Search Results

You are looking at 31 - 40 of 2,350 items for :

  • controlled environment agriculture x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Free access

Anita L. Hayden

Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. CEAC Paper D-412380-01-06, Supported by CEAC, The Controlled Environment Agriculture Center, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Arizona. Special thanks to Bruce Walsh at the

Full access

Ward Simonton

The commercial greenhouse operation, with a controlled and structured environment and a large number of highly repetitive tasks, offers many advantages for automation relative to other segments of agriculture. Benefits and incentives to automate are significant and include improving the safety of the work force and the environment, along with ensuring sufficient productivity to compete in today's global market. The use of equipment and computers to assist production also may be particularly important in areas where labor costs and/or availability are a concern. However, automation for greenhouse systems faces very significant challenges in overcoming nonuniformity, cultural practice, and economic problems. As a case study, a robotic workcell for processing geranium cuttings for propagation has been developed. The robot grasps randomly positioned cuttings from a conveyor, performs leaf removal, trims the stems, and inserts the cuttings into plug trays. While the system has been shown to process effectively many plants automatically, the robot is not equipped to handle successfully the wide variety of cuttings that a trained worker handles with aplomb. A key challenge in greenhouse automation will be to develop productive systems that can perform in a reliable and cost-effective way with highly variable biological products.

Free access

Maedza K. Vuwani, Mpumelelo Nkomo, Wonder Ngezimana, Nokwanda P. Makunga, and Fhatuwani N. Mudau

differences between the control and all other treatments. Foliar application of the studied micronutrients did have an influence on the metabolite quantities as has been reported with most secondary metabolite fluctuations caused by plant-environment

Free access

Jeffrey A. Anderson

and use of the Controlled Environment Research Laboratory are gratefully acknowledged.

Free access

Gioia D. Massa, Jeffery C. Emmerich, Robert C. Morrow, C. Michael Bourget, and Cary A. Mitchell

Oral Session 7—Controlled Environments 28 July 2006, 8:00–9:00 a.m. Southdown Moderator: Chieri Kubota

Full access

Lisa G. Neven

As concerns about the safety of our food supply increase along with concerns about the impact of agricultural chemicals on our environment, the development of nonchemical quarantine treatments to meet export requirements become increasingly necessary. The types of physical treatments used have been largely determined by commodity tolerances and processing practices. The most common physical treatments use temperature extremes such as heat [>40 °C (104.0 °F)] and cold [<10 °C (50.0 °F)]. Other physical treatments commonly include the use of controlled or modified atmospheres (low oxygen, elevated carbon dioxide). Current technology has led to investigations in the application of energy to control infesting insects. These treatments include ionizing radiation, microwaves, ultraviolet radiation, infrared radiation, radio frequency, electron beam, X-rays, and electricity. Although the effects of these physical treatments can impact commodity quality, the goal of the treatments is to kill infesting (real or in certain instances, potential) insects to meet quarantine requirements. The effects of physical treatments on insect mortality and fecundity are discussed.

Free access

David R. Dreesen and Robert W. Langhans

Abbreviations: CEGR, controlled environment growth rooms; HI, high irradiante levels; LI, low irradiance levels; MHI, medium high irradiance levels; MLI, medium low irradiance levels 1 Former graduate research assistant, currently research associate

Free access

Keith A. Funnell, Errol W. Hewett, Ian J. Warrington, and Julie A. Plummer

Trust for providing funding for this project, and to the staff at the National Climate Laboratory for maintaining the controlled environment facilities used in this study. The cost of publishing this paper was defrayed in part by the payment of page

Free access

Peter R. Hicklenton, Suzie M. Newman, and Lindsay J. Davies

, New Zealand, for supporting this research and members of the Technical Services Group, National Climate Laboratory, HortResearch, for maintaining the controlled-environment rooms during this study. The cost of publishing this paper was defrayed in part

Free access

Richard H. Ozminkowski Jr., Randolph G. Gardner, Robert H. Moll, and Warren R. Henderson

Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh, NC 27695. We acknowledge the technical assistance of Tom Eaker and Rebecca Wells. The cost of publishing this paper was defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. Under postal regulations, this paper