Economic feasibility of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) production under protected and unprotected environment

ATISH SAGAR; P K SINGH

doi:10.56093/ijas.v93i5.102449

Authors

ATISH SAGAR G B Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145, India
P K SINGH G B Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v93i5.102449

Keywords:

Open environment, Polyhouse, Sensitive analysis, Tomato crop

Abstract

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a high-value crop that is in high demand globally. The present study was carried out at G B Pant University of Agriculture and Technology (GBPUAT), Pantnagar, Uttarakhand during 2016–18 with the objective to explore the economic feasibility of tomato production under controlled and uncontrolled environments. The present study examines the costs and returns associated with the production of tomatoes in greenhouses and open fields, including the initial investment, operational costs, and revenue generated. The study found that greenhouse tomato production was more expensive, with a higher initial investment and operational costs, but generated higher yields and returns per unit area. On the other hand, open-field tomato production had lower initial investment and operational costs but had lower yields and returns per unit area. Overall, tomato production can be economically feasible under both controlled and uncontrolled environments, but the decision to use either method should be based on the specific conditions of each farm and the market demand for the product.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allen R G, Smith M, Perrier A and Pereira L S. 1994. An update for the definition of reference evapotranspiration. ICID bulletin 43(2): 1–34.

Allen R G, Masahiro T and Ricardo T. 2007. Satellite-based energy balance for mapping evapotranspiration with internalized calibration (METRIC) model. Journal of Irrigation Drainage Engineering 133: 380–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2007)133:4(380)

Boulard T, Feuilloley P and Kittas C. 2017. Natural ventilation performance of six greenhouse and tunnel types. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 67(4): 249–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1997.0167

Lohano H D and Mari F M. 2015. Status, growth and forecast of tomato and onion production in Pakistan. Indus Journal of Biological Sciences 2(4): 497–502.

Mahajan G and Singh K G. 2006. Response of greenhouse tomato to irrigation and fertigation. Agricultural water management 84(1–2): 202–06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.03.003

Malhotra S K. 2017. Horticultural crops and climate change: A review. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 87(1): 12–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v87i1.67138

Rana G and Katerji N. 2008. A measurement based sensitivity analysis of the Penman-Monteith actual evapotranspiration model for crops of different height and in contrasting water status. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 60(1–4): 141–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s007040050039

Thompson R B, Gallardo M, Valdez L C and Fernández M D. 2007. Using plant water status to define threshold values for irrigation management of vegetable crops using soil moisture sensors. Agricultural Water Management 88(1–3): 147–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.10.007

Tiwari V, Tiwari K N and Singh B D. 1998. Shoot regeneration and somatic embryogenesis from different explants of Brahmi. Plant Cell Reports 17: 538–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002990050438

Tiwari G N. 2003. Greenhouse Technology for Controlled Environment, pp. 67–77. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi.