IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/hukrgr/229426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economies Of Scale Vegetable Forcing The Utilization Of Geothermal Energy

Author

Listed:
  • Tégla, Zsolt

Abstract

One of the highest costs of vegetable forcing is energy including heating energy, whose rate can reach up to 25-35% of the total production costs. Our dependence on the import of fossil energy puts enterprises involved in vegetable forcing into a vulnerable position. With the utilization of domestic green energy and thermal energy this dependence could significantly be reduced. Hungary’s geothermal features in the region are excellent, the energetic utilisation of thermal water is suitable for heating modern horticulture greenhouses. However, due to the high investment costs primarily economies of scale plants are viable, which are also economical to operate from a logistical point of view. Hydroculture vegetable forcing offers excellent employment opportunities, allowing continuous employment, while permitting high incomes in proportion to farm size and revenue – owing to the technological intensity and the characteristics of the products. Considering the criteria of economies of scale vegetable forcing it can be stated that it is mainly 3 and 5 -hectare size farms heated with geothermal energy that are able to achieve a level of operating profit which can safely form the basis of the development of integrated hydroculture vegetable forcing. However, because of the high investment costs of the greenhouse and the geothermal wells and the technological intensity the investment/financial as well as the operational/production risks of these farms increase dramatically. Examining these risks is a key issue for future large greenhouse and geothermal investments. The problems expressed by the experts concerned the outdated greenhouses that act as barriers to increase earnings. The success of production is mainly determined by the climate during vegetable forcing. The prerequisite for this is to apply the proper cultivation apparatus which meets the requirements of the 21st century.

Suggested Citation

  • Tégla, Zsolt, 2015. "Economies Of Scale Vegetable Forcing The Utilization Of Geothermal Energy," Journal of Central European Green Innovation, Karoly Robert University College, vol. 3(Thematic ), pages 1-12.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:hukrgr:229426
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.229426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/229426/files/T_gla.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.229426?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen C. Gabriel & C. B. Baker, 1980. "Concepts of Business and Financial Risk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 560-564.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deane, Paul & Malcolm, Bill, 2006. "Do Australian woolgrowers manage price risk rationally?," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 3(2), pages 1-7.
    2. Lien, Gudbrand, 2002. "Non-parametric estimation of decision makers' risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 75-83, May.
    3. Featherstone, Allen M., 1990. "Optimal Capital Structure as Business Risk Changes," 1990 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, January 28-31, 1990, Sanibel Island, Florida 271544, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    4. Wilson, Paul N. & Gundersen, Carl E., 1985. "Financial Risk In Cotton Production," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-8, December.
    5. Anette Ruml & Martin C. Parlasca, 2022. "In‐kind credit provision through contract farming and formal credit markets," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 402-425, April.
    6. Ifft, Jennifer & Jodlowski, Margaret, 2017. "Federal crop insurance and agricultural credit use," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259120, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Nemessalyi, Zsolt & Madai, Hajnalka & Nabradi, Andras, 2004. "Risk And Risk Management In Hungarian Livestock Production With A Special Regard To Sheep Production," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20233, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Bramma, Keith M., 2000. "Pricing farm loans for credit risk," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123607, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. S. Martin & F. McLeay, 1998. "The Diversity of Farmers' Risk Management Strategies in a Deregulated New Zealand Environment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 218-233, June.
    10. Komarek, Adam M. & De Pinto, Alessandro & Smith, Vincent H., 2020. "A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Oñate, Carlos Andrés & Ozaki, Vitor Augusto & Bravo-Ureta, Boris, 2016. "Impact Evaluation of the Brazilian crop insurance public program “Proagro Mais”," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236096, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Zylstra, Michael J. & Kilmer, Richard L. & Uryasev, Stanislav, 2003. "Risk Balancing Strategies In The Florida Dairy Industry: An Application Of Conditional Value At Risk," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22021, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Cheng, Mei-luan & Gloy, Brent A., 2008. "The Paradox of Risk Balancing: Do Risk-reducing Policies Lead to More Risk for Farmers?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6546, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Nabradi, Andras & Madai, Hajnalka, 2007. "Risk And Risk Management In Hungarian Sheep Production," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 1(1), pages 1-5, September.
    15. Turvey, C. G., 2017. "IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 10 - Inclusive finance and inclusive rural transformation," IFAD Research Series 280048, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    16. Swanepoel, D. S., 1996. "Causes Of Maize Farm Bankruptcy In South Africa: 1970- 1994," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 35(4), December.
    17. Wilson, Paul N. & Eidman, Vernon R., 1983. "An Empirical Test Of The Interval Approach For Estimating Risk Preferences," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, December.
    18. de Mey, Yann & Wauters, Erwin & Lips, Markus & Schmid, Dirk & Vancauteren, Mark & Van Passel, Steven, 2014. "Farm household risk balancing in Switzerland and Belgium: an econometric and survey approach," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 186678, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Martin, Sandra, 1996. "Risk Management Strategies in New Zealand Agriculture and Horticulture," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(01), pages 1-14, April.
    20. Mofokeng, Maine & Vink, Nick, 2013. "Factors Affecting the Hedging Decision of Maize Farmers in Gauteng Province," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 161465, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:hukrgr:229426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtkrghu.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.