Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 20 of 97 items for :

  • biodegradable container x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Robin G. Brumfield, Alyssa J. DeVincentis, Xueni Wang, R. Thomas Fernandez, Susmitha Nambuthiri, Robert L. Geneve, Andrew K. Koeser, Guihong Bi, Tongyin Li, Youping Sun, Genhua Niu, Diana Cochran, Amy Fulcher, and J. Ryan Stewart

plant materials, including feathers, manure, rice hulls, and straw. Some decompose quickly and are biodegradable, often referred to as biocontainers ( Nambuthiri et al., 2015 ). Using alternative containers increases the sustainability of an operation by

Full access

Renee Conneway, Sven Verlinden, Andrew K. Koeser, Michael Evans, Rebecca Schnelle, Victoria Anderson, and J. Ryan Stewart

come under scrutiny and has been identified as a target for improving sustainability. Alternative containers made from recycled materials, bioplastic, and various organic materials have all been suggested as replacements for the very successful

Full access

Tongyin Li, Guihong Bi, and Richard L. Harkess

( Chang et al., 2012 ). With sufficient N supply, the increase of N content in a plant was believed to be determined by the growth rate of plants rather than by different species or climatic conditions ( Gastal and Lemaire, 2002 ). Biodegradable containers

Full access

Tongyin Li, Guihong Bi, Richard L. Harkess, Geoffrey C. Denny, and Carolyn Scagel

; Koeser et al., 2013 ; Kuehny et al., 2011 ; Nambuthiri et al., 2015 ; Wang et al., 2015 ). Biodegradable containers, also known as biocontainers, are made from a variety of biodegradable materials, such as feather, fabric, rice hulls, and paper, thus

Full access

Tongyin Li, Guihong Bi, Richard L. Harkess, and Eugene K. Blythe

; volume, 3.8 L; Nursery Supplies, Chambersburg, PA) and a biodegradable container (also referred to as a biocontainer) made from a mix of recycled paper (7 × 7 RD; interior top, diameter 18.7 cm; bottom diameter, 14.9 cm; height, 17.1 cm; volume, 3.9 L

Free access

Jennifer H. Dennis, Roberto G. Lopez, Bridget K. Behe, Charles R. Hall, Chengyan Yue, and Benjamin L. Campbell

.6%) ( Table 3 ). Survey respondents were also asked which practices their companies planned to implement in 1 to 3 years. The highest sustainable categories for future implementation were: biodegradable plant containers (12.0%), irrigation water conservation

Full access

Michael W. Olszewski, Samara J. Danan, and Thomas J. Boerth

Surfactants increase wettability of pine bark and may be required in coarse substrates to enhance lateral movement of water and reduce infiltration rate through a container ( Bilderback, 1993 ). Cid-Ballarin et al. (1998) hypothesized that

Free access

Michael R. Evans and Douglas Karcher

When the substrate surface and drainage holes of feather fiber, peat, and plastic containers were sealed with wax, hyperbolic growth curves were good fits to cumulative water loss on a per container and per cm2 basis, with R 2 values ranging from 0.88 to 0.96. The effect of container type was significant as the differences in asymptotic maximum water loss (max) values for all container pairs were significant at P < 0.05 for both water loss per container and water loss per cm2. The predicted total water loss for peat containers was ≈2.5 times greater than feather containers, and the predicted water loss per cm2 for the peat container was ≈3 times greater than feather containers. Vinca [Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don.] `Cooler Blush' and impatiens (Impatiens walleriana Hook f.) `Dazzler Rose Star' plants grown in feather and peat containers required more water and more frequent irrigations than those grown in plastic containers. However, plants grown in feather containers required less water and fewer irrigations than plants grown in peat containers. The surface area of containers covered by algal or fungal growth was significantly higher on peat containers than on feather containers. No fungal or algal growth was observed on plastic containers. Additionally, primarily algae were observed on peat containers whereas most discoloration observed on feather containers was due to fungal growth. Dry feather containers had a higher longitudinal strength than dry plastic containers but a lower longitudinal strength than dry peat containers. Wet feather containers had higher longitudinal strength than wet peat containers but a similar longitudinal strength as wet plastic containers. Dry feather and plastic containers had similar lateral strengths and both had significantly higher lateral strength than dry peat containers. Wet feather containers had significantly lower lateral strength than wet plastic containers but had higher lateral strength than wet peat containers. Dry and wet plastic containers had higher punch strength than wet or dry peat and feather containers. Dry peat containers had significantly higher punch strength than dry feather containers. However, wet feather containers had significantly higher punch strength than wet peat containers. Decomposition of peat and feather containers was significantly affected by container type and the species grown in the container. When planted with tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.) `Better Boy', decomposition was not significantly different between the peat and feather containers. However, when vinca and marigold (Tagetes patula L.) `Janie Bright Yellow' were grown in the containers, decomposition was significantly higher for feather containers than for peat containers. Therefore, containers made from processed feather fiber provided a new type of biodegradable container with significantly improved characteristics as compared to peat containers.

Free access

Michael R. Evans and David L. Hensley

A biodegradable container made from processed waste poultry feathers was developed, and plant growth was evaluated in plastic, peat, and feather containers. Under uniform irrigation and fertilization, dry shoot weights of `Janie Bright Yellow' marigold (Tagetes patula L.), `Cooler Blush' vinca [Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don.] and `Orbit Cardinal' geranium (Pelargonium ×hortorum L.H. Bailey) plants grown in feather containers were higher than for those grown in peat containers, but lower than those grown in plastic containers. Container type did not significantly affect dry shoot weights of `Dazzler Rose Star' impatiens (Impatiens walleriana Hook.f.). `Better Boy' tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.) dry shoot weights were similar when grown in peat and feather containers. Feather containers were initially hydrophobic, and several irrigation cycles were required before the feather container walls absorbed water. If allowed to dry, feather containers again became hydrophobic and required several irrigations to reabsorb water from the substrate. Peat containers readily absorbed water from the substrate. Substrate in peat containers dried more rapidly than the substrate in feather containers. Plants grown in peat containers often reached the point of incipient wilting between irrigations, whereas plants grown in feather containers did not. This may have been a factor that resulted in higher dry shoot weights of plants grown in feather containers than in peat containers. Tomato plants grown in feather containers had higher tissue N content than those grown in plastic or peat containers. The availability of additional N from the feather container may also have been a factor that resulted in higher dry shoot weights of plants grown in feather containers than in peat ones. Under non-uniform irrigation and fertilization, dry shoot weights of impatiens and vinca grown in feather containers were significantly higher than those of plants grown in plastic or peat containers. When grown under simulated field conditions, geranium dry shoot weights were significantly higher for plants initially grown in feather containers than for those initially grown in peat containers. Container type did not significantly affect dry shoot weights of vinca when grown under simulated field conditions. As roots readily penetrated the walls of both feather and peat containers, dry root weights of vinca and geranium were not significantly affected by container type when grown under simulated field conditions.

Full access

Amy Fulcher, Diana R. Cochran, and Andrew K. Koeser

, commercially available alternative containers are constructed of pressed fiber or bioplastic. Pressed fiber and biopolymer-based containers are biodegradable or compostable depending on the material and the manufacturing process. Examples of pressed fibers