-up because they need electricity 24 hoursevery day for irrigation motors, computers, and so on. The use of this generator, however,is minimal and thus insignificant. Therefore, I do not include this trivial portion ofelectricity generation in this study.B.C. Hydro uses hydro-electric generation as well as thermal and geothermal powerplants. For this research, however, I calculate land-equivalents for electricity, on theassumption that all the electric energy was generated by thermal power plants in orderto avoid complexity of calculation. Otherwise, data is necessary as to how much land isrequired to generate one unit of electricity by hydro-power plants. For this we need toknow not only the size of the reservoirs and energy requirement of the dam constructionbut also the area of the watershed of the river on which the dam is located, and the sizeof the region from which water evaporates to end up in the watershed; i.e. the size of the"natural solar collector." This is not an easy task, because a watershed is so large andcomplicated, and its use is not limited only to the water collecting function.The United Nations Statistical Office and other international institutions assess anation's energy requirement in a given year in terms of "Total Energy Requirementsin Conventional Fuel Equivalent." To calculate this figure, primary electricity is valuedon a fossil -fuel -avoided basis rather than an energy-output basis (World ResourcesInstitute 1992 p. 324). Transforming thermal energy into electricity involves a lossin available energy. The efficiency of a thermal electric plant is defined as the ratioChapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^22between final electricity produced and initial energy supplied. This rate varies widelyfrom country to country and from plant to plant. The United Nations Statistical Officeuses a standard factor of 0.3 (.30 %) efficiency to estimate the fossil fuel value of hydro,geothermal, wind, and nuclear electricity (World Resources Institute 1992 p. 324). Forthis research, I use this ratio of 0.3 (=30 %). This means that 1 kilowatt hour of thermalenergy is equivalent to only 0.3 kilowatt hours of electric energy. In other words, inorder to generate 1 kilowatt hour of electricity, 3.33 kilowatt hours of thermal energyare required. Therefore, for estimating the thermal energy equivalent, I multiplied theconsumed electric energy by 3.33.(xii) Chemical Fertilizers(a) Chemical Fertilizers for Greenhouse Tomato ProductionThe energy requirements for the production of the following chemical fertilizers werereported in the literature:• Potassium Chloride (muriate of potash) • • 4.3 MJ/kg (Nludaher and Hignett 1982p. 178)• Ammonium Nitrate • • • 66.6 MJ/kg (Helsel 1987 p. 39)• Magnesium Sulfate • • • 2.0 MJ/kg (Helsel 1987 p. 53)The embodied energy data for the following chemical fertilizers could not be found.I estimated their embodied energy as:• Potassium Sulfate • • • 3.5 MJ/kg• Mono-Potassium Phosphate • • • 10.0 MJ/kg• Potassium Nitrate • • • 14.2 MJ/kg• Calcium Nitrate • • • 11.5 MJ/kgChapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^23• Phosphoric Acid • • • 17.5 MJ/kg• Sodium Molybdate • • • 10.0 MJ/kg• Iron Chelate • • • 15.0 MJ/kg• Potassium Bicarbonate • • • 4.0 MJ/kgThe calculation details are explained in Appendix A.(b) Chemical Fertilizers for Field Tomato ProductionThe following energy intensity for manufactured fertilizers was reported in the liter-ature:• Urea (46-0-0) • • • 36.6 MJ/kg (Mudahar and Hignett 1982 p. 178)As the rest were not found in the literature, I assessed their embodied energy by myself.The calculation process is presented in Appendix A.• All Purpose Fertilizer (20-20-20) • 19.3 MJ/kg• Plant Starter (10-52-10) • • • 14.9 MJ/kg• 12-5-0 • • 9.3 MJ/kg• 0-0-50 • • • 5.0 MJ/kg• 0-0-60 • • • 6.0 MJ/kg• Iron Sulfate • • • 6.3 MJ/kg• Borate 40 • • • 4.0 MJ/kgChapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^24(xiii) HerbicidesThe energy requirement for production of the following herbicide was reported in theliterature:• Trifluralin (Treflan 545 EC) • • • 150 MJ/kg (Helsel 1987 p. 168)The following herbicides were not listed in the literature. I therefore use the averagefigure of all the herbicides listed on page 168 of the same book (Helsel 1987).• Metribuzin (Sencor 500 F) • • • 264 MJ/kg• Agribrom Powder • • • 264 MJ/kgPimentel et al. (1980) present a list of energy input figures for herbicides, insecticidesand fungicides on page 46. The average figure for herbicides is 254 MJ/kg. This is veryclose to the figure which I use in this study, therefore, the employed figure is justifiable.In Appendix B, I present the lists of both Helsel and Pimentel et al. for herbicides,insecticides and fungicides.(xiv) InsecticideThe following insecticide was listed in Helsel's book (1987 p. 168).• Carbaryl • • • 153 MJ/kgThe following insecticides were not listed in the literature. I therefore use the averagefigure for all the insecticides listed on page 168 of the same book (Helsel 1987).• Kelthane • • • 197 MJ/kg• Lorsban • • • 197 MJ/kg• Sulfotep103 • • • 197 MJ/kgChapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^25• Plant Fume 103•• 197 MJ/kg• Vendex • • • 197 MJ/kgThe average figure using the list of Pimentel et al. (1980) is 185 MJ/kg. Therefore, therelevance of the employed figure is verified.(xv) FungicidesThe following fungicides were not listed in the same literature. I, therefore, use theaverage figure of all the fungicides listed on page 168 of the same book (Helsel 1987).• Monzate 200DF • • • 163 MJ/kg• Roccal • • • 163 MJ/kgThe average figure of the list of Pimentel et al. (1980) is 97 MJ/kg. I employ Helsel'sfigure because the data is more recent.(xvi) SeedsIt was not possible to find fossil energy requirement to produce tomato seeds perse. There is, however, one table which lists fossil energy requirement for production,processing and distribution of various kinds of seeds in David Pimentel ed. Handbook ofEnergy Utilization in Agriculture (1980 p. 32). From this table, I obtained an averageof the energy costs of seed production of different kinds of vegetables and grains, whichis 39.19 MJ/kg. This figure includes transportation energy requirements. In the samesource, there is a table which lists a break-down of the energy requirement of alfalfaseed production, processing and distribution (Pimentel ed. 1980 p. 31). I calculatedthe % share of energy cost of transportation of the final products (i.e. seeds) to retailstores from the seed factory, which turned out to be 1.18 %. I deducted this portionfrom 39.19 MJ/kg, because I am adding the transportation energy requirements of theChapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^26inputs to tomato production separately. Finally I assessed the fossil fuel energy embodiedin tomato seeds to be 38.73 MJ/kg. (This figure does not include solar energy whichtomatoes accumulate in their seeds through photosynthesis.)(xvii) Liquid Carbon Dioxide for Greenhouse OperationPlants take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it as one of the materialsfor photosynthesis. Greenhouse operations take advantage of additional carbon dioxide,which is the by-product of burning natural gas for heating of the greenhouse. Fromsummer to early fall, greenhouses utilize liquid CO2 to make up for the lower supply ofby-product CO2 and to keep up with the higher consumption rate of CO2. For example,in 1992 Greenhouse A used liquid CO2 from May to October when gas consumptionwas reduced to 70 % - 45 % of that of winter months, due to the higher temperatureoutside (consequently the inside carbon dioxide concentration level was lowered), whilethe potential photosynthesis rate was enhanced by higher light intensity.Finding out the energy requirement for producing commercial liquid carbon dioxidewas not simple. According to Mr. Bill Buchanan, a production supervisor at the CanadianLiquid Air Ltd. in Vancouver, they import raw gas which contains a high level of carbondioxide from Washington State of the United States of America. This raw gas is a by-product of ammonia production. After compression, purification, and liquefaction, liquidCO2 is available for distribution.It was not possible to find out the energy requirement for exactly the same processesas above. However, data were available for liquid CO2 production using the flue gas fromelectricity power plants. By using an article by Hendricks et al. (1989), I obtained afigure that the recovery of carbon dioxide requires 5.72 MJ/kg. Among this, 4.75 MJ/kgis required for desorption of CO2 and 0.97 MJ/kg for compression. In this study, Iassume that the production of liquid CO2 using by-product gas from ammonia productionrequires a similar amount of energy to that using flue gas from a power plant. Thus, IChapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^27use a figure of 5.72 MJ/kg.(xviii) TransportationI considered three methods of transportation for both bringing inputs to farmlandor greenhouses and for distributing tomatoes to consumers, namely: truck, rail andcontainer ship. Energy requirement figures which I employ for these are: 3 MJ/tonne/km,1 MJ/tonne/km, and 0.065 MJ/tonne/km, respectively.Stout (1984) provides the following figures: 3 MJ/tonne/km for truck, and 1.2MJ/tonne/km for rail. Similar figures are reported in Boustead et al. (1981). This bookprovides figures for various types of road vehicles, the average of which turned out to be2.91 MJ/tonne/km. The same book provides a smaller figure for rail: 0.65 MJ for generalrail freight per ton mile (which is 0.37 MJ/tonne/km). Here I employ 3 MJ/tonne/kmfor trucks and 1 MJ/tonne/km for rail.Figures for sea transportation are more complicated and appeared to be confusing atfirst. In my opinion, this is because ships have a much wider range in size and type. Ifind that energy for freight shipment per tonne per kilometer varies drastically, proba-bly depending on the size of the ships. Nevertheless, most literature does not providethis information. Wackernagel (1993, personal communication) uses 0.05 MJ/tonne/km.Boustead (1981) presents 0.14 MJ/ton/mile (which is 0.079 MJ/tonne/km). Stout (1984)provides far greater number, 1.2 MJ/tonne/km. Here I use 0.065 MJ/tonne/km.4.3 Rate of Conversion from Energy to Land-EquivalentI use the following relationship for this conversion: 1 hectare of land captures sunlightand accumulates an average of 80 GJ of energy in the form of biomass (finally processedto ethanol), i.e., the average net primary productivity of 1 ha of land is assumed toChapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^28be 80 GJ per year. There are several studies for estimating this figure.' No study hasdocumented higher yield than 80 MJ/ha/year. I employ this most optimistic figure forthis study.4.4 Renewable Inputs(1) Sawdust and WoodGreenhouse A uses sawdust in addition to rockwool as plant bed instead of soil.The kinds of trees used for this purpose are Hemlock and Fir trees, which are grownin B.C. forests (personal communication with the Cloverdale Fuels, Ltd in Surrey, B.C.February 18, 1993). HillTop Gardens uses wood (of unknown kind) for the frameworkof the nursery (I assumed the same kinds of tree are used). Every material except theserenewable inputs was initially examined in terms of energy intensity or embodied energyper year, then converted to land-equivalent per year. However, I treated the renewableinputs differently. I obtained the mass of these inputs and then converted it directly tothe land area necessary to grow these renewable resources.I employed an average figure for B.C. mature forests2, 1 ha of which produce 255 m3(cubic meters) of timber every 70 years (Environment Canada 1991 pp. 10 - 6, Table10 - 1). This translates into a conversion rate of 3.6 cubic meters/ha/year. The averagedensity of Hemlock and Fir is 0.42 tonne or 420 kg per m3 (Tuma 1983). This gives usa rate of 1.53 tonne/ha/year or 1530 kg/ha/year.1Wackernagel et al., 1993 lists results of similar researches.2Mature forest means the stands or trees that are suited to harvesting are at or near rotation age(Environment Canada 1991 pp. 10 - 6)Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^ 294.5 Cost and Prices(i) Costs of LandPrices for the land used in greenhouse tomato production were based on figures fromthe Municipality of Surrey. Surrey provides average land prices for the AgriculturalLand Reserve (ALR) and Suburban Residential Area (SRA) on which the respectivegreenhouses are located ($ 61,774/ha and $370,645/ha respectively) (personal communi-cation with Mr. Fred Mathet, an appraisal specialist, February 19, 1993). I then used afinancial formula within Excel for Windows, `=-PMT', for calculating the annual paymentfor an amortized loan with 20 years of amortization.According to Mr. Jim Portree, a greenhouse specialist from the B.C. Ministry ofAgriculture, Food and Fisheries, financial institutions normally require farmers to pos-sess equity of at least 30 % when they make contracts on long-term mortgage plansfor purchasing land or greenhouse buildings (personal communication, March 9, 1993).Greenhouse A, however, claims that they borrowed only 30 % from the banks, and 70 %of the cost was paid from their savings. For the other three operations, I assume thatthe farmers borrowed 70 % of the total cost for purchasing land from the bank and thatthey paid 30 % of total cost from their own savings or by liquidating their own assets.Mr. Portree states that the interest rate for this type of mortgage is almost the sameas the prime rate. He suggests that I use the current prime rate which is 6.2 %. Thus, Iassign 6.2 % to the interest rate of the mortgage plan.I include the opportunity cost of the money spent for the land purchase. In otherwords, the money which was withdrawn from the farmers' accounts would have generatedannual capital gains if the money had not been withdrawn. I assign 6.0 % for the interestrate of this opportunity cost, which is 0.2 % lower than current prime rate.Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^ 30As far as the amortization period is concerned, I use the life expectancy of the green-house building; i.e. 20 years.Thus, the formula for the annual mortgage payment of Greenhouse A for land withinExcel for Windows reads:PMT(0.062 x 0.3 + 0.06 x 0.7,20,3.502 x 61774) i.e.,PMT(0.062[prime rate] x 0.3[amount borrowed]+0.06[opportunity cost] x 0.7[amount paid by owner],20[amortization period], 3.502[1and area in ha] x 61774[unit land price])which gives us an annual payment of $ 18,963.65, where the first parameter is the annualrepayment rate, the second is the term of amortization, and the last is the purchase priceof the land.The Greenhouse B is located within the Suburban Residential Area. Its land valuehas been drastically increasing for the last 30 years. For this case, land value increaseis also taken into account. In other words, I included annual capital gain through theincrease of land value. It seems fair to include it because we include the opportunitycost of the capital (the negative side of the financial calculation) in this calculation andtherefore it is natural to include the positive side). For the other three cases, the landvalue is assumed to be constant, for simplicity.For land prices of tomato fields in Spences Bridge and Cache Creek, I used a sellingprice of 80 acres of land in Spences Bridge which one of the farmers advertises now at $5,560/ha.According to the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, no governmentsubsidies have been available to greenhouse owners or field farmers for the purchase ofmajor inputs, including land and greenhouse buildings. (personal communication withMr. Ted Van der Gulik and Mr. Jim Portree March 9, 1993).Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^31(ii) Other Fixed CostsI used the same formula `=PMT' for computing the annual payment for other fixedfacilities and equipment. Prices of these are obtained from copies of contracts, pricelists in catalogues, and by interviewing sales persons or technical specialists of suppliers,builders and related industries.As for the interest rate, I employ the same rate as for land, i.e., 6.2 %. As far asthe amortization period is concerned, I use the same period as the life expectancy of theitem. That is to say, I assume that the redemption will be over at the same time as thefacility or the equipment is worn out and no longer usable.(iii) Costs of Variable InputsBy variable inputs, I meana) equipment which has to be replaced in one year or less andb) various inputs which have to be supplied all the time.For example, a) includes rockwool, ground covers etc. and b) encompasses naturalgas, electricity, fertilizers, pesticides, and human labour.Costs of variable inputs were also gained from the financial records of greenhouses,contracts, catalogues, and personal communications with suppliers and related industrialsectors.Mr. Portree states that sometimes farmers or greenhouse owners borrow money forthese inputs which have to be supplied long before the harvest starts (personal commu-nication, March 9, 1993). He adds that the borrowing rate is about 1 % higher than theprime rate for this kind of short-term loan. Therefore, I used the same formula for somevariable costs as the fixed cost with an interest rate of 7.2 % wherever this treatmentis relevant. For example, ground cover, biological pest control, and seeds are treatedas above. Otherwise, variable costs are considered to be paid at once directly from thefarmers' accounts.Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^ 32(iv) Tomato PriceFor the farmgate price of the greenhouse tomatoes, I used an average for the prices oftomatoes over the last seven years, i.e., $ 1.375/kg, because the price in 1992 (which is $0.93/kg) was atypical (personal communication with Mr. Jim Portree, March 9, 1993).The price for the two greenhouse operations is the same, because they ship to the samecooperative.The open field farmers, HillTop Gardens and Horsting, charge quite different prices:the former $ 0.93 and the latter $ 0.40. The former sells all their tomatoes at the vegetablestand along the major highway, while Mr. Horsting sells tomatoes at his farm and tosome local supermarkets. This is a major cause of the price difference.4.6 Other Assumptions and Missing Data(i) Shortcut Calculation for Greenhouse Building MassI ascertained the dimensions and mass of the greenhouse buildings by measuring eachpart. I found that the two greenhouses are almost identical. Therefore, I made a refinedcalculation on one greenhouse as a whole, using the mass and embodied energy of differentmaterials. Then I extrapolated these results to obtain mass and embodied energy for theother greenhouse with careful consideration. I used different extrapolation rates for thewalls than for the rest of the greenhouse, as the area of the walls is proportional to thesquare root of the greenhouse area. The remaining portion is directly proportional tothe area of the greenhouse assuming that the greenhouse land areas are 'similar' to eachother in shape in geometric terms.(ii) Electric Cables and Other Electric EquipmentsI assumed these to be insignificant.Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^33(iii) LabourEnergy for human-labour is not included in order to simplify this research. Accordingto Stanhill (1980), the share of labour energy in total energy requirements is 0.4 % forextensively mechanized open field tomato production, and 0.05 % for heated greenhousetomato operations. Even for labour-intensive open field tomato operations it is only 1.8%. However, labour costs are included in the economic analysis.(iv) Life ExpectancyThe life expectancy of facilities and equipment were assessed by interviewing green-house owners or farmers, and sometimes technical staff and sales persons from suppliers.For the specific data, see the spreadsheets in Appendix C.As far as greenhouse buildings are concerned, these could last more than 20 years froma structural point of view. But the managers feel that due to rapid technological change,they have to replace the buildings after 20 years or so. Besides, the light transmission ofglass declines with time (personal communication with Professor Art Bomke, April 20,1993). Thus I assessed the life expectancy of greenhouse buildings to be 20 years.(v) Biological Pest ControlThe energy requirements for producing biological pest control were not possible tofind out.4.7 Transportation: Means and Distance(i) All Materials and Inputs Except Greenhouse Building Materials andRockwoolI assumed that all the materials, equipment, and variable inputs except greenhousebuilding parts were transported 71 % by rail and 29 % by trucks. This ratio of 71 %and 29 % is based on actual tonne-kilometers/year of rail and truck transport in Canada.Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^34Combination of trains and trucks (71 % and 29 % respectively) gives us a combinedenergy requirement for transportation per tonne per km, i.e., 1.58 MJ/tonne/km. (Asmentioned in the previous section of Energy Intensity, I used 1.0 MJ/tonne/km for rails,and 3.0 MJ/tonne/km for trucks.) The calculation is:1 x 0.71 + 3 x 0.29 = 1.58MJ/tonne/km.I used a mean distance of pesticide transportation in the U. S. which is 640 km for all thecommodities except greenhouse materials. This figure is obtained from Pimentel (1980),p. 47.(ii) Greenhouse Building Materials and PartsGreenhouse building materials and parts are transported by container ships fromRotterdam, Holland to Vancouver through the Panama Canal, according to a greenhouseimport company in Vancouver.3 The distance between the two ports is 16,390 km,according to Mr. Drace Acres, Manager of the Vancouver Port Corporation (personalcommunication, February 16, 1993). The energy requirement for container ships is 0.065MJ/tonne/km as mentioned in previous section of this chapter. Concrete blocks for thepost foundation are from Holland. Therefore, I included these blocks in this category.(The concrete building foundations are local. Thus I included it in the previous category.)(iii) Rockwool BlocksRockwool is part of the plant bed, a substitute for soil. These blocks are importedfrom Japan by ship. The distance between Tokyo and Vancouver is 7736 km.4(iv) SawdustSawdust for plants beds is shipped from local sawmills to greenhouses via a sawdustsupplier, according to Cloverdale Fuels, Ltd., a company which supplies sawdust to localgreenhouse operations (Personal communication, February 18, 1993). They could not give3Prince Greenhouse Ltd.4A world map, "Cosmopolitan Series: World" published by Rand McNally & Company, 1992(?).Chapter 4. Basis of Calculations, Assumptions and Missing Data^35specific distance between these sawmills and the greenhouses. I assumed the distance tobe 20 km.(v) Pipeline Transportation of Natural GasNatural gas is transported through PVC pipes all the way from Fort St. John, B.C. andSumas, B.C. Some comes from Alberta. (Mr. Sam Kobayashi, Work leader of Construc-tion Planning at BC Gas Inc., personal communication, February 17, 1993.) I assumedthe transportation energy is insignificant considering the huge amount of energy whichthe transported natural gas contains within itself. Therefore, the transportation energyis assumed nil in this case.Chapter 5Case Study5.1 Definition of the TermsI will now define the special terms used in the tables and figures in this thesis andits appendices.(i) Growing Area (GA)The Growing Area (GA) is defined as the area which the tomato plants occupy. Theproductivity of agricultural land is expressed as the ratio of the yield (output) againstthe growing area of land.(ii) Visible Occupied Area (VOA)The Visible Occupied Area (VOA) is defined as the total area which includes GrowingArea and other service areas such as space for storage of fertilizers, equipment, tomatoproducts, packaging, parking, workshops, the boiler room, and the office.(iii) Total Land Area with EF/ACC Consideration (TLA)The Total Land Area with EF/ACC Consideration (TLA) is equal to the sum of Visi-ble Occupied Area and the land-equivalent for other inputs such as energy and materials,etc. required to produce crops on the occupied farmland. This includes energy used inthe transportation of agricultural inputs and outputs.(iv) EF/ACC of Agricultural Practice = TLA per Output per YearThe definition of EF/ACC of agricultural practices, presented in Chapter 2, can be36Chapter 5. Case Study^ 37rephrased as "Total Land Area with EF/ACC Consideration per output per year." Morespecifically, EF/ACC of an agricultural practice is defined as:the Total Land Area with EF/ACC Consideration (hectrare) per 1000tonnes of yield per year.5.2 Comparison of the DataThe following results were obtained by comparing hydroponic greenhouse tomatoproduction with mechanized field tomato production.(i) A Comparison of Hydroponic Greenhouse Operations and Open FieldOperations Based on Total Land Area with EF/ACC Consideration (TLA)(a) A Comparison of the Ecological Footprint/Appropriated Carrying Ca-pacity of Agricultural PracticesThe EF/ACC of a few of the agricultural practices are compared in Figure 5.1. TheEF/ACC of an agricultural operation is the Total Land Area with EF/ACC Considerationdivided by output per year, i.e., Total Land Area with EF/ACC Consideration (hectare)per 1000 metric tonnes of yield per year.The EF/ACC of hydroponic greenhouse production is 765 to 919 hectare per 1000tonnes per year, which is 14 to 21 times larger than the EF/ACC of small-scale fieldproduction which is 43 to 56 hectare per 1000 tonnes per year.(b) A Comparison of the Productivities of the Total Land Areas withEF/ACC Consideration (TLA)Conversely, let us look at the productivity of Total Land Area with EF/ACC Con-sideration. Productivity is defined as the yield per unit area of land per year. Theproductivity of Total Land Area with EF/ACC Consideration, i.e., yield divided by To-tal Land Area with EF/ACC Consideration is shown in Figure 5.2.(ha/1000 tonne/year)(tonne/ha/year)23.2610.0017.860.00Chapter 5. Case Study^ 38Figure 5.1: EF/ACC of Greenhouse and Field OperationsFigure 5.2: Comparison of Productivities of Total Land AreasGreenhouse A^Greenhouse B^HillTop Gardens^Horsting FarmsChapter 5. Case Study^ 39Figure 5.2 shows that the mechanized field operation is approximately 14 to 21 timesmore productive when it is calculated based on Total Land Area with EF/ACC Consid-eration. (The fields produce 17900 kg to 23300 kg per hectare, while the greenhousesproduce only 1090 to 1300 kg per hectare.)(ii) A Comparison of Hydroponic Greenhouse Operations and Open FieldOperations Based on "only" Growing Areas (without EF/ACC Considera-tion)(a) A Comparison of the Required Growing Area for 1000 Tonnes ofTomato ProductionFigure 5.3 illustrates that the Growing Area (GA) needed for production of 1000metric tonnes of tomatoes is only 2.0 to 2.3 hectares for the greenhouse operations, whilefield production requires from 12 to 18 hectares. This means that greenhouse productionis 5 to 9 times more efficient in terms of the Growing Area than field production.Figure 5.3: Growing Area Needed for Production of 1000 tonnes of Tomatoes18.0016.0014.0012.0010.00(ha/1000 tonne/year) 17.8412.14Greenhouse A^Greenhouse B^HillTop Gardens^Horsting FarmsChapter 5. Case Study^ 40(b) A Comparison of the Productivity of Growing AreasFigure 5.4 shows that the direct productivity of Growing Areas (i.e., output dividedby Growing Area) for greenhouses is 5 to 9 times higher than that of field operations.Figure 5.4: Productivity of Growing Area450400-Z350500Yz300(tonne / ha / year) 250 z 494437100200Y/.z5056 820Greenhouse A^Greenhouse B^HillTop Gardens^Horsting Farms700600500400300200100($1000 / ha /year)-0GreenhouseA^GreenhouseB HillTopGardens250200150($1000 / ha / year)100500GreenhouseA^GreenhouseBHorstingFarmsHillTopGardensChapter 5. Case Study^ 41(c) A Comparison of the Revenue of Growing AreasFigure 5.5 reveals that the revenue per hectare of the Growing Area of greenhousesis 8 to 13 times higher than that of field production.Figure 5.5: Revenue of Growing Area(d) A Comparison of the Profitabilities of Growing AreasThe net profit per hectare of Growing Area of the greenhouse production is 2 to 9times higher than that of the field production as shown in Figure 5.6.Figure 5.6: Profitability of Growing AreaChapter 5. Case Study^ 42(iii) Components of EF/ACC(a) Components of EF/ACC for Hydroponic Greenhouse OperationsThe Components which contribute to the EF/ACC of hydroponic greenhouse opera-tions are illustrated in the following figures:Figure 5.7: Components of EF/ACC for Greenhouse AChapter 5. Case Study^ 43Figure 5.8: Components of EF/ACC for Greenhouse B90.0%82.1%80.0% —70.0% —60.0% —50.0% —40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0% —0.1% 0.4% 1.5% 1.7%3.2%^3.7% 5.0% 2.3%I^10.0%  Chemical Land Building Fertilizers Liquid CO2 Transporta Electricity Natural Gas MiscellanePesticides occupied -tion -ousFrom the above two figures, we can conclude that reducing the use of natural gas andsawdust could significantly contribute to the reduction of the EF/ACC of a hydroponicgreenhouse operation.Chapter 5. Case Study^ 44(b) Components of EF/ACC for Field OperationsComponents of the EF/ACC of small-scale mechanized field tomato production arehighlighted in the following figures:Figure 5.9: Components of EF/ACC for HillTop Gardens Operation45.0%40.0%35.0% ———40.3%30.0% — 28.1%25.0% —20.0% —15.0% — 11.8%10.0% J-4.8% 5.4% 5.6%5.0% — I.0.2%0.0%Herbicide^Fertilizers^Fuels^Propane^Electricity^Transporta^Land^Miscellane(tractor) -tion^occupied -ousInsecticideChapter 5. Case Study^ 45Figure 5.10: Components of EF/ACC for Horsting Farms OperationThe figures illustrate that land occupied, transportation, plant propagation, and elec-tricity are major contributors to the EF/ACC of mechanized field tomato production.Chapter 6Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study6.1 Analysis(i) The Hydroponic Greenhouse: An Inefficient Mode of ProductionThe case studies of tomato production show that the first question of this thesis hasbeen clearly answered. Can a heated hydroponic greenhouse sustain a higher productivitycompared to traditional mechanized field farming practice? The answer is "NO."If the comparison is based only on the Growing Area directly occupied for production,a hydroponic greenhouse operation is more productive than a field operation (from 5 to9 times more productive). However, if we look at the same operations from the EF/ACCperspective, the mechanized field operation is more efficient. Indeed, the hydroponicgreenhouse makes an ecological footprint 14 to 21 times larger than a field operationproducing the same output.Given the fact that similar technologies are used for other vegetable crops, results forthese might be expected to be similar. Further studies, however, are required for thesecrops. Once EF/ACC is considered it becomes apparent that greenhouse operations donot increase efficiency. Rather, such operations appropriate a large area of land in theproduction of inputs and in the assimilation of wastes. Greenhouse operations reducethe long-term productivity of the earth.46Chapter 6. Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^47(ii) The Conflict between Individual Economic Benefit and Total EcologicalConstraintsThis research reveals a conflict that is invisible to conventional economic analysis.Greenhouse farmers make a higher monetary profit per hectare of growing area than fieldfarmers (from 2 to 9 times more). However, using the EF/ACC approach it becomesclear that greenhouse operations are not ecologically sound or sustainable. Greenhousesappropriate a disproportionate share of the global carrying capacity while contributingsignificantly to the depletion of natural resources such as natural gas, fertilizer, and otherenergy intensive inputs.This study shows that typical economic analysis does not necessarily lead to ecologi-cally satisfactory conclusions. The underpricing of depletable energy, fertilizer, and otherinputs to hydroponic production enables operators to profit while unconsciously appro-priating the productive capacity of a landscape vastly larger than their own physicalplant. Monetary measures of agricultural efficiency should, therefore, be accompaniedby analysis of physical flows of their land (natural capital) equivalents if long-term sus-tainability is at issue. Otherwise, the gross ecological inefficiency of energy-intensivegreenhouse operations will be obscured by the illusionary economic superiority of high-input greenhouses.6.2 Policy ImplicationsSeveral important policy implications flow from the EF/ACC and economic analysesof tomato production:Chapter 6. Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^48(i) First and Foremost, Society Should Not Come to Depend on Green-house Production for Our FoodReliance on greenhouse production for food does not make sense because of the fol-lowing two reasons.a) Greenhouse production undermines conventional agriculture. It can lead to landconversion from agriculture to urban use. There is global destruction of agricultural landcaused by soil erosion, salination.1 Converting the arable land that still exists to urbanuse makes the problem even more serious.b) Greenhouse production appropriates more land than field production. It is inher-ently unsustainable. Greenhouses do not increase productivity. Greenhouses consume14 to 21 times more land than a field operation which produces the same quantity ofyield. If we become dependent on greenhouse production, we will reduce the sustainableproduction of food. It could lead to more hunger and malnutrition because the worldpopulation is increasing steadily at the same time. Our survival may be possible if weconserve our remaining limited agricultural land and if we try to restore it from thedegradation. High-tech agriculture does not help us do this.(ii) Field Agriculture Should be PromotedThis study showed that small-scale field agriculture is far more ecologically sustainablethan high-tech greenhouse operations. Decision-makers, all over the world, would be wiseto encourage traditional small-scale field agricultural practices, rather than high-tech,high-input greenhouse production. Promoting field agriculture will help create a strongbasis for a more sustainable food supply. Encouraging field agriculture is a prerequisitefor a sustainable future.For this reason, the following objectives should be included in agricultural and urbanpolicies worldwide. They should also be included in international development policies.lsalting of soil by irrigationChapter 6. Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^49Objectives:a) Prevent urbanization of limited agricultural land,b) Secure the land supply for agriculture,c) Restore degraded arable land.(iii) Field Tomato Production in B.C. Should be EncouragedThe interior region of British Columbia is particularly suited to tomato production.The hot, dry summers in areas like Spences Bridge, Cache Creek and Ashcroft are goodfor tomato production.' The soil in this region is fertile volcanic ash, which is good formost crops.' This land's potential should be taken advantage of. Policies that encouragefield tomato production in this region should be implemented.This area was well-known for its national tomato production until about 35 yearsago. Thousands of acres were cultivated for tomato growing in this area.' Safeway, anational supermarket chain, had contracts with farmers in this area to supply its storeswith tomatoes.5A large canning factory was constructed in Ashcroft, a town between Cache Creek andSpences Bridge and started its operation in 1920. This cannery specialized in tomatoesand employed 400 workers.'Two main factors caused the decline of the tomato industry in this area. Approx-imately 35 years ago, conflicts arose between the growers and Safeway concerning theprice of tomatoes. Safeway decided to purchase cheaper tomatoes from California. The'Mr. Ted Horsting, a grower in Cache Creek and a past President of the Lower Mainland HorticulturalImprovement Association, stated this fact during an interview held January 27, 1993.3Ms. Helen Forster, Curator of Ashcroft Museum, made this statement during an interview heldApril 21, 1993.4Ms. Helen Forster explained the history of tomato production and a cannery operation in the areaduring the same interview as the previous note.'Mr. Ted Horsting explained this history of tomato production in the same interview as the previousnote. Professor Art Bomke of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University of British Columbiarecounted a similar story in a personal interview held February 23, 1993.'Ms. Helen Forster, the same interview as the previous note.Chapter 6. Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^50Californian tomato supply was more constant and reliable.'The second factor involved the canning factory. Delmonte, a big canning industryin the United States, did not want to compete with the B.C. canning industry. There-fore, Delmonte purchased the canning plant under the pretence of helping improve theoperation. After a while, in 1958 they closed the plant and tomato production movedsouth.'British Columbia has very good potential for tomato production. This potential hasnot been fully utilized. Not only are we wasting this capability, but, we are also wastingother natural resources and land base by depending on inefficient greenhouse tomatoproduction. This trend has to be corrected.Some may argue that we cannot produce field tomatoes in spring or winter. Thisis true. However, do we really need tomatoes in spring or winter? In winter, we canuse canned tomatoes which are suitable for most purposes. We can supplement ournutritional requirements by eating other vegetables in winter. As mentioned in Chapter1, tomatoes are not the best source of nutrients. We have other good sources of vitaminswhich can last long past harvest time, such as sweet, potatoes, carrots, peas, sweet cornand potatoes. I think that eating tomatoes in winter is a luxury which can no longer beecologically permissible given that greenhouse operations are ecologically inefficient, asrevealed by EF/ACC analysis, and from the fact that the majority of the people in thethird world countries have problems of malnutrition.(iv) EF/ACC Should be Incorporated into Decision-Making Tools of Agri-cultureSince EF/ACC analysis is a powerful tool to identify the ecological reality, the B.C.Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food. Agriculture Canada, Canadian International7Mr. Ted Horsting, the same interview as the previous note.8Ms. Helen Forster, the same interview as the previous note.Chapter 6. Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^51Development Agency (CIDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Or-ganization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Bank should use EF/ACC analysisin their agricultural policy decision-making process in addition to conventional economicanalysis. EF/ACC analysis will enable them to identify the most sustainable and suitableagricultural style and project in each region. This will contribute to achieving sustainableagriculture.(v) EF/ACC Should be Used to Assess Sustainability of All Kinds of Tech-nologies, Human Activities and Civilization ItselfThis study revealed the inefficiency of a seemingly efficient mode of agricultural tech-nology and practice. It is easily inferred that EF/ACC should be able to assess theefficiency and sustainability of various kinds of technology and economic activities. It iswidely believed that technology will solve global ecological and environmental problems.So called "environmentally benign products" or "ecologically sound technologies" are en-joying more and more attention. Japan is praised as an "energy efficient society" whichhas achieved both economic success and environmental protection. It is, however, neces-sary for us to re-examine these products, technologies, and the way the society operatesfrom an EF/ACC perspective. Some of them may be revealed to be ecologically unsoundthough they appear to be environmentally friendly from the superficial analysis.Western civilization is based on scientific technology. Analysing scientific technologieswith EF/ACC also means examining the EF/ACC of this civilization itself. At present,civilization faces a dilemma as to where to go. EF/ACC will help assess civilization'secological footprint and help determine the future directions of our society from a trulyecological perspective. This will eventually lead to sustainability for our civilization.Chapter 6. Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^52(vi) Educational Programmes Should be Implemented to Prompt Changesin Consumers' BehaviourSociety does not recognize that high-tech agriculture is an inefficient mode of pro-duction and that it is ecologically unsustainable. This is because the dominant economicanalysis is not capable of assessing ecological efficiency and sustainability. There hasnot been an adequate analytical tool for assessing ecological sustainability. EF/ACC isa powerful and suitable tool to do this task. The results of EF/ACC analysis shouldbe revealed to the public through education. Educating consumers and prompting theirbehavioural change would encourage more ecologically sound modes of agricultural pro-duction. Specific educational curricula should be introduced in schools and in communitylevels (e.g. community colleges, and community centres). Mass media could also be usedto educate the public.Educational efforts should not be only directed toward agricultural practices but alsoto other human activities. As mentioned in the previous section, EF/ACC can assess thesustainability of various kinds of technology, operations and activities.To assist teachers and educators, teaching manuals and teaching materials should bedeveloped at the same time. Teaching materials could be in the form of print material,newsletters, slides, videos, audio tapes, and computer game software. For example, in1992, B.C. Hydro developed a computer game called "the Power Smart Game," whichrequires Hypercard program software and a MacIntosh computer. This is for youths ingrades 8 to 10. This game enables students to understand visually and easily how muchenergy is going to be saved depending on everyday behavioural changes. This might bea good mode1.99There are several energy and the environmental educational materials of different kinds which aredeveloped by B.C. Hydro. The Greater Vancouver Regional District produced a print material calledNo Time to Waste in 1992 which teaches children how to reduce household wastes. This is not directlyrelevant to our topic. Nevertheless, this will be a good model for education regarding sustainableagriculture because this is well written and organized.Chapter 6. Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^536.3 Directions for Further Study(i) Similar Studies Should be Attempted in Other RegionsEspecially, it is urgent to study EF/ACC of large-scale mechanized field tomato pro-duction in California and other parts of the United States. They are heavily subsidizedby underpriced fossil fuels in the forms of low cost irrigation water, chemical fertilizersand fuels for agricultural vehicles. We Canadians have to stop and ponder whether theiroperation is ecologically sound, before we purchase California tomato products becauseour individual behavior contributes to the regional (both Canada and U.S.) and globalecological crises.(ii) The Same Studies Should be Conducted in Different CropsI only studied tomato production. Even though tomatoes are typical crops which aregrown in greenhouses, we should do research of other crops to know the general figure ofgreenhouse operations.(iii) Different Modes of Agriculture Should be Analysed in Terms of EF/ACCIn order to achieve sustainable agriculture, we have to know which agricultural prac-tices are more sustainable than others. For example, agroforestry, permaculture, 10 nat-ural farming, 11 and organic farming should be analysed using EF/ACC concepts. Weshould be able to find out which mode of production is more ecologically sound.These findings should be incorporated not only into agricultural policies in each coun-try, but also in international development policies of international development agencies,10Mr. Bill Morrison started a new way of agriculture called "Permaculture", which emphasises verticalmaterial flows between orchard trees and vegetables and does not require much cultivation after two orthree years initial setup. For details see his book, Perrnaculture, 1990. Washington, D.C.: Island Press."Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka started a new mode of agriculture with no tillage, no chemical fertilizersand no pesticides in Japan in the late 1940s which is called "Natural Farming." For detail, see his book,One -Straw Revolution: An Introduction to Natural Farming. 1978. Emmaus: Rodale Press. This wastranslated from Japanese. The original version is available under the title of Shizen Noho: Wara Ipponno Kakurnei (Second edition). 1983. Tokyo: Shunju-Sha.Chapter 6. Analysis, Policy Implications and Directions for Further Study^54such as the Canadian International Development Agency, the World Bank and the Or-ganization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These agencies have stronginfluences on development policies of third world countries. Thus, changing policies ofthese aid agencies will lead to altering the policies of the developing countries. Globalecological, agricultural and population trends show that the problems are profound andurgent. We have no time to waste. We need to act now for the very survival of humankindon this planet.(iv) Other Technologies and Economic Activities Should be Analysed inTerms of EF/ACCIt is urgent for us to study whether our technologies and our activities are sustainable.Our civilization has to be re-examined from an ecological perspective. Civilization is in acrisis because of the global ecological degradation caused by civilization! This problem isnow threatening the very survival of humankind. EF/ACC is capable of providing a morerealistic picture of what we do to our "Mother Earth" and can show us more appropriatedirections for our civilization to follow. EF/ACC will and should be an indispensabledecision-making tool for the survival of our species on this planet.Bibliography[1] Arbrecht, Gordon. 1989. Energy. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.[2] Barbier, Edward. 1992. "Natural Capital and the Economics of Environment andDevelopment." Paper prepared for the ISEE conference. Stockholm, 3 - 6, August1992.[3] Berry, Wendle. 1977. Unsettling of America: Culture 6 Agriculture. San Francisco:Sierra Club Books.[4] Birch, Charles and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1990. The Liberation of Life. Denton, Texas:Environmental Ethics Books.[5] Boustead, I. and G. F. Hancodk. 1981. Energy and Packaging. Chichester, WestSussex: Ellis Horwood Limited.[6] B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1991a. "Planning for Profit:Greenhouse Tomatoes, Fraser Valley, Spring 1991." Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food.[7] B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1991b. The Greenhouse VegetableIndustry in British Columbia: An Industry Profile. Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food.[8] B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1992a. Preparing a Business Plan:Greenhouse Vegetable Example. Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fish-eries and Food.[9] B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1992b. Greenhouse Vegetable Op-portunities in B.C. 1992 - 1993: New Grower Information Package. Victoria, B.C.:B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.[10] Brown, Lester Russel. 1988. The Changing World Food Prospect: the Nineties andBeyond. Washington, D.C.: World Watch Institute.[11] Catton, William R. Jr. 1980. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of RevolutionaryChange. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.55Bibliography^ 56[12] Cleveland, J. Cutler. 1991. "Natural Resource Scarcity and Economic Growth Re-visited: Economic and Biophysical Perspective." in Costanza, Robert ed. EcologicalEconomics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.[13] Cole, Raymond. ed. 1991. Buildings and the Environment. Proceedings of one-dayForum held at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada on March15th 1991.[14] Cole, Raymond J. and David Rousseau. 1992. "Environmental Auditing for BuildingConstruction: Energy and Air Pollution Indices for Building Materials," Buildingand Environment. Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 23 - 30.[15] Costanza, Robert. ed. 1991. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management ofSustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.[16] Daly, Herman E. 1989. "Sustainable Development: From Concept and Theory To-wards Operational Principles." (Hoover Institution Conference). Manuscript pre-pared for special issue of Population and Development Review.[17] Daly, Herman E. and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting theEconomy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Boston:Bacon Press.[18] Dasgupta, Partha and Geoffrey Heal. 1979. Economic Theory and Exhaustible Re-sources. London: Cambridge University Press.[19] Defreitas, Michael. 1992. "Portrait: A Houweling Success - Hothouse Veggies Creamof the Crop." Canadian. Canadian Airlines International Ltd. August 1992, p. 18.[20] Ekins, Paul ed. 1986. The Living Economy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.[21] Environment Canada. 1991. The State of Canada's Environment - 1991. Ottawa:Government of Canada.[22] Flavin, Christopher and Nicholas Lenssen. 1990. Beyond the Petroleum Age: Design-ing a Solar Economy. Worldwatch Paper 100. Washington, D. C.: The WorldwatchInstitute.[23] Fluck, C. Richard and C. DireIle Baird. 1980. Agricultural Energetics. Westport,Connecticut: Avi Publishing Co., Inc.[24] Fukuoka, Masanobu. 1978. The One-Straw Revolution: An Introduction to NaturalFarming. Emmaus: Rodale Press.Bibliography^ 57[25] Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.[26] Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1975. "Energy and Economic Myths." Southern Eco-nomic Journal. Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 347 - 381.[27] Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1977. "Steady state and Ecological Salvation: A Ther-modynamic Analysis." BioScience. Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 266 - 270.[28] Geyer, John, Robert Kaufmann, David Skole and Charles Vorosmarty. 1987. BeyondOil. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger.[29] Goodland, Robert, Herman Daly and Salah El Serafy ed. 1991. EnvironmentallySustainable Development: Building on Brundtland. Washington, D. C.: The WorldBank.[30] Green, B. Maurice. 1978. Eating Oil: Energy Use in Food Production. Boulder:Westview Press.[31] Hannon, Bruce. 1973. "The Structure of Ecosystem." Journal of Theoretical Biology.Vol. 41, pp. 535 - 546.[32] Hannon, B., R. Stain, B. Segal, and D. Serber. 1977. "Energy Use in BuildingConstruction." CAC Document 228. Urbana: Center for Advanced Computation,University of Illinois.[33] Hara, Yonosuke. 1992. Ajia Keizairon no Kozu: Shin-Kotenha Kaihatsu Keizaigakuwo Koete (The Composition of Asian Economies: Beyond Neo-classical Economicsof Development). In Japanese. Tokyo: Libro Port.[34] Helsel, Z. R. ed. 1987. Energy in Plant Nutrition and Pest Control. Vol. 2 of Energyin World Agriculture Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.[35] Hendriks, C. A., K. Blok and W. C. Turkenburg. 1989. "The Recovery of CarbonDioxide from Power Plants." in Okken, P. A., R. J. Swart and S. Zwerver. eds.Climate and Energy: The Feasibility of Controlling CO2 Emissions. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.[36] Hicks, J. R. 1946. Value and Capital. Second ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.[37] Inoue, Yuichi. 1986. "An Alternative Approach to Regional Planning: A Carrying-Capacity Framework for Achieving a Viable Region." M. A. thesis. Vancouver: TheUniversity of British Columbia.Bibliography^ 58[38] Kada, Ryohei. 1990. Kankyo Hozen to Jizokuteki Nogyo (Environmental Preservationand Sustainable Agriculture). In Japanese. Tokyo: Ie no Hikari Kyokai.[39] Kuroda, Toshio. 1991. "Jinko, Kaihatsu, Kankyo no Rensa" (Interconnection Be-tween Population, Development and the Environment). In Japanese. Nihon no Jinko,Kaihatsu, Kankyo: Ajia no Keiken (Population, Development and the Environment:An Asian Experience). Tokyo: The Asian Population and Development Association.[40] Leach, Gerald. 1975. "The Energy Costs of Food Production." in Steele, Forrest andArthur Bourne eds. Man-Food Equation. London: Academic Press.[41] Leach, Gerald. 1976. Energy and Food Production. Guildford, Surrey: IPC Scienceand Technology Press Limited.[42] Martinez-Alier, Juan. 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment and Soci-ety. Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell.[43] Morrison, Bill. 1990. Permaculture. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.[44] Mudahar, S. Mohinder and Travis P. Hignett. 1982. Energy and Fertilizer: Pol-icy Implications and Options for Developing Countries. Muscle Shoals, Alabama:International Fertilizer Development Center.[45] Murota, Takeshi. 1979. Enerugi to Entoropii no Keizaigaku (Economics of Energyand Entropy). In Japanese. Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinpo[46] Odum, Howard T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. New York: John Wiley& Sons.[47] Pearce, David, Edward Barbier and Anli Markandya. 1990. Sustainable Develop-ment: Economics and Environment in the Third World. London: Edward Elgar.[48] Pearce, David, Anli Markandya and Edward Barbier. 1989. Blueprint for a GreenEconomy. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.[49] Pearce, David and Kerry Turner. 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and theEnvironment. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.[50] Pimentel, David. 1980a. Food, Energy and the Future of Society. Boulder: ColoradoAssociated University Press.[51] Pimentel, David. ed. 1980b. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. BocaRaton, Florida: CRC Press, Inc.Bibliography^ 59[52] Pimentel, David, J. Allen, A. Beers, L. Guinand, R. Linder, P. McLaughlin, B.Meer, D. Musonda, D. Perdue, S. Poisson, S. Siebert, K. Stoner, R. Salazar, andA. Hawkins. 1987. "World Agriculture and Soil Erosion: Erosion Threatens WorldFood Production." Bioscience. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 277 - 283.[53] Pimentel, David and C. W. Hall eds. 1984. Food and Energy Resources. London:Academic Press.[54] Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food, Energy and Society. London: EdwardArnold.[55] Rambo, A. Terry. 1984a. "Human Ecology Research by Scientists on Tropical Agroe-cosystems." in Rambo, A. Terry and Perry E. Sajise ed. An Introduction to HumanEcology Research on Agricultural Systems in Southeast Asia. College, Laguna: Uni-versity of the Philippines at Los Banos.[56] Rambo, A. Terry. 1984b. "No Free Lunch: A Reexamination of the Energetic Ef-ficiency of Swidden Agriculture." in Rambo, A. Terry and Percy E. Sajise ed., AnIntroduction to Human Ecology Research on Agricultural Systems in Southeast Asia.College, Laguna: University of the Philippines at Los Banos.[57] Rees, William E. 1990a. "Atmospheric Change: Human Ecology in Disequilibrium,"International Journal of Environmental Studies. Vol. 36, pp. 103 - 124.[58] Rees, William E. 1990b. Sustainable Development and the Biosphere: Concepts andPrinciples. Teilhard Studies. The University of British Columbia School of Commu-nity and Regional Planning.[59] Rees, William E. 1991a. "Understanding Sustainable Development - final draft."A contribution to Planning for Growth Management and Sustainable Development.Vancouver: The University of British Columbia School of Community and RegionalPlanning.[60] Rees, William E. 1991b. Conserving Natural Capital: The Key to Sustainable Land-scapes. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia School of Community andRegional Planning.[61] Rees, William E. 1991c. "Economics, Ecology, and the Limits of Conventional Anal-ysis." Journal of the Air^Wastement Management Association. Vol. 41, No. 10,pp. 1323 - 1327.[62] Rees, William E. 1992. "Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity:What Urban Economics Leaves Out," Environment and Urbanization. Vol. 4, No. 2,pp. 121 - 130.Bibliography^ 60[63] Rees, William E. 1993. "Understanding Sustainable Development: Natural Capitaland the New World Order." Journal of the American Planning Association. Forth-coming.[64] Rees, William E. and Mark Roseland. 1991. "Sustainable Communities: Planningfor the 21st Century." Plan Canada. Vol. 31, No. 3. pp. 15 - 26.[65] Rees, William E. and Mathis Wackernagel. 1992. "Appropriated Carrying Capacity:Measuring the Natural Capital Requirements of the Human Economy." a paper pre-sented to the Second Meeting of the International Society for Ecological Economics,"Investing in Natural Capital," held in Stockholm, Sweden.[66] Renner, Michael. 1991. Jobs in a Sustainable Economy. Worldwatch Paper 104.Washington, D. C.: The Worldwatch Institute.[67] Reppeto, R. 1986. World Enough and Time. New Haven, Conn.: Yale UniversityPress.[68] Roseland, Mark. 1992. Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book for Mu-nicipal and Local Governments. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environmentand Economy.[69] Sadik, Natis. 1990. An Address (statement) for the Third General Assembly ofAFPPD, Bangkok, October 15 - 18, 1990.[70] Shah, M. M., G. Fischer, G. M. Higgins, A. H. Kassam, and L. Naiken. 1985. "Peo-ple, Land, and Food Production Potentials in the Developing World." InternationalInstitute for Applied Systems Analysis. CP-85-11. Laxenburg, Austria.[71] Simon, Julian. 1981. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton: Princeton University Press.[72] Smil, Vaclav. 1979. "Energy Flows in Rural China." Human Ecology. Vol. 7, No. 2.[73] Stanhill, Gerald. 1980. "The Energy Cost of Protected Cropping: A Comparison ofSix Systems of Tomato Production." Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research.Vol. 25, pp. 145 - 154.[74] Stanhill, Gerald. ed. 1984. Energy and Agriculture. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.[75] Stevens, M. Allen. 1972. "Varietal Influence on Nutritional Value." in White L.Philip and Nancy Selvey ed., Nutritional Qualities of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.Mount Kisco, New York: Futura Publishing Co., Ltd.[76] Stout, B. A. 1984. Energy Use and Management in Agriculture. North Scituate,Massachusetts: Breton Publishers.Bibliography^ 61[77] Stout, B. A. 1990. Handbook of Energy for World Agriculture. New York: ElsevierScience Publishing Co., Inc.[78] Tabeta, Masahiro. 1990. Komonzu no Keizaigaku (The Economics of the Commons).In Japanese. Tokyo: Gakuyo Shobo.[79] Taylor, Geoffrey. 1978. Principles of Human Nutrition. London: Edward ArnoldLtd[80] Teikoku Shoin Henshubu. 1991. Shin-sho Koto Shakai-ka Chizu (The New DetailedAtlas for Advanced Social Studies): 5th Edition. In Japanese. Tokyo: Teikoku Shoin.[81] Tuma, Jan J. 1983. Handbook of Physical Calculations. New York: McGraw-Hill.[82] Udagawa, Taketoshi. 1976. "Suito Saibai ni Okeru Tounyu Enerugi no Suitei" (Es-timation of Energy Inputs to Rice Production). In Japanese. Kankyo Joho Kagaku(Environmental Information & Sciences). Vol. 5. No. 2. pp. 73 - 79.[83] Wackernagel, Mathis. 1991. "Assessing Ecological Sustainability: A BackgroundPaper on Indicating the Health and Sustainability of a Community by Measuringits Appropriated Carrying Capacity." Report I. Task Force on Planning Healthy andSustainable Communities, The University of British Columbia.[84] Wackernagel, Mathis. 1992. "Comparing Three Thinking Tools for Policy Analysis."Population-Environment Linkages. Presented at KLH-EMDI Workshop in Indonesia,March 4 - 5, 1992.[85] Wackernagel, Mathis and William E. Rees. 1992. "Perceptual and Structural Barri-ers to Investing in Natural Capital." Presented at the Second Meeting of the Inter-national Society for Ecological Economics, "Investing in Natural Capital," held inStockholm, Sweden, August 3 - 6, 1992.[86] Wackernagel, Mathis, Janette McIntosh, William E. Rees and Robert Woollard.1993. "Handbook for Estimating Appropriated Carrying Capacity." Vancouver: TheUniversity of British Columbia Task Force on Planning Healthy and SustainableCommunities. Forthcoming.[87] World Resources Institute. 1992. World Resources 1992 - 1993: A Guide to theGlobal Environment. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Appendix ACalculation Process of Fertilizer Energy IntensityThere is no documentation of some of the energy intensity figures of chemical fertilizers.I, therefore, estimate the missing figures to be as follows.Generally speaking, fertilizers are composed of three chemical substances: nitrogen(abbreviated as N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). For example, a fertilizer called"plant starter" contains three of these elements. Its composition is 10 % of N, 52 % of Pand 10 % of K.Energy intensity figures of N, P205, and K20 are documented in scientific literature.Helsel ed. (1987, p. 6) presents figures of 78.13 MJ/kg, 17.45 MJ/kg and 13.70 respec-tively. These include energy which is required for transportation and application of thefertilizers. To use these gross figures would be double counting, because I count the en-ergy required for transportation and application in different categories. I subtracted halfof the PTA' energy requirement from these figures to avoid double counting. Then I getthe following adjusted figures: 73.84 MJ/kg, 12.58 MJ/kg and 10.04 respectively. I usethese figures as a calculation basis in combination with the above information regardingthe composition of elements in a fertilizer.For example, the energy intensity of "plant starter" is calculated as follows:0.1 x 73.84 + 0.52 x 12.58 + 0.1 x 10.04^14.93MJ/kg.'PTA stands for packaging, transportation of raw material and product, and application (Helsel ed.1987 p. 6)62Appendix A. Calculation Process of Fertilizer Energy Intensity^ 63The following table presents some examples of estimated figures of fertilizers computedas above.Table A.1: Estimated Energy Intensity of Chemical FertilizersN P KUnit Energy Intensity (MJ/kg) 73.84 12.58 10.04Mono Potassium Phosphate Composition (%) 0 52 349.96 MJ/kg 0.00 6.54 3.41Potassium Nitrate Composition (%) 13.00 0.00 46.0014.22 MJ/kg 9.60 0.00 4.62Calcium Nitrate Composition (%) 15.50 0.00 0.0011.45 MJ/kg 11.45 0.00 0.00All Purpose(20-20-20) Composition (%) 20 20 2019.29 MJ/kg 14.77 2.52 2.01Plant Starter (10-52-10) Composition (%) 10 52 1014.93 MJ/kg 7.38 6.54 1.0012-5-0 Composition (%) 12 5 09.49 MJ/kg 8.86 0.63 0.000-0-50 Composition (%) 0 0 505.02 MJ/kg 0.00 0.00 5.020-0-60 Composition (%) 0 0 606.02 MJ/kg 0.00 0.00 6.02Appendix BAverage Figures of Energy Intensity for PesticidesTable B.2: Energy Intensity Figures of Chemical Herbicides, Insecticides, and Fungicides(from Helsel 1987, p. 168)Herbicides Insecticides Fungisides(from Pimentel. 1980. p.46)Herbicides Insecticides fungicides130 160 61 30952 24200 1525085 209 99 64290 38100 23570135 454 115 45240 13810 27380295 153 375 35170 108100 26620170 58 109520 36430518 580 24200220 250 56700278 58 71400290 229 19080365 138 52240141 70 69050270 70240355 108100190 9524080150400460454290201434160276Average (Kcal/kg) 60815.86 44128.00 23205.00Average(MJ/kg) 264.46 196.58 162.50 Average (MJ/kg) 254.45 184.63 97.0964Appendix CSpreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations• Greenhouse A• Greenhouse B = Otsuki Greenhouses Ltd.• HillTop Gardens Farms Ltd. (Mechanized Field Operation)• Horsting Farms (Mechanized Field Operation)65Appendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 66Table 0.3: Spreadsheet for "Greenhouse A" Hydroponic Greenhouse Tomato Production^ as of April 25, 93Number Inputs Material Volume or Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance Energy Required Energy forLength Intensity Energy Expectancy Energy/Year Equivalant Equivalant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Transport Transport(cub.m etc) (kg) (M-T/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per lha (ha/1000 ton (8/year) (cg/year) (km) '^(MJ/tn/km) '(MJ/year) of Grow Area) /year)1^Land occupied1.1 Growing Area1.2^Other Service Areas2 Embodied Energy of Facilities3.50402.55700.94701.37041.00000.37042.77182.02270.7491($18,963.65)11-^Building 6660l 16646825.5 20 832341.3 10.4043 4.0689 8.2302 30855 1 31991.12.1.1 Glass^glass 253296 14 3546141.2 20 177307.1 2.2163 0.8668 1.7532 ($19,525.84) 12664.8 640 1.5800 12806.62.1.2^Post&Framework^steel 189357 30 5680711 5 20 284035.6 3.5504 1.3885 2.8085 ($64,778 26) 9467.9 16390 0.06 c0 10086.72.1.3^Framework etc ahninium 16623 240 3989496.0 20 199474.8 2.4934 0.9751 1.9724 831.1 16390 0.0650 885.52.1.4^Foundation (import)^concrete 85779 1.3 111512.3 20 5575,0 0.0697 0.0273 0.0551 4288 16390 00010 4569.32.1.5^1 oundation(domest)^concrete 450338 1.3 585439.8 20 29272.0 0.3659 0.1431 0.2894 (81,401.76) 3602 ' c.40 I 5900 3643.12.1.6^Other Service Bldgs^(sq. in)^960 1713 1644480.0 20 82224.0 1.0278 0.4020 0 81302.1.7^Electrical ($3,942.44)2.1.8^Construction^7% of embodied energy of material 1089044 7 20 54452.2 0.6807 0.2662 0.5384 ($18,662.53)2.2 Irrigation system221 ^Tube & pipes^plastic 2100 85 178500.0 3 59500.0 0.7438 02009 0.5883 ($6,426 10) 708.0 640 1.5800 707.82.2.2^Tank^steel 3288 30 98640.0 20 4932.0 0.0617 0.0241 0.0488 ($194.17) 164. 4 16390 0.0630 i5.12.2.3^Tank plastic 340 85 28900.0 20 14-45.0 0.0181 0.0071 0.0143 ($171.07) 17.0 16390 0.0050^Pump steel 305 30 9150.0 20 457.5 0.005? 0.0022 0.0045 (81,121.40) 15.3 16390 0.0650^Pond Sheet^plastic 27904 85 2371840.0 30 79061.3 0.9883 0.3865 0.7818 (82,025.38) 930.1 16390 0 0650 990.92.3 Ventilation System ($206.46)2.3.1^Elec. Motors^steel^10 motors 70 30 2100.0 20 105.0 0.0013 0.0005 0.0010 3.5 16390 0.0650 372.3.2^Rods^aluminum 1190 240 285600.0 20 14280.0 0.1785 0.0698 0.1412 59.5 16390 00650 6342.3.3^Steel Shall stee 12333 30 369990.0 20 10409 9 0.2312 0.0904 0.1829 616.7 16390 0 0650 657.02.4 CO2 Dist Sys^plastic^7776 m 78 85 6604.5 1 6604.5 0.0826 0.0323 0.0653 ($721 80) 77 - 16390 0.0650 82.82.5^Heating Systems ($52635.91)2.5.1^Boilers^steel^1.86 14640 30 439369.2 10 43936. 9 0.5492 0.2148 0.4344 1464.6 640 1.5800 1481.02.5.2^Pipes (sm4ll)^steel 13 82 108819 30 3264c0 4 20 163228.0 2.0404 0.7979 1.6140 5440.9 640 1.5800 5501.92.5.3^Pipes (medium) steel^1.24 9764 30 292912.8 20 14645.6 0.1831 0.0716 0.1448 488.2 640 1.5800 493.72.5.4^Pipes( large)^steel 0.25 1969 30 5"055 0 20 2952.8 0 0369 0.0144 0.0292 98.4 640 1.5800 0952.6 Dranage Pipe plastic^024 12942 85 1100045 0 20 55002.3 0 6875 0.2689 0.5439 ($1,142.26) 647.1 640 1.5800 654.32.7^Spray Equipment^steel 15 30 450 0 20 22.5 0 0003 0 0001 0.0002 ($25.76) 0 8 640 1.5800 0.82.8 Electric & Hand Car 0.0000 ($2,496.93)2.8.1^Electric Cart^ste,e1 490 30 14700.0 10 1470.0 0 0184 0.0072 0.0145 49 0 16390 0.0650^Hand Cart aluminum 165 240 39600.0 10 3960.0 0.04,5 0.0194 0.0392 16.5 16390 0.0650 17.6Fork LAD^steel 2750 30 82500.0 15 5500.0 0.0688 0.0269 0.0544 ($2,790.90) 183 3 640 1.5800 185.42.10^Pallet Jacks steel 300 30 9000.0 30 300.0 0.0038 0.0015 0.0030 ($83.21)^- 10.0 640 1. 5800 10.12.11^Tracks steel etc^0 5track 2914 30 87420.0 15 5828,0 0.0729 0.-0285 0.0576 (8310 10) 1943. 640 1 5800' 196.42.12 Computer Equipment 20 20 ($3,864.11) 1.0 640 1 5800 1.0Sub Total of Fixed Facilities & Equipments (1 -2.12) 1 25387763.0 1314072.2 16.4259 6.4239 I 12.9936 I ($201,490.04)Appendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 67Table C.3: Spreadsheet for "Greenhouse A"(Continued)Number Inputs Material Volume or Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance Energy Required Energy forLength Intensity Energy Expectancy Energy/Year Equivalant Equivalant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Transport Transport(cub.m etc) (k8) (MJ/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per lha (ha/1000 ton (5/year) (kg/year) (ktn) (MJ/tri/km) (MJ/year)of Grow Area) /year)33.1Variable Inputs I.SawdustBag&RockWool13.1.1 Plastic Bag^plastic^ 1361 85 115668.0 1 115668.0 1.4459 0.5651 1.1437 (56,571.36) 1360.8 640 1.5800 1376:03.1.2 Sawdust sawdust 238140 1 156 60.8710 123.1232 (51,483.03) 238140.0 .20 1.5800 7525.23.1.3 Rockwool^rockwool 3266 28 91448.0 1 91448.0 • 1.1431 0.4470 0.9042 ($86,004.67) 3266.0 773o 0.0650 164233.1.4 Rock Wool Wrap^plastic^ 185 85 15725.0 1 15725.0 0:1966 0.0769 0.1555 185 0 7736 0.0650 93.03.2 Ground Cover plastic 3700^2220 85 .^188700.0 1 188700:0 2.3588 0.9225 1.8659 ($10,720.00) 2220.0 640 1 5800 2244.93.3 White wash^gypsum 500 4.2 2100.0 1 2100.0 0.0263 0.0103 0.0208 ($163.28) 500.0 640 1 5800 505.63.4 Electricityaell:11111=(t.3kWIElkWit)^t116160 kwlitell 4988926.1 1 4988926.1 62.3616 2:1.3880 49.3306 (520,161..15)3 5 Natural Gas 777483 86.3 67089000.0 1 67089000.0 838.6125 327.9673 663.3769 ($172,854.47) 777452.93.0 Car Fuels3.7 Labour Force 1 (5226,156.87) 0.04 Variable Inputs 11.4.1 Fertilizers4.1.1 Potassitun Sulfate^ 4082 3.5 14287.0 1 3354.0 0.0419 0.0164 0.0332 (5193.20) 780.0 041) 1.5600 788.74.1 2 Potassium Chloride -80 4.3 3354.0 I 36150.0 0.4519 0.1767 0.3575 (55,767.20) 3615.0 640 1 5800 3655 54 1 3 Mono Potassium Phosphate^ 3615 10.0 36150.0 1 222045.4 1.7756 1.0855 2.1956 (511,830.201 15637.0 640 1.5800 15812 14.1 4 Potassium^Nitrite^ 15637 14.2 222045.4 I 360697.5 4.5087 1.7633 3.5666 (56,811.48) 31365.0 640 1 5800 31716 34 1.5 Calcium Nitrate 31365 11.5 360697.5 1 360697.5 4.5087 1.7633 3.5666 (511302.40) 31365.0 640 1.5800 31716.34.1.6 Ammonium Nitrate 1440 66 6 95889.6 1 95889.6 1.1986 0.4688 0.9482 ($447.00) 1440.0 640 1.5800 1456 14.1.7 Phosporic Acid^ 5187 17.5 90772.5 1 90772.5 1.1347 0.4437 0 8976 ($7,027.20) 5187.0 640 1.5800 5245.14.1.8 Magnesium Sulphate 14550 2.0 29100.0 1 29100.0 0.3638 0.1423 0.2877 (56,948.00) 14550.0 640 1.5800 14713.04.1 Biological Pest Contrid 1 0.0000 0.0000 ($7L352.32) 0.0 640 1.5800 0.04.4 Seeds^ 0.38 38.7 14.8 1 14.8 0.0002 0.0001 0 0001 ($10,211.44) 04 640 1 5800 0.44.5 Liquid CO2^ 417252 5.7^• 2386680.3 1 2366680.3 29.8335 11.6674 23.5995 ($53,297.001 417251.8 300 1.5800 197777.44.6 Miscellaneous Variable Costs (phone,insurance,consultation,etc.)which are rrussurg from above($238,842.81)4.7 Managers Salar: C560;000.00)Sub Total of Vanable Inputs (3. - 4.7) 76076968.6 1106.6092 432.7764 875.3732 (51,009,145.09)Grand Total of Fixed Inputs and Variable Inputs 77391040.8 1126.5391 440.5706 891.1386 (S1,210,635.13) 359668.01264157 126415751,738.215.885527,580.75Output Per Year (kg/yr)Revenue per year (S/ yr.)Net Profit per year (S/yr)640^30000^2427181.42.55700.09600.60400.15000.00100 09603.50401.00000.037s0.23620.05870.00040.03751.3704Appendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 68Table C.3: Spreadsheet for "Greenhouse A"(Continued)GROWING AREA without ACC considerationRequired Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr)Output per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr)Revenue per hectare per year (S/ha/yr)Net Profit per hectare per year (S/lia/yr)VISIBLE OCCUPIED AREA without ACC consideration Required Area per Unit Output (ha/1000tott/yr)Output per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr)Revenue per hectare per hear (5/ha/yr)Net Profit per hectare per year (S/ha/yr)TOTAL LAND with ACC consideration (except transportation)Required Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/y0Output per hectare year (kg/ha/y.r)Revenue per hectare per year (S/ha/yr)Net Profit per hectare per year (S/ha/yr)Inputs for 1 ran sp or-tat ion (Importing materials) per yearInputs for Transportation (Exporting products) per yearTOTAL LAND with ACC consideration including transportationRequired Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr)Output per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr)Revenue per hectare per year (S/ha/yr)Net Profit per hectare per year (S/ba/yLand GreenhouseLand-paclutg& office&nutrientLand-PondLand Docking & Parking AreaLand Septic PlaceLand RoadwayLand Total for TomatoesMass Embodied LifeEnergy Land-Land-Embodied Land- Cost or Benefit DistanceTransported Energy RequiredEnergy ExpectancyIntensity Energy/Year Equivalant Per YearEquivalant Equivalant(kg)for TransportMass/year Traveled(MD (years)(M)/kg) (MJ/year) (MJ/trilIan)Energy forTransport (MJ/year)(ha/1000 ton/year)(kg/year)($/year)(ha/yr per lhaof Grow Area)(ha/year)359668.0Grand Total of  Fixed Inputs and Variable Inputs 77391040.8^1126.539069^440.5706^891.1386^($1,210,635.13)2.5570^1.0000^2.02272 0227 2.0227^2.0227S679,787.20S206.32802^3.5040 ^1.3704^2.7718^2.7718 2.7718^2.77W3607755496,066.17$150,565.281126 5391^440.5706^891.1386891 1386 891.1386^891.138661.542,9"$468.324.495830.33981161 374'918.69501.758311.8654454.1942918.69503.556424.0000918.6950918.6950S1,496.69$454 2749439111221089Appendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 69Li^I^Ii IS e" 1^ " ^Ti i 1^t r P-_^, _ _(Otsuki Greenhouses Ltd.)as of April 25, 93Number Inputs Material Volume or Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance Energy Required Energy forLength Intensity Energy Expectancy Energy/Year 'ki,quivalant, Equivalant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Transport Transport(cub.m etc) (kg) (Mil/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per lha (ha/1000ton (S/year) (kg/Year) (km) (MJ/tn/krn) (MJ/year)of Grow Area) /year)Land occupied1.1^I Growing Area1.2 Other Service Areas2^I Embodied Energy of Facilities2.1 Building2.1.1^Glass^glass2.1.2^Post&Framework^steel2.1 3^'Framework etc alrninium2.1.4^Foundation (import)^concrete2.1.5^I Foundation(domest)^concrete216 ^Other Service Bldgs^(sq. m)2 1 7^I Electrical218^Constniction^7% of embodied2.2 Irrigation system I2.2.1^Tube & pipes^plastic2.2.2^ITank^steel^I2.2.3^Tank plastic22.4^I Pump steel^I225^Pond Shesq^plastic2.3 I Ventilation System^I2.3.1^Elec. Motors^ste,e12.3.2^I Rods^aluminum2.3.3^Steel Shaft steel2.4 I CO2 Dist. Sys^plastic2.5^Heating Systems2.5.1^I Boilers^steel2 5.2^Pipes (small)^steel2.53^I Pipes (medium)^I^steel254^Pipes(large) steel2.6 I Dranage Pipe^plastic2.7^Spray Equipment^steel2 8^'Electric & Hand Car I281^Electric Cart^steed2.8.2^I Hand Cart I^aluminum79 Fork Lift^steel2 10^Pallet Jacks steel2 11^Tracks^ste,e1 etc2 12 EquipmentII665Ienergy of materialI4 motors4100m0 7445.530.500102.400.75track274951^71242^I^1449957 304558^I^24023871 13125323^1.31713546^851512 30156^85140 10NA^NA28^30309 2403207^3041 855858^3043527 303906^30787 303365^85250 30540^3074^I^2402063 30225^I^304845 30205267697.4997389.71498712.7I 1093881.631032.4162920.31139145.0344615,746410.045374.413294.04209.0NA840.0I^74256.096197.43485.0175747.71305824.2117165.123622.0286011.97500.016200.017760.061875.06750.0145350.02020202020202020204202020NA2020201I^1020^I^2020I^2010I1015153020201263384.949869.574935.654694.11551.68146.056957317230.811602.52268.7664.7210.5NA42.03712.84809.93485.017574.865291.25858.31181.114300.6750.0 1620.01184.04125.0225.07267.5I0.92420.66560.25863.2923I^0.62340.93671 0.68370.01940.10180.71200.21540.14500.02840.00830.0026^INAI0.00050.0464^I0.06010.04360.21970.81610.07320 01480.17880.00940.02030.01480.05160.00280.09081.38841.00000.38844.94640.93661.40731.02720.02910.15301.06970 323o0.21790.04260.01250.0040NA0.00080.0070.09030.06540.33011 22620.11000.02220.26860.01410.03040.02220.07750.00420.13653.1742I^2.28610.888011.3081I^2.14113.2173 I^2.34820.06660.34972.44540 '3980_4981I 0.09740.0285 0.0090 NAI0.00180.15940.20650.14960.75452.80320.25150.05070.61400.03220.00000.06960.05080.17710.00970.3120IS28,273.08(846,727.75)I($881.78)included in building cos($1,291.56)($89.90)($7920)($519.19)NAI Included in building cost($379.41)Included in building costII^($298.91)($18.50)Included in budding cost($210411)($31.47)(S1,322.67)(81,011 19)8484.03562.12497.9I 227.91193.61002.6136.575.67.87.0NA1.415.51603I^41.0I^585.82176.4I^195.3394I^168.225.0I54.0I^4.9137.57.5242.310640163901639016390640I640163901639016390NA1639016390163901639064064064064064064016390163906406406406401 58000.06500.06500.06501.5800I1 c8000.06500.06500.0650NAI0.06500.06500.06500.06501.58001.58001.58001.58001.58001.58000.06500.06501.58001.58001.58001.58008791.33602 02661.1I^212.81231.6I^1013.8I138.080.683I^7.5NAI1 5lo.5170.8I^43.7I^592.12200.7I 197.539.8170.125.357.55.3139.07.6245.01.01ComputerSub Total of Fixed Facilities & Equipments (1 -2.12) I^I I^7715569 0^I^I^409558.3 I^5.1195 1^7.6915^1^17.5838^.1^($26.482.56)^.1 I^1^IAppendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 70Table C.4: Spreadsheet for "Greenhouse B"(Continuesd)Number Inputs Material Volume or Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance Energy Required Energy forLength Intensity Energy Expectancy Energy/Year Equivalant Equivalant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Transport Transport(cubin etc) OW (MJ/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per Ilia (ha/1000ton ($/year) (kT/year)^" Our0 (MJ/talan) (MJ/year)of Grow Area) /year)3^Variable Inputs I.3.1.^SawdustBag&RockWool^ I I^13.1.1^Plastic Bag^plastic NA 85^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA^NA •3.1.2^Sawdust sawdust^ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA I^NA NA NA NA3.1.3^Rockwool^rockwool 849 28^23776.5^1^23776.5^0.2972^0.4465^1.0208^($7,572.38)^849 2^7736^0.0650^427.03.1.4^Rock Wool Wrap^I^plastic^I 48 85 4088.5 1 4088.5 0.0511 0.0768 0.1755 I^48.1^I^7736 0.0650 24.23.2 Ground Cover plastic 2149 85^182631.0^1^182631.0^2.2829^3.4298^7.8410^($11,053.65)^2148.6 640^1.5800^21-2 73.3^White wash^1^gypsum NA 4.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA^I^NA^NA NA NA3.4 Electricityaell:[th]=0.3kWirlkWh)^73980 kwhf ell^886872.2^1^886872.2^11.0859^16 6555^38.0767^($4,165.24)3.5^Natural Gas^1^I 169504 I^86.3 14626520.0 1 14626520.0^182.8315 274.6867^627.9697 ($57,806.32)^I^16950-1.23.6 Car Fuels (S1,470.49)diesel^1^1^1,101.32^748.8976I1^4-4^33251 1^1^33251.1^0.4156^0.6245^1.4276^($11,053.65)^748.9^1^640^1.5800^I^757.3gasoline 417.915 ^184.1822 49 13910.7 1 13910.7 0.1739 0 2612 0.5972 (1105365) 284.2^.^640 1.5800 2- 43.7^Labour Force I 1 ($58,800.79)^0.03.8^Managers Salary ($30,000.00)4 Variable Inputs II.^14.1^Fertilizers4.1.1^Potassium Sulfate, 954 3 5^3337.3^I^1^1612.5^0.0202^0 0303^0.0692^($557 30)^375.0^,^640^1.5800^379.24.1.2^Potassium Chloride^ 375 43 1612.5 1 15000.0 0.1875 0.2817 0.6440 (593.00) 1500 0 640 1.5800 1516.84.1.3^1Mono Potassium Phosphate^ 1500 10.0^15000.0^I^1^81003.9^I^1.0125^1.5213^3.4778^(52A00.00)^5704 s^640^1.5800^.5768.4414^Potassium Nitrate 5705 14.2 81003.9 1 91712.5 1.1464 1.7224 3.9376 (54,244.18) 7975.0 640 1.5800 8064.34.1.5^I Calcium Nitrate^I^I^7975 115^91712.5^1^91712.5^I^1.1464^1.7224^I^3.9376^(53,030.50)^7975.0^I^640^1.5800^I^8064 34.1.6^Ammonium Nitrate   250 66.6 16647.5 1 16647.5 0.2081 0.3126 0.7147 ($77.50) 250.0 640 1.5800^1Magnesium Sulphate I 3998 20^7996.0^1^1^7996.0^0.1000^0.1502^I^0.3433^(81,839.80)^3998.0^I^640^1.5800^I^A042-84.1.9^Sodium Molybdate^ 1 10.0 10.0 1 10.0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004 (843.00) 1.0 640 1.5800^1 04.1.10^I Iron Chelate^I 25^1 150^370.5^1^I^37^ I^0.0046^0.007^0.0159^(8415.67)^24.7^640^I^1.5800^Potassium Bicarbonate 100 4.0 400.0 1 1000 0.0050 0.0075 0.0172 (5255.40) 100.0 640 1.5800^101.14.2 1 Biological Pest Control^ 285^1 1^1^1 ($8,670.18)^284.8^640^1.5800 288.04.3^Chemical Pesticides ($1,340.98)43.1^Agribrom Powder 1^1.8 264.0^475.2^1^1^475.2^I^0.0059^0.0089^I^0.0204^ 1.8^I^640^1.5800^I^^Kelthane^ 8.0 197.0 1576.0 1 1576.0 0.0197 0.0296 0.0677 8.0 640 1.5800^Lorsban I^1.4 197 0^275.8^1^2-5.8^I^0.0034^0.0052^I^0.0118 1.4^I^640^1.5800^I^1.443.4^Monzate 200DF 2.5 163.0 407.5 1 407.5 0.0051 0 00.77 0.0175^ 2.5 640 1.5800^I Roccal^ I^13.5^F 163 0^2200.5^1^2200.5^i^0.0275^0.0413^1^0.0945 13.5^640^1.5800^1^^Sulfotep103 59.9 197.0 11840.3 1 11800.3^,^0.1475 0.2216 0.5066 59.9 640 1.5800^I Plant Fume 103^1 48.0^1 19"O^9456.0^1^0456.0 0.1182^0.1776^0.4060^ 48.0^640^1.5800^48.543.8^Vend ex 2.3 197.0 4111 1 453.1^0.0057 0.0085 0.0195 2.3 640 1.5800 2.34.4 'Seeds^I 0.1^1 38 -^57^1^5.7 0.0001^0.0001^0.0002^(53.915.14)^0.1^640^1.5800^0.145^Liquid CO2 101226.0 5.7 579012,7 I 579012.7^7.2377 10.8739 24.8591 ($13,361.85) 101226.0 300 1.5800 47981,14.6 Miscellaneous Variable Costs (phone,insurance,consultation,etc.) ($58.673.71) Iwhich are missing from above I _Sub Total of Variable Inputs (3. - 4.7) I 16683178.2 208.5397 I^313.3109^I 716.2695^I ($291,894.37)^1Grand Total of Fixed Inputs and Variable Inputs 17092736.6^214.5834^322.3909^737.0275^(S318,376.93)  ^93231.8Appendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 71Table CI 4: Spreadsheet for "Greenhouse B"(Continued)Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance Energy Required Energy forIntensity Energy Expectancy Energy/Year Equivalant Equivaiant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Transport Transport(kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per lha (ha/1000ton ($/year) (kg/year) (1uri) (MJ/tn/km) (MJ/year)of Grow Area) /year)Grand Total of Fixed Inputs and Variable Inputs 17092736.6 214.58336 322 3909 737M275 ($318,376.93)^ 93231.81Output Per Ymr (kg/yr) 291147 .^291147^640^3.0000^559002.2'Revenue per year (Si yr.)^1 1 $400327.13 1Net Profit per year ($/yr) $81,950 19 ,I^ I^I 1^I IGROWING AREA without ACC consideration 0.6656 1.0000 2.2861 1!Required Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr) I 2.2861 2.2861 I^2.2861 1Output per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr) 437420^'Revenue per hectare per year (8/ha/yr) I I^$601,453.01^.Net Profit per hectare per) ear ($/hafyr) $123,122 29 .II^iI I IVISIBLE OCCUPIED AREA without . \ CC consideration 0.9242 1 3884 3.1742I Required Area per Unit Output (ha/10000on/yr) 1^3.1742 3.1742 3 I -42Output per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr) ^ 315043I Revenue per hectare per hear ($/ha/yr) 1 $433,184.14Net Profit per hectare per year ($/ha/yr) $88,676 29I^11^ITOTAL LAND with ACC consideration (except transportation) 214 5834 322 n09 737.027sIRequired Area per Unit Output (ha/100000n/yr) I^737.0275 737.0275 737.0275Output per hectare year (kg/ha/yr) 1357 ^I Revenue per hectare per year ($/ha/yr) $1,865.60Net Profit per hectare per year (S/ha/yr) $381 90 1I^ I^1Inputs for Transportation (Importing materials) per year 1.1654 1 7509 4.0028Inputs for Transportation (Exporting products) per year 6.0875 10.4981 24.0000TOTAL LAND with ACC consideration including transportation 222.-363 334 6398 ^,55.0303I Required Area per Unit Output (ha/100000n/yr) 765 0303 765.0303 765.0303Output per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr) 1307IRevenue per hectare per year (S/ha/yr) $1,797.31^INet Profit per hectare per year ($/ha/yr) $367 92I^ I^I I1^Land Greenhouse 0.6656 1.0000I Land-packng&office&nutrient^1 0 0665 0 0999 I ILand-Pond 0.0000 0.0000'Land Docking 8s Parking Area^1 0.0310 0.0465 ILand Septic Place 0 0000 0.0000I Land Roadway^1 0.1611 0.2420Land TotalforTomatoes 0.9242 1.3884Appendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 72Table C.5: Spreadsheet for HillTop Gardens Field Tomato^ d[As of April 25, '93Number Inputs Material Vol. etc Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied En. Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance En.Require. Energy;Int Energy Expect Per Year Equivalant Equivalant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Trans. for Trans.(cub.m. etc) (kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per lha (ha/1000ton (S/year) (kg/year) (km) ',MJ/ton/lan (MJ/year)of Grow Area) /year)1^Land occupied^ 1.5362^1.2654^22.5795^($753.04)1.1^Growing Area I^ 1.2140^1.0000^17.84351 2^Other Senice Are,.is^ 0 3222^0.2654^4.73602^Embodied Energy of Facilities^1^ 1^ 1 I I2.1^Building2.1 1^1^Cover^I plastic^ 8.9^64^566.4^I 7^)0 )1^0.0010 1^0.0008^0.0149^($11.28)1^1.3^r■ 4 ■^1 . 5800^I^Framework^wood 3.75^1575.0 26 0,0396^0.0326^0.5819 $0.00 60.6^87^3.000,1:^15.92 1 3^1^Steel Equipments^libel^ 1^145.5^30^4364.7^15 1^290.98^0.0036^0.0030^0.0535^($51.95)^9.7^640 •^1.5800^^Other Service 1•11dgs 14.4^(5q m) 24670.1^30^822.31^0.0103^0.0085 0.15112 1.5^I^Construction^7% of embodied energy of material! 29601.2 83.60 1^0.0010 1^0.0009^0.0154^1^ I2.2^Irrigation sys2 2.1^1^Pipe^1Alminium^0.05 I^384.8^240^92343.0^20 I^4617.15 I^0.0577^0.0475^0.8483^($79.38)1^19.2^640 ;^1.5800^^Pipe & Filter^plastic 2.7^64^169.6^10 16.96^0.0002^0.0002^0.0031 ($83.43) 0.3^640^1.5t3t10^^1^Tube^ plastic^1^1^22.1^64 I^1414.4 j^3^I 471.47^0.0059 1^0.0049 I^0.0866 I 8^185.10)1^7.4^640 1^1 5800^7.42.7^Spray Equipment^steel 2000. ^30^6000.0^15^400.00^0.0050 00011 0.0735 ($124.69) 13.3^640^1.5800^13.52.8^ITractor^st,..c1^ I^500.0 I^30^15000.0 I 300.00^0.0038 I^0.0031^0.0551^I ($64.69)1^10.0^640 1^1.5800^10.12.9^Plow&Sheet laying^steel 250.0^30^7500 0^15^500.00^0.0063^0.0051 0.0919^($155.86)^16.7^640^1.5800^16.92.10^ITracks(O.S*11.5ton)^1st eel^ 250.0^30 I^7500.0 I ^500.00 I^0.0063 0.0051^I 0.0919 I^($519.53) 16.7^640 1^1.5800^1E92,14^Ground cover^plastic 89.1^64^5705.0^1^5704.96^0.0713^0.0587 1.0482 ($225 12)^89.1^640^1 5800^90.1Sub Total of Fixed Facilities & Equipments 11 - 2.14)^I^I^I^I I^13788.36^1^0.2119 1^0.1746 1^3.1152^I^($2,254.07)1^244.2^1 I^1^201.63^Variable cost I.3.1^Electricity(f el J : it h1=0.3 kWh :1kWh)^2996.1^kWh[el]^35917.7 I^1 I^35917.73^0.4490^0 3698^6.5990 I^$150.00)^ .3.2^Propane^ 666.7^334.0^49.0^16350 1^1^16350.12^0.2044^0.1683^3.0039 (S200.01)^334.0^640^1.5 1601^337.83.3^Fuels(tractor)^!gasoline^I^430.6^292.8^50.4 1^14757.5 I^1^1^14757.52 I^0.1845^0.1520 2.7113^I ($193.34)^292.8 1^640 I^1.5800 I^296.13.4^Labour Forces (S7.605.00)3 5^I^Manager's Salary^ 1^ I^ ($24,000.00)^ 0.04^Variable cost IL 0.04 1^Fertilizers^ 1^ 1^I^ I^ I^^All Purpose (20-20-20)^ 30.0^19.3^578.7^1^578.70^0.0072 0.0060^0.1063^($66.00)^30.0 640^1.5800^30.34 1.2^I^Plant Starter (10-52-10) I^30.0 1^14.9^447.9 I^1^447.90 1^0.0056^0.0046 0 0823^I ($95.30)1^30.0^640 I^1.5800 I^^Urea (46-0-0)^ 250.0^3E6^9150.0^1^9150.00^0.1144^0.0942^1.6811^(8100.00)^250.0^640^1.5800^252.8414 ^Calcium Nitrate (15.5-0-0)^ 145.2 1^115^1669.8 I^1^ 1669.80 I^0 0209 1^0 0172 1^0.3068 ($48.00)1^145.2^640 I^1.5800 I^146.84.2^Herbicide & Insecticide 1.5800 0.04 2.1^I^Trifluralin (Treflan545EC)^ 1I^022^150^327 I^1^32.70 I^0.0004^0.0003 1^0.0060^($1.49)^0.2^640 I^1.5800 I^0.24.22^Metribuzin (Sencor500F) 0.09^264^224^1^22.44^0.0003^0.0002^0.0041 ($2.22) 0.1^640^1 5800^Carbaryl (Sevin5OW)^ 2.70^153^413.1 I^1^ 413.10 I^0.0052 I^0.0043^I 0.0759^($27 40)^27^640 I^1.5800 I^2.74 4^Seeds^ 0.048^38.7^1.9^1 1.86^0.0000^0.0000^0.0003^($382.22) 0.0^640^1.5800 0.0-1 5^I^Dirt 1 13880 I 1iI 1 1^($214.40) I^13880.0^1 210^I 3.0000^J^8744.4Sub Total of Variable Inputs (3 -4.5) 79341.87 0.9918 0 8169 14.5772 ($33,085.37) 14965.1 9841.6Grand Total of Fixed & Variable Inputs 93130.23 1.2037 0.9915 17.6924 ($35,339.44) 15209.3 10043.2Appendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 73Table C.5: Spreadsheet for HillTop Gardens(Continued)Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied En. Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance En.Require. EnergyInt. Energy Expect Per Year Equivalant Equivalant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Trans. for Trans.(kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per lha (ha/1000ton ($/year) (kg/year) (km) (MJ/ton/km (MJ/year)of Grow Area) /year)Grand Total of Fixed l4. Variable Inputs 93130.23 1.2037 0.9915 17.6924 ($35,339.44) 15209 3 10043.2Output/year^(kg/year) 68036.0 68036.0 379 3 0000 75520.0Revenue/year^($/year) 863,750.00Net Profit/year(S/year) $28,410 56I IGROWING AREA without ACC consideration 1.2140^1.0000 17.8435Required Area per I nit Output (ha/1000ton/yr)^ I 17.8435^17.8435 I^17.8435Output/hit/year^(kg/Ita/y•ear)^ 56042.8Revenue/ha/year^($/ha/year) 852,512.36Net Profit/ha/year (S/ha/year) $23,402 43I^I IVISIBLE OCCUPIED LAND without ACC consideration ^1.5362^1.2654 22.5795Required Area per Unit Output (ha/1 (Milton/yr)^ I 22.5795 I^22.5795 I^22.5795^ I^IOutput/ha/year^(kg/ha/year)^ 44288.0Revenue/ha/year^(S/ha/ye a r)^I^ I^ I I $41,497.99^I^INet Profit/ha/year (S/Ita/year) $18,493.82I^ I^ I I^ITOTAL LAND with ACC consid. except TRANSPORTATION) 2 7379^2.2570 40.2719'Required Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr)^ I^ I I^40.2719^I 40.2719 40.2719 IOutput/ha/year^(lig/ha/year)  ^24831 2Revenue/ha/year^($/ha/year)^ I I I^$23,266.94 INet Profit/ha/year (Vila/year) $10,369.04I^ I^ I^I^ I I^ IInputs for Transp. (Inoprt of Materials) per year^ 10043.2 0.1255^0 1034 1.8452Inputs for Transp. (Export of products) per year I^II^ I^75520.0 0.9440 I^0. 7776 13.8750^1 1TOTAL LAND with ACC consid. including TRANSPORTATION) 3.8095^3.1380 55.9921I Required Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr)^I^ I 55.9921^I 55.9921 55.9921^IOutput/ha/year^(kg/ha/year)^ 17859 7Revenue/ha/year^($/ha/year) I^I^$16334.57Net Profit/ha/year ($/ha/year) $7,457.86I^ I I1^Land-Tomato Field 1.2140^1.0000Land-Nursary Greenhouse 0.0058 I^0.0048 1^1Land-Workshop&Storage 0 0014^0 0012Land-Roadway&Parbng^1^ 1 I^0 3150 I^0 2595Total Visible Occupied Land for Tomato Grow= 1.5362^1.2654Appendix C. Spreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 74-_l_ cl,I.J1IC.^l._, .0.^iD pi ectubliee u^Jul^11.1./1^t.,itis^i. oil iiiip^x .I.C.ill^_l_VIIICkUl„)^1^1,I, As of April 25, '93Number Inputs Material Vol. etc Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied En. Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance En.Require. EnergyInt. Energy Expect Per Year Equivalant Equivalant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Trans. for Trans.(cub.m. etc) (kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per lha (ha/1000ton (S/year) (kg/year) (km) ;MJ/ton/krii (MJ/year)of Grow Area) /year)1^Land occupied1.1^Growing _Area^ I2^Oiler Serice Areas2^Embodied Energy of Facilities^I2 1^Building2.1.1^I^Other Sen.ii.c Bldgs I^I^94^(sq.m)^161040.8^302 1 2^Construction^7% of embodied energy of inalerial 11272.92.2^1 Irrigation sys^I2.2 1^Pipe^Ahninium^ 0 05^384.8^240^92343.0^202.2.2^Pipe & Filter^I plastic 2.7^64^169.6 J^102.2.3^Tube^plastic^ 22.1^64^1414.4^32.7^I Spray Equipment^I steel 2000. ^30^6000.0^152.8^Itractor(6ton*11.1.)^steel^ 600.0^50^30000.0^502.9^1Plow&Sheet laying^!steel I^ 250.0^30^7500.0^152.10^Tracks(3.St0n*(I.1)^steel^ 350.0^18 ^6300.0^152.14^I Ground cover^I plastic^I^ 89.1^64^5705.0^1^1.4211^1.1706^14.2114^($753.04)1.2140^1.0000 I^12 14000.2071^0.1706^. '_' 0714I5368.03 1^0.0671^0.0553 I^0.6710^ I375.76^0.0047^0.0039^1) 047i,4617.15^u.U577^0.0475^0.5771^($79.313)^19.2^64016.96^0.0002^0.0002 0.0021 ($83.43)1 0.3^640471.47^0.0059^0.0044^0.0589^($185.10)^7.4^640400.00 i^0.0050^0.0041^0 0500^($124.69)1^13.3^640600.1,110^0.0075^0.0062^0 0750 ($64.69)^12.0^640500.00 1^0.0063^0.0051 0.0625^($155.86)1 16.7^640420.00^0.0053^0.0043^0 0515 ($519.53)^23.3^6405704.96^0.0713^0.0587^0.7131^(5225.12)1^89.1^6401.58001.5800^0.31.5800^7.41.5800^13.51.5800^12.11.5800^16.91. 5800^23.61.5800^90.1Sub Total of Fixed Facilities & Equipments (1 -2.14) I I I I^18474.33 0.2309^I 0.1902^I 2.3093^I ($2,190.84) I^181.3^I II^183.43^Variable cost I.3.1^Electricity(frli:Ith1=0.3kWh:lkWh)^1369.6^kWh[el]^16419.2^1^16419.19 1^0.20523.2^Fuels(tractor)^diesel^ 567.75^284.4^44 4^12629.3^1^12629,26^0 1579asohne 378 5^257.4^50.4 1^12972.0^1^12971.95^0.16213.3^Fuels(truck)^Ig^•3 4^Labour Forces3 5^Manager's Salary^I I^ I4^Variable cost II.4.1^Fertilizers^I^I^ I4.1.1^12-5-0 340.0^9.5^3230.0^1^3230.00^0.04044.1.2^Ptassium Sulfate (0-0-50)^I^1^204.0 1^5.0 1^1024.1^1^1024.08 1^0.01284.1 3^0-0-60^ 136.0^60^816.0^I^816.00^0.01024.1 4^Iron Sulphate (Fe 21%)^ 14.0 1^6.3^88.2^1^88.20^00011 14.1.5^Borate 40^ 11.0^4.0^44.0^I 44.00^0.00064.2^Seeds 0.048 1^39 19 1.9^1^1.88 I^0.00004.3^Plant propagation^ 36293.4^1^36293.40^0.45370.1691^2 0524^($68.57)10.1300 1 5787^($200.00)0.1336^1.6215^($169.95)1^ ($12,600.00)($6,000.00)($300.00)10.0333^U.40380.0105^0.1280 10.0084  ^0.10200.0009^0.01100.0005^0.00550.0000 I^0.0002 1^(5382.22)0 3737^4.5367^($420.00)284.4^640^1.5800^287.6257.4^640^1.5800^260.3I ^640^1.5800^343.8204.0^640 1^1.5800^206.3136.0^640^1.5800^137 514.0^640^1 1.5800^14.211.0^640^1.5800^11.1I0.0^1 640^1.5800^1 0.0350.0^840  ^3.0000^882.0 Sub Total of Variable Inputs (3- 4.5) 83517.96^1.04 0.8599 10.4397 ($20,140.74) 1596.9 2142.8Grand Total of Fixed & Variable Inputs J 101992.29 11749 1 0502 J 12.7490 ($22,331.58) J 1778.2 2326.2ppendix C. ,SPreadsheet for ACC Calculation of Greenhouse and Field Operations 75Table C.6: Spreadsheet for Horsting Farms(Continued)Mass Energy Embodied Life Embodied En. Land- Land- Land- Cost or Benefit Transported Distance En.Require. EnergyInt. Energy Expect Per Year Equivalant Equivalant Equivalant Per Year Mass/year Traveled for Trans. for Trans.(kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ) (years) (MJ/year) (ha/year) (ha/yr per lha (ha/1000ton ($/year) (kg/year) (kin) (MJ/ton/lcm (MJ/year)of Grow Area) /year)Grand Total of Fixed & Variable Inputs 101992.29 1 2749 1 0502 12 7490 ($22.331.58) 1778.2 2326.2Output/year^(kg/year) 100000.0 100000 0 370 3.0000 111000 0Revenue/year^($/year) 688,000 00Net Prollt/year(S/year) 665,668.42GROWING AREA without ACC consideration 11140 1.0000 12.1400I Required Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr)I 12.1400^I 12.1400 12.1400Output/ha/year^(kg/ha/year) 82372 3I Revenue/ha/year^($/ha/year) I I $72,487 64Net Protitilta/year ($/ha/)ear) 654,092.61I^I^iI I^ IVISIBLE OCCUPIFD LAND without ACC consideration 1 4211 1 1706 14 2114'Required Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr) 14.2114 14.2114^I 14.2114Output/Ira/year^(kg/ha/year) 70366 1I Revenue/ha/year^($/ha/year)1 $61,922.16^1Net Profit/ha/year (5/ha/year) $4608.30I^1^ I 1 ITOTAL IAND with ACC consid. except  TRANSPORTATION) 2 6960 2.2208 26 9604IRequired Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr) I 26:)604 26.9604 I 26.9604 I^IOutput/ha/year^(kg/ha/year) 37091 4IRevenue/ha/year^($/ha/year) I $32,640.43^I INet ProfiUlia/year ($/ha/)ear) $24,357.341 1 IInputs for Transp. (Inoprt of Materials) per year 2326.2 0 0291 0 0240 0.2908Inputs for Transp. (Export of products) per year^II 126000.0 1.5750^I 1.2974 I 15.7500 ITarit, LAND with ACC consid. including TRANSPORTATION) 4.3001 3.5421 43,0012IRequired Area per Unit Output (ha/1000ton/yr)^I 43.0012 I 43.0012 I 43.0012 IOutput/ha/year^(kg/ha/year) 23255 2I Revenue/ha/year^($/ha/year) $20,464.54 INet Profit/ha/year ($/lia/year) $15,271.301^II ILand Tomato Field 1 2140 1.0000Land-Nursary Greenhouse 1 0.0058 0.0048Land-Vuorkshop&Storage 0.0094 0 0077Land-Roadway&Parking 0 1920 0 1582 11Total Visible Occupied Land for Tomato Growing 1.4211 1.1706


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items