IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i19p8740-d1760851.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Strategies for Raspberry Production: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Through Biodegradable Substrate Additives in High Tunnels

Author

Listed:
  • Monika Komorowska

    (Faculty of Agriculture and Economics, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Krakow, Poland)

  • Maciej Kuboń

    (Faculty of Production and Power Engineering, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Krakow, Poland)

  • Marcin Niemiec

    (Faculty of Agriculture and Economics, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Krakow, Poland)

  • Justyna Tora

    (Faculty of Management, AGH University of Krakow, 30-059 Krakow, Poland)

  • Małgorzata Okręglicka

    (Faculty of Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, 42-201 Czestochowa, Poland)

  • Arunee Wongkaew

    (Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand)

Abstract

Fruit production is a high environmental impact sector, requiring sustainable strategies that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve resource efficiency, and maintain fruit quality. This study assessed the environmental performance of innovative substrates with biodegradable additives and organic binders in tunnel-grown raspberry production. The functional unit was 1 kg of marketable fruit, and the experiment was conducted in Karwia, Poland. GHG emissions were calculated for eight substrate variants following ISO 14040 and 14041 guidelines. The baseline was coconut fiber, while modified variants included the additions of sunflower husk biochar and/or a wood-industry isolate, representing sustainable strategies in soilless cultivation. Emissions ranged from 0.728 to 1.226 kg CO 2 eq/kg of raspberries, with the control showing the highest values. All modified substrates (produced based on a mixture of biochar and isolate) reduced emissions, with the most efficient variant achieving nearly a 40% decrease. Water use efficiency was decisive, as consumption declined from 2744 m 3 /ha (control) to 1838 m 3 /ha in improved variants. Substrate air–water properties proved critical for both environmental and economic outcomes. The findings confirm that substrate modification constitutes an effective, sustainable strategy for raspberry production under high tunnels, supporting climate-smart horticulture and resource-efficient food systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Monika Komorowska & Maciej Kuboń & Marcin Niemiec & Justyna Tora & Małgorzata Okręglicka & Arunee Wongkaew, 2025. "Sustainable Strategies for Raspberry Production: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Through Biodegradable Substrate Additives in High Tunnels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-23, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:19:p:8740-:d:1760851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/19/8740/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/19/8740/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M. Antle & Roberto O. Valdivia, 2006. "Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum‐data approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Viviana Cecilia Soto-Barrera & Fernando Begambre-González & Karol Edith Vellojín-Muñoz & Daniel Fernando Fernandez-Hoyos & Franklin Manuel Torres-Bejarano, 2025. "Life Cycle Assessment of Biocomposite Production in Development Stage from Coconut Fiber Utilization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Naim Rashidov & Maciej Chowaniak & Marcin Niemiec & Gulov Saidali Mamurovich & Masaidov Jamshed Gufronovich & Zofia Gródek-Szostak & Anna Szeląg-Sikora & Jakub Sikora & Maciej Kuboń & Monika Komorowsk, 2021. "Assessment of the Multiannual Impact of the Grape Training System on GHG Emissions in North Tajikistan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-13, September.
    4. Alessio Ilari & Giuseppe Toscano & Kofi Armah Boakye-Yiadom & Daniele Duca & Ester Foppa Pedretti, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Protected Strawberry Productions in Central Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika & Ekstrom, Marianne Pipping & Shanahan, Helena, 2003. "Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 293-307, March.
    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. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Shikuku, Kelvin M. & Valdivia, Roberto O. & Paul, Birthe K. & Mwongera, Caroline & Winowiecki, Leigh & Läderach, Peter & Herrero, Mario & Silvestri, Silvia, 2017. "Prioritizing climate-smart livestock technologies in rural Tanzania: A minimum data approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 204-216.
    3. Martina Schäfer & Melanie Jaeger-Erben & Aguinaldo Santos, 2011. "Leapfrogging to Sustainable Consumption? An Explorative Survey of Consumption Habits and Orientations in Southern Brazil," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 175-196, March.
    4. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Bazilian, Morgan & Griffiths, Steve & Kim, Jinsoo & Foley, Aoife & Rooney, David, 2021. "Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    5. Maria Pergola & Angela Maffia & Giuseppe Carlucci & Alessandro Persiani & Assunta Maria Palese & Massimo Zaccardelli & Gessica Altieri & Giuseppe Celano, 2023. "An Environmental and Economic Analysis of Strawberry Production in Southern Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2016. "Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp563, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. Skidmore, Samuel & Santos, Paulo & Leimona, Beria, 2012. "Seeing REDD: A Microeconomic Analysis of Carbon Sequestration in Indonesia," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126688, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Msangi, Siwa & Howitt, Richard E., 2006. "Estimating Disaggregate Production Functions: An Application to Northern Mexico," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21080, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Emmanouil Tziolas & Eleftherios Karapatzak & Ioannis Kalathas & Chris Lytridis & Spyridon Mamalis & Stefanos Koundouras & Theodore Pachidis & Vassilis G. Kaburlasos, 2023. "Comparative Assessment of Environmental/Energy Performance under Conventional Labor and Collaborative Robot Scenarios in Greek Viticulture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Syed Asif Ali Naqvi & Abdul Majeed Nadeem & Muhammad Amjed Iqbal & Sadia Ali & Asia Naseem, 2019. "Assessing the Vulnerabilities of Current and Future Production Systems in Punjab, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-13, September.
    11. Partnership for Market Readiness, 2021. "Beyond Mitigation," World Bank Publications - Reports 35624, The World Bank Group.
    12. Jane Dixon, 2009. "From the imperial to the empty calorie: how nutrition relations underpin food regime transitions," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 26(4), pages 321-333, December.
    13. Risku-Norja, Helmi & Maenpaa, Ilmo, 2007. "MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 700-711, February.
    14. Paula Silva, 2025. "Adolescents’ Perceptions of Sustainable Diets: Myths, Realities, and School-Based Interventions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-28, June.
    15. Valdivia, Roberto O. & Antle, John M. & Stoorvogel, Jetse J., 2012. "Coupling the Tradeoff Analysis Model with a market equilibrium model to analyze economic and environmental outcomes of agricultural production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 17-29.
    16. Priya, Pragati & Sharma, Chandan & Jha, Chandan Kumar, 2025. "Asymmetry in the inequality of opportunity in energy consumption across gender, caste, and religion in India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    17. Ari Paloviita, 2010. "Consumers’ Sustainability Perceptions of the Supply Chain of Locally Produced Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Enthoven, Laura & Van den Broeck, Goedele, 2021. "Local food systems: Reviewing two decades of research," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    19. Arto O. Salonen & Jani Siirilä & Mikko Valtonen, 2018. "Sustainable Living in Finland: Combating Climate Change in Everyday Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Seojin Cho & John M. Antle, 2024. "Price‐endogenous technology, producer welfare, and ex ante impact assessment: The case of industrial hemp," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 883-903, March.

    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:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:19:p:8740-:d:1760851. 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 (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.