IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v12y2015i6p6879-6891d51199.html

Comparison of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce Grown Using Hydroponic vs. Conventional Agricultural Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Guilherme Lages Barbosa

    (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA)

  • Francisca Daiane Almeida Gadelha

    (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA)

  • Natalya Kublik

    (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA)

  • Alan Proctor

    (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA)

  • Lucas Reichelm

    (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA)

  • Emily Weissinger

    (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA)

  • Gregory M. Wohlleb

    (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA)

  • Rolf U. Halden

    (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA
    Center for Environmental Security, The Biodesign Institute, Global Security Initiative, Arizona State University, 781 E. Terrace Mall, Tempe, AZ 85287-5904, USA)

Abstract

The land, water, and energy requirements of hydroponics were compared to those of conventional agriculture by example of lettuce production in Yuma, Arizona, USA. Data were obtained from crop budgets and governmental agricultural statistics, and contrasted with theoretical data for hydroponic lettuce production derived by using engineering equations populated with literature values. Yields of lettuce per greenhouse unit (815 m 2 ) of 41 ± 6.1 kg/m 2 /y had water and energy demands of 20 ± 3.8 L/kg/y and 90,000 ± 11,000 kJ/kg/y (±standard deviation), respectively. In comparison, conventional production yielded 3.9 ± 0.21 kg/m 2 /y of produce, with water and energy demands of 250 ± 25 L/kg/y and 1100 ± 75 kJ/kg/y, respectively. Hydroponics offered 11 ± 1.7 times higher yields but required 82 ± 11 times more energy compared to conventionally produced lettuce. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first quantitative comparison of conventional and hydroponic produce production by example of lettuce grown in the southwestern United States. It identified energy availability as a major factor in assessing the sustainability of hydroponics, and it points to water-scarce settings offering an abundance of renewable energy (e.g., from solar, geothermal, or wind power) as particularly attractive regions for hydroponic agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Guilherme Lages Barbosa & Francisca Daiane Almeida Gadelha & Natalya Kublik & Alan Proctor & Lucas Reichelm & Emily Weissinger & Gregory M. Wohlleb & Rolf U. Halden, 2015. "Comparison of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce Grown Using Hydroponic vs. Conventional Agricultural Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:6:p:6879-6891:d:51199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/6/6879/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/6/6879/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Killebrew & Hendrik Wolff, 2010. "Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Technologies," Working Papers UWEC-2011-01, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    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. Puspa RC & Janak Singh Rawal, 2024. "Integrating Aquaculture And Hydroponics: A Review Of Aquaponics Systems And Their Sustainability," Engineering Heritage Journal (GWK), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 8(2), pages 79-87, July.
    2. Samia Zahra & Syed Ale Raza Shah & Ramez Abubakr Badeeb, 2023. "A sustainable green–blue revolution in Pakistan: a new perspective from quantile regression analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(12), pages 14975-15002, December.
    3. Rótolo, G.C. & Montico, S. & Francis, C.A. & Ulgiati, S., 2015. "How land allocation and technology innovation affect the sustainability of agriculture in Argentina Pampas: An expanded life cycle analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 79-93.
    4. José De Anda & Harvey Shear, 2017. "Potential of Vertical Hydroponic Agriculture in Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Mahrokh Farvardin & Morteza Taki & Shiva Gorjian & Edris Shabani & Julio C. Sosa-Savedra, 2024. "Assessing the Physical and Environmental Aspects of Greenhouse Cultivation: A Comprehensive Review of Conventional and Hydroponic Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-34, February.
    6. Maestre-Valero, J.F. & Martin-Gorriz, B. & Soto-García, M. & Martinez-Mate, M.A. & Martinez-Alvarez, V., 2018. "Producing lettuce in soil-based or in soilless outdoor systems. Which is more economically profitable?," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 48-55.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:6:p:6879-6891:d:51199. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.