Carbon Footprint and Variable Costs of Production Components for a Container-grown Evergreen Shrub Using Life Cycle Assessment: An East Coast U.S. Model

Abstract

<jats:p>The production components of an evergreen shrub (<jats:italic>Ilex crenata</jats:italic> ‘Bennett’s Compacta’) grown in a no. 3 container in an east coast U.S. nursery were analyzed for their costs and contributions to carbon footprint, as well as the product impact in the landscape throughout its life cycle. A life cycle inventory was conducted of input materials, equipment use, and all cultural practices and other processes used in a model production system for this evergreen shrub. A life cycle assessment (LCA) of the model numerated the associated greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), carbon footprint, and variable cost of each component. The LCA also included the transportation and transplanting of the final product in the landscape as well as its removal after a 40-year useful life. GHG from input products and processes during the production (cutting-to-gate) of the evergreen shrub were estimated to be 2.918 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e. When considering carbon sequestration during production weighted over a 100-year assessment period, the carbon footprint for this model system at the nursery gate was 2.144 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e. Operations, combining the impact of material and equipment use, that contributed most of GHG during production included fertilization (0.707 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e), the liner and transplanting (0.461 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e), the container (0.468 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e), gravel and ground cloth installation (0.222 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e), substrate materials and preparation (0.227 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e), and weed control (0.122 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e). The major contributors to global warming potential (GWP) were also major contributors to the cutting-to-gate variable costs ($3.224) except for processes that required significant labor investments. Transporting the shrub to the landscaper, transporting it to the landscape site, and transplanting it would result in GHG of 0.376, 0.458, and 0 kg CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>e, respectively. Variable costs for postharvest activities were $6.409 and were dominated by labor costs (90%).</jats:p>

Comparison of Three Production Scenarios for Buxus microphylla var. japonica ‘Green Beauty’ Marketed in a No. 3 Container on the West Coast Using Life Cycle Assessment

“…Input material costs were obtained from nursery industry wholesale distributors and manufacturers in 2016. Equipment costs per hour were representative of those reported in previous studies (Ingram et al, 2016). The gasoline price of $0.640/L represented the west coast average, not including California, as reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (2015).…”

“…The cutting-to-gate GWP of a model system for production of an evergreen shrub (Ilex crenata 'Bennett's Compacta') in a no. 3 container on the east coast of the United States was determined to be 2.144 kg CO 2 e (Ingram et al, 2016).…”

Modeling Container-grown Euphorbia pulcherrima Production System Components: Impacts on Carbon Footprint and Variable Costs Using a Life Cycle Assessment

“…It was assumed these supply pumps would run enough to supply the calculated irrigation volume of each production phase at 1514 L/ min. Based on grower interviews in the region and previously obtained data (Ingram et al, 2016), in addition to electricity used to pump water, it was assumed that 0.89 m 3 of natural gas was consumed and 80 kwh of electricity was used per 1000 plants.…”

“…Measuring the sustainable nature of manufactured products is challenging, and live goods such as plants can be particularly perplexing; however, tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) have been used successfully to map the entire supply chain for several sectors in the green industry. For example, LCA has been used for the analysis of production system components for nursery crops (Hall andIngram, 2014, 2015;Ingram, 2012Ingram, , 2013Ingram and Hall, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015bIngram et al, 2016Ingram et al, , 2017aKendall and McPherson, 2012) and greenhouse crops (Ingram et al, 2017b(Ingram et al, , 2018a(Ingram et al, , 2018b to determine their respective contributions to the carbon footprint and variable costs of inputs and processes in the green industry.…”

Social and Economic Aspects of Water Use in Specialty Crop Production in the USA: A Review

“…The CF and lifecycle impact of trees produced in pot-in-pot or field production systems were similar, however input materials such as plastics were a primary contributor in the pot-in-pot system while equipment use contributed the most in field production [34,35]. Labor was the primary contributor to shrub harvesting costs while equipment use was the greatest contributor to tree harvesting costs.…”