Semi-Closed Calims French Paper - Fr.en

Translated from French to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.
com
Impacts and techno-economic analysis of different

climatic pipes in tomato above ground in greenhouse
Thybaud Brazeau
To cite this version:

Thybaud Brazeau. Impacts and technico-economic analysis of different climatic behaviors in
greenhouse tomato above ground. Agricultural sciences. 2015.<dumas-01206422>
HAL ID: dumas-01206422

http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-01206422
Submitted on Sep 29, 2015
HALis a multi-disciplinary open access archive The multidisciplinary open archiveHAL,is

for the deposit and dissemination of scientific intended for the deposit and distribution of
research documents, whether they are published scientific documents of research level, published
or not. The documents may come from teaching or not, emanating from French or foreign
and research institutions in France or abroad, or educational and research establishments, public
from public or private research centers. or private laboratories.
AGROCAMPUS
WEST
CFR Angers
CFR Rennes
End of studies dissertation

Academic year: 2014-2015 Engineer from the Higher Institute of Agronomic, Agrifood,
Speciality: Horticulture Horticultural and Landscape Sciences
Specialization (and possible option): Master's degree from the Higher Institute of Agronomic, Agrifood,
Horticultural and Landscape Sciences
Fruits, Vegetables, Food and Markets
from another establishment (student arriving in M2)
Impacts and technical-economic analysis of

different climatic behaviors in tomato
above ground in greenhouse
By: Thybaud BRAZEAU
Supported in Angers on 09/11/2015
In front of the jury composed of:
President: Mickaël DELAIRE Other members of the jury:
Internship supervisor: Serge LE QUILLEC Pierre-Emmanuel BOURNET
Referent teacher: Etienne CHANTOISEAU Francois Gregoire
The analyzes and conclusions of this student work engage only the responsibility of its author and not that of AGROCAMPUS OUEST
Confidentiality and Dissemination Sheet
Privacy :
No Yes if yes : 1 year 5 years 10 years
During the entire confidentiality period, no dissemination of the memoir is possible.(1). At the
end of the confidentiality period, its distribution is subject to the rules below (copyright and
authorization of distribution by the teacher).
Date and signature of the internship supervisor(2):
Copyright :
The author(3)authorize the distribution of his work
Yes No
If yes, it authorizes
paper distribution of the dissertation only(4)
paper distribution of the dissertation and electronic distribution of the summary
the paper and electronic distribution of the dissertation (in this case attach the
digital dissertation compliance sheet and the distribution contract)
Date and signature of the author:
Authorization of distribution by the head of specialization or his

representative:
The teacher deems the dissertation of sufficient quality to be distributed
Yes No
If not, only the dissertation title will appear in the databases. If yes,
it authorizes
paper distribution of the dissertation only(4)
paper distribution of the dissertation and electronic distribution of the summary
paper and electronic distribution of the dissertation

Date and signature of the teacher:
(1) The administration, teachers and various documentation services of AGROCAMPUS OUEST
undertake to respect this confidentiality.
(2) Signature and stamp of the organization
(3).Author = student writing their end-of-studies dissertation
(4) The bibliographical reference (= Author's name, title of the dissertation, year of defense, diploma, specialty and
specialization/Option)) will be indicated in the documentary databases without the summary
Thanks
I would like to thank Eric Brajeul for welcoming me to the Ctifl center in Carquefou.
I thank Serge Le Quillec, and Benjamin Albert, for having supervised me during the internship
and for having provided me with the information necessary for the good writing of my
dissertation.
I would also like to thank Romain Barette, Dominique Lesourd, Denis Loda and Dora Rouxel for their
listening, their availability, their contribution to the realization of this dissertation and their precious
help on all the readings and notations.
I would like to thank Agathe Bombail, Samuel Collin and Clément Pinoit for their help, their good
humor and their exchange of knowledge.
I would like to thank the team of workers, managed by Yannick Amiaud, for their important work,
without which the experiments carried out would not be possible.
Finally, I would like to thank my tutor, Etienne Chantoiseau, for his availability and responsive help.
Abreviations list
AVS: Active ventilation system Turnover: turnover
cm: centimeter
CO2: carbon dioxide
DH : Water deficit
Forcas: heating tube in vegetation ha:
hectare
h: hour
RH: Relative humidity HT:
Excluding tax
J: Joule
kg: kilogram
kWh: kilowatt hour
L or l: liter
LAI: Leaf Area Index m: meter
m²: square meter

PAR: Photosynthetically active radiation PE: Polyethylene substrate heating
tube
Rail 51: 51mm diameter underfloor heating rail
T: ton
T°: Temperature
VPD: Vapor pressure deficit
€: euro
List of annexes
Annex I: Cultivation system of a double chapel .................................. ........................ 1
Appendix II: Climatic setpoints of the various greenhouses for the entire crop .............. 2
Appendix III: Evolution of the flowering-harvest period in a control greenhouse.................................... ....... 3
Appendix IV: Relationship between the number of fruits on the plants and the diameter of the stem in the
control greenhouse.............................. .................................................. .................................................. ....... 4
Appendix V: Linking the use of pad cooling with the drop in performance for the month of
April .................................. .................................................. .................................................. 5
List of illustrations
Figure 1: Breakdown of world tomato production in 2013 (Source: FAO Stat) ..... 1
Figure 2: Distribution of incident radiation on a tomato leaf (from WACQUANT,
1995) .............................. .................................................. ................................. 7
Figure 3: Synthesis of the effects and interactions of climatic parameters .............................. 9
Figure 4: Location of the plots of the experimental device in the control greenhouse .............. 15
Figure 5: Weekly averages of 24-hour greenhouse temperatures ........................................... 19
Figure 6: Cumulative gas consumption of the different modalities and radiation ............. 20
Figure 7: Cumulative power consumption of the different modes.................................... 21
Figure 8: Cumulative weekly growth as of August 30 ............................................... ............... 22
Figure 9: Evolution of flowering and harvesting stages ........................................... ................. 23
Figure 10: Evolution of the distance between the apex and the first flower ............................... ... 24
Figure 11: Evolution of the mean stem diameter ........................................... ........................... 24
Figure 12: Number of fruits per m² of crop ............................................... ................................ 25
Figure 13: Evolution of the estimated LAI for 18 sheets .............................. ..................... 26
Figure 14: Cumulative Total Marketable Yield to August 31 ............................................ 27
Figure 15: Average size of marketable fruits by harvest date ............................................ 29
Figure 16: Pre-tax shipping price of tomato from previous years ..................................... 33
List of paintings
Table 1: Quantities used to characterize the humidity rate ............................................ 5
Table 2: Comparison of the AVS system and the semi-enclosed greenhouse compared to a conventional
greenhouse .............................. .................................................. .................................................. 13
Table 3: Experimental device for the “climate control” test ............................................ 15
Table 4: Summary of the main differences between greenhouses regarding climatic
setpoints ............................................ .................................................. ........................................ 16
Table 5: Comparison of the average temperatures of the 3 methods.................................... 19
Table 6: Comparison of the gas consumption of the different methods compared to the control
greenhouse ................................ .................................................. ............................................ 21
Table 7: Comparison of the electricity consumption of the different modalities compared to the
control greenhouse .............................. .................................................. ................................... 21
Table 8: 2-way ANOVA with additive model of cumulative growth as of August 30 .............. 22
Table 9: Newman-Keuls test of the ANOVA of cumulative growth as of August 30 ............... 22
Table 10: Yield after 25 weeks of harvest ............................................... ................... 27
Table 11: Verification of the assumptions of the ANOVA of the cumulative return .................... 27
Table 12: 2-way ANOVA with additive model of the cumulative return .................... 27
Table 13: Newman-Keuls test of the ANOVA of the cumulative return ............................ 28
Table 14: Average weight of fruits and number of waste items.................................... ............... 29
Table 15: Estimation of total gas consumption in 2015 for the control greenhouse until week
47 ....................................... .................................................. ................................................ 30
Table 16: Estimates of gas consumption for the different methods up to week
47 ............................................ .................................................. ............................................ 30
Table 17: Estimated total 2015 electricity consumption for the control greenhouse up to
week 47 .............................. .................................................. ................................. 30
Table 18: Estimates of electricity consumption for the different methods up to week
47 ............................................ .................................................. ............................................ 30
Table 19: Estimated total water consumption in 2015 for the control greenhouse up to week
47 .............................. .................................................. ................................................ 30
Table 20: Estimates of water consumption for the different methods up to week
47 ............................................ .................................................. ............................................ 31
Table 21: Estimation of CO consumption2liquid 2015 total for the control greenhouse
until week 47 ....................................... .................................................. ........................ 31
Table 22: CO consumption estimates2liquid of the different modalities until week
47......................................... .................................................. ....................... 31
Table 23: Summary of operating costs showing a difference between the
modalities ............................................ .................................................. ............................................ 32
Table 24: Calculation of the average percentage of the total yield of the 2014 crop achieved in
week 35 by professional greenhouse growers in Nantes .............................. ........................ 33
Table 25: Estimation of cumulative returns at the end of week 47 for the year 2015 ............... 33
Table 26: Estimated cumulative turnover at the end of the week 47 ............................ 34
Table 27: Comparison of estimated gains compared to the control greenhouse .............................. 34
Summary
I.INTRODUCTION ............................................... .................................................. ............................................ 1
1.LA TOMATO:GENERAL.................................................. .................................................. .................... 1

2. LA WORLD TOMATO PRODUCTION,INEUROPE AND INFRANCE............................................... 1
3.LA TOMATO OFF-GREENHOUSE SOIL.................................................. .................................................. ........ 2
4.LIN GREENHOUSE:AN ENERGY EXPENDITURE.................................................. .................................................. 2
5.LTHE CHALLENGES OF THE SECTOR"TIGHT» ................................................. .................................................. ...... 2
6.PROBLEMATIC.................................................. .................................................. ................................... 3
7.APLAN ANNOUNCEMENT.................................................. .................................................. ................................. 3
II. BIBLIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS .................................................. .................................................. ........... 3
1.LCLIMATE PARAMETERS.................................................. .................................................. ............. 3

Temperature ................................................. .................................................. ................................................ 4
Humidity ................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .... 5
CO2.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........... 6
Radiation ................................................ .................................................. ............................................... 7
Photosynthesis................................................. .................................................. .............................................. 8
Synthesis of the effects and interactions of climatic parameters............................................... ............................ 9
2.ESAVINGS D'ENERGY.................................................. .................................................. ............................ 9
The Active Ventilation System (AVS) ............................................... .................................................. ............. 10
The semi-closed greenhouse ................................................ .................................................. ..................................... 11
Comparison of innovative systems to a conventional greenhouse ........................................... ............................... 13
III. MATERIAL AND METHODS............................................... .................................................. ............. 13
3.MPLANT MATERIAL.................................................. .................................................. .............................. 13

4.MTECHNICAL EQUIPMENT.................................................. .................................................. ........................... 14
5.DEXPERIMENTAL DEVICE.................................................. .................................................. ................... 15
6.CCLIMATE INSTRUCTIONS.................................................. .................................................. ..................... 16
7.VARIABLES MEASURED.................................................. .................................................. ........................... 17
Agronomic monitoring.................................................. .................................................. ........................................... 17
Phenological and morphological follow-up .............................................. .................................................. .......... 17
Climatic parameters ................................................ .................................................. .............................. 17
Statistical analysis ................................................ .................................................. ................................... 18
Estimates .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. 18
IV. RESULTS................................................. .................................................. ........................................ 19
1.TTEMPERATURES AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION.................................................. ............................ 19

Greenhouse temperatures .................................................. .................................................. .............................. 19
Gas consumption ............................................... .................................................. ................................. 20
Power consumption................................................ .................................................. ........................... 21
2.DPLANT DEVELOPMENT.................................................. .................................................. ............ 22
Growth ................................................. .................................................. ................................................. 22
Flowering and harvesting stages .............................................. .................................................. ..................... 23
Flower-apex distance ........................................... .................................................. .................................. 23
Stem diameter ............................................... .................................................. ............................................ 24
Number of fruits present on the plants .............................................. .................................................. ........ 25
Leaf area index (LAI) ...................................................... .................................................. ....................... 25
3.PPRODUCTION.................................................. .................................................. ........................................ 26
Total Marketable Yield.................................................. .................................................. .............. 26
Caliber................................................ .................................................. .................................................. ..... 28
4.BECONOMIC ILAN.................................................. .................................................. .............................. 29
Costs ................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....... 29
Turnover ............................................... .................................................. ........................................ 32
Balance sheet ................................................ .................................................. .................................................. ........ 34
V. DISCUSSION ............................................... .................................................. ............................................ 34
VI. CONCLUSION ................................................. .................................................. ................................... 37
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................. .................................................. .............................. 38
VIII. SITOGRAPHY ................................................. .................................................. ................................... 40
IX. APPENDICES ................................................ ........................................ERROR ! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

I.Introduction
1. The tomato: general information
The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is an annual herbaceous plant of the Solanaceae

family. It is native to South America and was introduced to Europe in the early 16e
century by the Spaniards.
Tomato growth can be determinate or indeterminate depending on the variety. On

indeterminate varieties, each floral bouquet is separated by three leaves. The stem
undergoes monopodial growth at first then sympodial after the appearance of a few
leaves. Its taproot system can reach a depth of one meter and remains very dense
on the surface. The tomato has hermaphrodite flowers and is generally self-
pollinating. The plant produces fleshy fruits of different shapes and colors
depending on the variety.
Flowering of tomato is indifferent to photoperiodism, which has facilitated its establishment almost
everywhere in the world. It can be grown in the open field, under cover or in a greenhouse.
2. Tomato production in the world, in Europe and in France

Tomatoes are produced for two distinct markets: market tomatoes for fresh
consumption and industrial tomatoes for processing and canning. According to the FAO
(Food and Agriculture Organization), more than 170 countries produce tomatoes,
making them the leading vegetable grown in the world with around 160 million tonnes
produced in 2013. World production is constantly increasing with 40 million additional
tons in 10 years (FAO Stat, 2013).
More than half of this production comes

from Asia, particularly China. Europe
produces nearly 13% of world production,
which represented a little less than 21
million tonnes in 2013. It is in Europe that we
find the best world yields on tomato
cultivation. The European yield increases
every year even if the quantity produced
each year remains globally the same (FAO
Stat, 2013).
Figure 1: Breakdown of world tomato
production in 2013 (Source: FAO Stat)
France is the 6ebiggest european producer
of tomato. Annual French production fell ten years ago and has since stabilized. The
national average yield, for its part, has been increasing very rapidly since 2011. 94%
of greenhouse production is sold for the fresh market. The two major French
production areas are located in Brittany and in the south-east (France Agrimer,
2014).
1
3. Above-ground tomatoes in greenhouses
Greenhouse cultivation has many advantages. It allows control of climatic conditions

in order to optimize production by increasing yields, improving commercial quality
and extending production periods. From a social point of view, it also makes it
possible to obtain more pleasant working conditions for the workers. It is therefore
a definite advantage, especially in the case of tomatoes, which require fairly warm
temperatures to develop. However, this requires high technicality since this
investment must be profitable.
However, the greenhouse is a tool that must be mastered for it to be interesting. Indeed, the
installation of a greenhouse represents a significant investment. It is a technology which will
require qualified personnel and which will evolve rapidly: it must therefore be used well to obtain
correct profitability for the producer. International competition being fierce, it is necessary for
producers to reduce their production costs as much as possible in order to be competitive while
maintaining a certain profitability.
4. The greenhouse: an energy expenditure

The energy expenditure of a greenhouse represents approximately 30% of the
production costs of a crop. It is therefore a factor of major importance. The current
economic context, with a difficult competitive market for greenhouse growers, as well
as the social context, with widespread environmental concern, make these questions of
reducing energy consumption essential for producers. It is becoming increasingly
important to use renewable energies and to improve the efficiency of the energy used
to increase the competitiveness of the French sector (GRISEY, 2007).
The Ctifl (Interprofessional Technical Center for Fruits and Vegetables) is working, among
other things, on this subject. To do this, the Ctifl sets up various experiments each year. The
goal is therefore to advise greenhouse producers to ensure their viability by offering them
solutions to increase their productivity and profitability.
5. The challenges of the “greenhouse” sector

The Ctifl “greenhouse” team aims to respond to various challenges affecting the French heated
glass greenhouse industry. Their goal is therefore to propose solutions that can be applied by
producers to respond to them.
The challenges of the sector are at different levels. The main objective obviously
remains focused on the competitiveness of French companies. Solutions must therefore
be proposed to reduce production costs (notably energy consumption), optimize
production systems and improve crop yields. But the stakes are also sociological
because the “greenhouse” sector needs to develop. To do this, it must be able to offer
products that meet the qualitative, commercial and organoleptic expectations of the
consumer. It must also work on its image and show the general public that it cultivates
with respect for the environment: reduce the carbon impact of greenhouses, reduce the
use of phytosanitary products, promote control techniques
2
integrated, etc. This is in order to positively change the view of the consumer, for the
moment rather mixed, on this sector and therefore to allow its development.
To meet these objectives, the Ctifl had new greenhouses built in 2013 with various
recent technologies used by producers. In each compartment, different specific
equipment has been installed to be studied and thus gauge their interest in the
culture. The experimental programs put in place relate to:
- energy and equipment

- Cultivation techniques (climate control, fertigation, waste management)
- Crop physiology
- plant material
- Product quality
- Built-in protection
6. Issue
In this objective of energy efficiency, the main objective of this study will focus on
improving the profitability of greenhouse tomato cultivation for French producers. This
involves an evaluation of the various climatic behaviors tested on the Carquefou site,
which corresponds to the use of the various equipment installed: the Active Ventilation
system and the semi-closed greenhouse. These materials will be studied to define
whether they are of technical and economic interest without penalizing the agronomic
results or climate management.
7. Announcement of the plan
The first part will be dedicated to a bibliographical analysis of the main parameters likely to have
an impact on the cultivation of above-ground tomatoes in greenhouses and the materials that
will be used in the experiment.
The second part will present the plant and technical materials as well as the
experimental device used to answer the problem.
In a third part, the results of the different climatic behaviors will be presented, both
in terms of production and development of plants and in terms of energy
consumption. A technical and economic analysis will then be carried out to
determine whether or not investing in the materials studied is interesting for
producers in the French greenhouse sector.
II. Bibliographic analysis
1. Climatic parameters
The success of a greenhouse tomato crop depends on the management of a
number of factors. The control of these factors will have a direct impact on the
development of plants and on their production.
3
Temperature
The development of the tomato is directly dependent on the ambient temperature, as
for the majority of plants. Coming from a fairly warm region, the tomato has a fairly
high vegetation zero of 12°C.
This is why temperature has a very strong impact on the yield and size of tomatoes.
The optimum temperature for fruit development is between 18 and 22°C. Below
14°C the fruits do not develop enough to have a market value. On the other hand,
temperatures above 26°C will cause problems with the release of pollen and reduce
the amount of dry matter that the plant will transport to the fruits. These problems
will affect the bunches with deformations, reduced numbers of buds or
parthenocarpic fruits. The temperature also has a strong impact on the ripening
time of the fruits: the higher it is, the faster the fruits can be harvested. Moreover,
the fruits are more sensitive to temperature rises when they are close to maturity.
Temperature is therefore very important at the level of fruits and meristems but
seems to be much less so for the rest of the plant (ADAMS et al, 2001).
It is also important to control the temperature difference between day and night.
Indeed, even if the tomato needs fairly high temperatures to develop and produce
in quantity, it will only do so if it is subject to slight stress. Like the vast majority of
plants, if the tomato is in ideal conditions, it will tend to develop vegetatively. Since
producers are interested in the fruits of the plant and not in the leaves, they
therefore have every interest in inflicting slight stress on the plant, which will
encourage the plant to produce bouquets, without penalizing it in its development.
This is the role played by night temperatures, which will be kept much lower than
daytime temperatures. The more marked this difference, the more the plants will be
generative but on the other hand, equal day and night temperatures will also favor
vegetative development. We must therefore find the right balance (VITRE, 2003).
Decreasing the ambient temperature overnight to 10°C has been shown to have no
effect on the rate of CO exchange2of the plant. Small, non-significant differences
were observed on respiration during the night but no influence on plant yield was
observed. This confirms that the 24-hour temperature integration reasoning works
well (HUDCKSTADT et al, 2013).
24-hour temperature integration is a technique based on the ability of the plant to react to
the average of the temperatures received over a certain period rather than to the exact
temperature received each second. Concretely, it consists of an increase in the ambient
temperature when the plant is in favorable conditions for photosynthesis (during the day)
and a decrease when the plant is in unfavorable conditions for photosynthesis (during the
night). This makes it possible to obtain the same average temperature over 24 hours as
under normal conditions while further stimulating the plant by
4
day and saving energy at night. This technique has no effect on the growth or
production of the plant (DIELEMAN et al, 2005).
The ambient temperature is therefore very important in the development and

production of the plant. But the temperature of the plant is too. Indeed, for a given
radiation, the growth of a plant is inversely proportional to the increase in its root
temperature. The more the root temperature increases, the more the root pressure will
increase, which prevents the plant from transpiring normally. This excessive root
pressure will induce water penetration into the intercellular spaces of the plant and
disrupt its photosynthesis (BRAKEBOER, 2008).
On the other hand, it appears that the temperature of the leaves is practically always lower
than the temperature of the air. A proportional relationship has also been demonstrated
between this air-sheet temperature difference and the vapor pressure deficit (VPD): the drier
the air, the higher the air-sheet temperature difference. The opening of the stomata
depends on the concentration of CO2in the substomach chamber and leaf temperature. It is
therefore an important factor in tomato cultivation (RIGHI et al, 2012).
In summary, the temperature is important at different levels (air and plant) but it is above all
the temperature differences (day-night, air-leaf, root-plant, vertical temperature gradient,
etc.) that must be mastered as well as possible to obtain a healthy and productive culture.
Humidity
Air humidity can be expressed in different ways. First of all, we can speak of relative
humidity (RH) which corresponds to the ratio between the partial pressure of the water
vapor contained in the air and the saturation vapor pressure. It is therefore expressed as a
percentage. A value of 100% RH therefore corresponds to air reaching its dew point and
therefore the water will begin to condense. This dew point being a function of the
temperature, another quantity is more commonly used: the water deficit (DH). The DH
represents the quantity of water that the air can still absorb before reaching saturation. It is
expressed in grams of water per kilogram of dry air. Finally, the last quantity used to talk
about humidity is the vapor pressure deficit (VPD). In the same way as the DH, the VPD
represents the difference between the vapor pressure of the air at saturation and the
measured vapor pressure. It is therefore expressed in kiloPascal (PRENGER et al, 2001).
Table 1: The quantities used to characterize the humidity rate

size Unit Air dew point value
Relative humidity (RH) % 100
Water deficit (DH) g water/kg dry air 0
Vapor pressure deficit (VPD) kPa 0
The advantage of DH and DPV is that they are very little dependent on temperature,
unlike RH. That is why they are used more.
5
The tomato grows well over a wide range of air humidity, but it is nevertheless very
important to take into account. When the plants are young, we will prefer a moderate
relative humidity because the humidity favors the development of the leaves. The
development of the leaves, meanwhile, will allow the plant to sweat more, and therefore
the ambient humidity may increase. It is therefore necessary to have good control of
humidity to avoid falling into this vicious circle. In general, during the growing season,
water deficits greater than 10g of water/kg of dry air or less than 2g of water/kg of dry
air should be avoided (WACQUANT, 1995).
High relative humidity associated with an atmosphere enriched in CO2results in

increased stomatal conductance of plants. This can be used with the aim of stimulating
photosynthesis, the growth of tomato plants and therefore their yield through an
increase in the dry matter of the fruits. However, to improve this yield in a continuous
and stable way, it is necessary to have a good control of the transpiration of the plants.
Indeed, higher humidity tends to reduce the plant's transpiration, which can lead to a
problem with the assimilation and distribution of nutrients. On the other hand, an
increase in humidity improves the efficiency of water use by the plant. A relative
humidity of 80% seems to be optimal (SUZUKI, 2015).
The temperature in a greenhouse can be significantly reduced by installing fans and a pad
cooling system. This system comes in the form of a honeycomb cellulose panel that will be
moistened when necessary. The outside air will thus be loaded with water as it passes
through it and cool the greenhouse when the fans push it there. This method makes it
possible to reduce the temperature by approximately 4°C compared to a conventional
greenhouse with maximum ventilation. This system results in a drop in temperature but
also a strong increase in relative humidity. This will induce a greatly reduced water
consumption by the plants. The yield obtained is equivalent to the control greenhouses but
the humidity causes too much "cracking" which reduces the quantity of marketable
tomatoes (MAX et al,
CO2
CO2is a very important parameter to take into account in the management of a crop.
Indeed, the rate of carbon dioxide has a strong impact on the photosynthesis of the
plant since it is an essential gas for its realization. CO enrichment2allows both to
increase the caliber and the number of fruits on a greenhouse tomato crop. The yield is
therefore greatly increased (WACQUANT, 1995).
It has been shown that the exchange rate of CO2, which is a determining factor in the
realization of photosynthesis by the plant, increases with the light intensity, the temperature
and of course with the concentration of CO2air. Very strong correlations have been
demonstrated. For example, multiplying the CO concentration by 2.52of the air, we double
the exchange rate of CO2(HUDCKSTADT et al, 2013).
CO exchange rate2also depends on the opening of the stomata. And this opening
itself depends on the concentration of CO2in the substomach chamber as well as
leaf temperature and water potential. The higher the leaf water potential
6
stronger, and the more the plant will transpire. A plant that transpires has its stomata open and
therefore increases its CO exchange rate2compared to a plant that does not transpire (RIGHI et
al, 2012).
If it has been proven for a while that CO enrichment2had an impact on the yield of a
tomato crop, it is only more recently that the impact on its organoleptic qualities has
been tested. CO enrichment2of a tomato crop allows to increase the concentration
of the organic components of the tomato such as lycopenes, beta-carotenes,
ascorbic acid and sugar. On the other hand, it improves the organoleptic and
commercial qualities of the fruits, particularly in terms of color, firmness, flavor but
also aroma (ZHANG et al, 2013).
Radiation
Like all plants, tomatoes need light to grow. Radiation is essential in its development
since an increase in light intensity will have an impact on various physiological
phenomena such as the appearance of flowers, leaves, the speed of fruit maturation
or the dry matter rate in the fruits (WACQUANT, 1995).
The total solar radiation received by the plant will play different roles. Part of the
radiation received (≈ 20%) by the plant will be reflected directly. The rest will be
absorbed by the plant. Most of this energy (≈ 60%) will contribute to plant
transpiration, which is an essential activity for its proper development. A smaller
part (≈ 20%) will allow the temperature of the plant to rise. Finally, a minimal part (≈
5%) is used by the plant to carry out biological reactions and in particular
photosynthesis (WACQUANT, 1995).
Radiation
olar
Reflection
10%
Warming up
15%
5%
Biological reactions
10% (photosynthesis)
Transmission
60%
Sweat
Figure 2: Distribution of incident radiation on a tomato leaf (from WACQUANT, 1995)
7
Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis is the central mechanism of plant functioning. This phenomenon allows the
synthesis of sugars and other organic molecules by the plant, from the absorption of CO2
through its leaves and water through its roots. The intensity of photosynthesis is directly
linked to the quantity of radiation received by the plant and more precisely to the PAR
(Photosynthetically active radiation). PAR corresponds to radiation whose wavelengths are
between 400 and 700 nanometers and that plants are able to use to carry out their
photosynthesis. These radiations are located more precisely between 400 and 500 nm as
well as around 650 nm (WACQUANT, 1995).
The photoassimilates produced through photosynthesis will then be transported

throughout the plant and allow growth and the accumulation of dry matter in the plant after
being transformed (WACQUANT, 1995).
The photosynthetic activity of a plant obviously depends on the amount of energy received
by the plant. This quantity of energy received varies according to the radiation but also to
the surface of interception of the radiation presented by the plant. Photosynthetic activity
also depends on temperature and CO content2air (WACQUANT, 1995).
The radiation interception surface can be quantified by the LAI (Leaf Area Index). The
LAI is a coefficient which corresponds to the surface of leaves present per square meter.
The LAI therefore provides very important information and can be used to control the
leaf stripping of plants as closely as possible. The literature teaches us that plant yield
increases with LAI up to a value of 4 (ie 4 m² of leaves per m² of soil). Beyond that, it
seems that the plant cannot intercept more light. The objective would therefore be to
keep an LAI as close as possible to 4 to optimize yield but avoiding exceeding it so as
not to unnecessarily tire the plant with additional leaves (HEUVELINK, 2005).
The amount of light absorbed but also its vertical distribution have a strong impact
on photosynthesis. It turns out that the elevation angle of the sheet plays a major
role in the amount of light absorbed. The optimal angle is between 15° (up) and -23°
(down). Increasing the length/width ratio of the leaves has a positive effect on light
absorption because it prevents the leaves from shading each other. An increase in
the length of the internodes generally has a positive effect on the absorption of light
by the leaves because they are thus more widely spaced. It would seem that the two
factors "shape of leaves" and "length of internodes" are the most important with
regard to the
8
Synthesis of the effects and interactions of climatic parameters
Figure 3: Synthesis of effects and interactions of climate parameters
2. Energy savings
Greenhouse cultivation is a form of intensive production with yields per area on
average 10 times higher than open-field production. However, this type of culture is
more technical and consumes more energy. Various actions must therefore be
9
put in place to make the greenhouse growing system more interesting and respectful of the
environment:
- manage climatic parameters (radiation, temperature, humidity, CO2, etc) closer to

the needs of the crop to limit consumption and optimize production
- use renewable energies
- reduce waste production
- optimize the supply of water and nutrients to save them and not pollute the soil
- carry out integrated biological protection to limit the use of pesticides
These five main objectives, if achieved, would make it possible to move towards a greenhouse
cultivation system that is sustainable (VOX et al, 2010).
In order to control the climate but also to respect sustainable practices and energy
saving, many innovative systems have been developed. Greenhouse crops are very
concerned by these issues of sustainable development and control of climatic
parameters. With the aim of competitiveness and economic optimization, new
proposals emerge regularly. The Ctifl center in Carquefou had two of these innovative
pieces of equipment installed in its greenhouses to be able to test their profitability.
The Active Ventilation System (AVS)

The active ventilation of the greenhouse is one of these innovative systems. This system allows
the forced admission of outside air and can be coupled with a heat exchanger for the purpose of
energy saving and sustainable practices (VAN DIJK, 2012).
The advantages of the AVS compared to a conventional greenhouse are numerous. First of
all, it allows dehumidification at a reduced cost and without the supply of hot air. This
dehumidification will be done by a fully controlled renewal of air thanks to the forced
admission of outside air. The renewal rate can be controlled very precisely, which makes it
possible to manage dehumidification as well as possible. We will thus be able to maintain a
circulatory air current in the greenhouse and therefore maximize the activation of the plants
by a higher efficiency of photosynthesis.
Thanks to this system, we will obtain an increased sensitivity in the management of

temperature, humidity and CO concentration.2in the greenhouse. The climate can therefore
be optimal for the plant with, in particular, an improvement in the micro-climate around the
plants. Thanks to this controlled and permanent air circulation, the AVS will make very good
use of low-temperature heating systems as well as the use of the 24-hour temperature
integration method (VAN DIJK, 2012).
10
This active ventilation system will therefore allow control of the climate of the greenhouse while
keeping the openings closed as much as possible. It will thus reduce the health pressure exerted
by pests and diseases. In addition, the energy savings achieved compared to a conventional
greenhouse are not negligible (VAN DIJK, 2012).
However, this system has a cost and therefore needs to be made profitable. For a classic greenhouse,
the installation cost can be estimated at around €120/m². This is a very difficult value to estimate
because of its great variability due to the work to be done on the ground, the equipment used, the
built surface, etc. For a greenhouse equipped with an AVS system, there is generally 130€/m² during
construction. This therefore represents an additional cost of approximately €10/m² compared to a
conventional greenhouse. When installing greenhouses that can extend over several hectares, it is a
value that is therefore of great importance.
The semi-closed greenhouse
The semi-closed greenhouse represents another solution to the issues mentioned above, at least
with regard to climate management and crop protection.
The semi-closed greenhouse is a relatively recent innovation in the field of horticulture.

The overall results show that, in a temperate climate, a large saving of fossil energy is
achievable. This saving can represent between 25 and 35% in a closed greenhouse
compared to a conventional greenhouse. In addition, an increase in yield between 10
and 20% seems possible with good cultivation management and the quantities of CO2to
bring are logically lower since there is no ventilation. The main differences between
closed greenhouses and open greenhouses are:
- Higher humidity
- CO concentration2higher
- More constant temperature
- Leaf temperature higher than air temperature
- Faster airflow even when turnover is low
- Higher vertical temperature gradient
The potential benefits of the semi-closed greenhouse mainly relate to the increase in
yield, the reduction of CO2 input and emissions.2, saving water and improving crop
protection. The main drawback lies in the vertical temperature gradient which, despite
better horizontal air circulation in closed or semi-closed greenhouses, can reach up to
7°C between the ground and the head of the plants (DE GELDER, 2012) .
This temperature gradient is largely due to the air renewal rate which is lower when in a
conventional greenhouse as well as to the aeraulic cooling when fresh air is injected
from below into the greenhouse. This low rate of air renewal will generate a rate of CO2
higher than in an open greenhouse. This makes it possible to obtain firmer fruits with a
higher average size. However, a high level of CO2can affect the timing between fruit
color and firmness. Care must therefore be taken to adapt the
11
harvest period for these two parameters are acceptable to the consumer (FARNETI,
2013).
In view of the various advantages developed by the semi-closed greenhouse, one would
think that a fully closed greenhouse would be even more interesting. The closed
greenhouse is a fairly recent concept which was born in the Netherlands and which is based
on a greenhouse without openings, equipped with a heat pump, operating on an aquifer
which allows heating in winter and cooling in summer, and of an air handling unit. This
method of climate management would make it possible to save 30% on fossil fuels, and to
obtain yields 20% better than for a conventional greenhouse thanks to a rate of CO2higher.
The INTKAM model made it possible to estimate the yield increase from sub-models based
on light interception, photosynthesis and biomass distribution. It confirms the previous
results but the conclusions are that, under a Dutch climate, this type of greenhouse does
not represent the economic optimum. The economic optimum would certainly be closer to a
semi-closed greenhouse, which would present less cost of installation and which would
allow cooling by humidification of the air (HEUVELINK, 2008).
The greenhouse recently built at the Ctifl center in Carquefou is an Ultra-Clima®. It is a

semi-closed greenhouse model that was designed from a partnership between a
Canadian tomato producer (Casey Houweling) and the Dutch company Kubo. It operates
on five key principles:
- Overpressure (reduction of sanitary pressure)

- Very limited ventilation (preservation of a high level of CO2)
- Water recycling (closed circuit)
- Optimization of light intensity (large windows, fewer openings)
- Reducing the use of fossil fuels (recovery of low temperature heating)
These principles hide very specific objectives. The overpressure makes it possible to reduce the
sanitary pressure and therefore to dispense with a large number of treatments in response to
diseases or pests. The purpose of the limited aeration is to confine the CO2inside the greenhouse
and thus increase production. Recycling water makes it possible to avoid polluting the
environment but above all to save water. The light intensity will be optimized by around 15%
thanks to larger windows due to a reduced number of openings on the roof: the openings
represent 3% of the roof surface compared to 21% on a conventional greenhouse.
The Ultra-Clima® greenhouse is 7 meters high under gutters. This relatively high height is
intended to create a buffer zone between the crop and the greenhouse and to allow better
climate regulation (JAGERS, 2009).
In short, the semi-closed greenhouse ideally makes it possible to increase yields

while saving on the energy used (MARCELIS, 2011).
12
However, in the same way as a greenhouse equipped with an AVS system, the installation of a semi-
closed greenhouse presents a significant additional cost. It is necessary to count on average 30€/m²
additional compared to a classic greenhouse, i.e. 150€/m².
Comparison of innovative systems to a conventional greenhouse
The semi-closed greenhouse has the same advantages as an AVS system, often more
efficient, but it also has disadvantages that are not found when using an AVS system.
The comparison of these two materials is therefore interesting to know if the potentially
more interesting advantages of the semi-closed greenhouse are not compensated by
the disadvantages it brings.
Table 2: Comparison of the AVS system and the semi-enclosed greenhouse compared to a conventional greenhouse
AVS system Semi-closed greenhouse
Reduced sanitary pressure = ++

Valuation heating low
+ ++
temperature
Yield increase = +
Better temperature management = +

of humidity more
++ ++
Management
efficient
Valuation of low temperature
= ++
heating systems
Installation cost - --
Vertical temperature gradient = --

Difficulty managing the climate in
= -
mid-season
Working conditions for workers
= -
due to the climate
III. Material and methods
3. Plant material
Each year, the Ctifl plants a control tomato cultivar in its greenhouses, based on those
chosen mainly by producers. This year, the reference cultivar is Clodano. This cultivar
developed by Syngenta is very vigorous and very generative. Clodano allows to obtain
early productions and has a high production potential due to its flowering speed. This
cultivar makes it possible to obtain clusters of 5 fruits of regular size and of a beautiful
intense red color. In addition, Clodano has strong resistance to tomato mosaic virus,
Fusarium oxysporum (fusarium wilt) and Cladosporium fulvum (cladosporiosis)
according to the seed company that markets it (Syngenta, 2015).
13
All the plants were grafted onto DRO 141. This rootstock marketed by De Ruiter has
various advantages. Its main characteristics are very strong vigour, very high yield
potential and good endurance over the duration of cultivation. It also has positive
effects on fruit set rate and stem growth uniformity with low extra-arm
development (De Ruiter, 201).
The rootstock was sown on October 8, 2014 and the scion was sown the following
week, on October 15. The grafting took place on October 30. Just over a month later,
on December 3, the tomatoes were preplanted. Preplanting consists of placing the
young grafted plants on a plastic film to promote root development. This film will be
removed at the time of planting so that the tomatoes take root in the rock wool
loaves.
Planting was finally carried out on January 7, 2015 at a density of 1.255 plants/m² (2.51
stems/m² because the plants are grafted to 2 heads). All plants are grown on rockwool slabs
of the Grodan brand and of dimensions 133 × 15 × 10 cm. From February 12, 2015, the
density was increased to 3.35 stems / m² by keeping an axillary, called extra arm, under the
6thbouquet of one out of three plants. The volume of substrate is 2.494 l/stem after
increasing the density.
4. Technical material
The greenhouses used for tomato crops are in the form of 3 compartments of 1037
m² each oriented on a north-south axis. They consist of 6 Venlo-type chapels 4 m
wide and 8 bays 5.40 m long (Appendix I). These compartments are very recent
since they were built in 2013 and specific equipment has been installed in each of
them.
The first compartment is the witness. It is therefore a greenhouse with cultivation conditions
identical to those used by professionals:
- Hanging gutters for soilless cultivation on substrate

- Heating by ground rail tube (51 rail), double vegetation heating tube (forcas)
and polyethylene (PE) substrate heating tube
- Double screen, thermal and shading, on the roof
- Single wall heat shield
- CO injection2liquid and on fumes
- Recovery of rainwater and drainage
- Automated process control
- Ventilation using ceiling fans one row out of six
The second compartment includes the same installations to which is added an active
ventilation system (AVS) from the Van Dijk Heating brand with forced admission of
outside air and detachable double flow, which is connected to an air distribution duct by
chapel under a culture gutter. This forced air intake makes it possible to carry out
dehumidification and aeraulic cooling operations of the greenhouse.
14
The third compartment is a Kubo Ultra-Clima® semi-closed greenhouse. This means
that there is a technical corridor at the level of the south wall of the greenhouse.
This corridor includes a large side leaf and fans used for the recirculation of interior
air and for the forced admission of exterior air. It allows the cooling of the
greenhouse thanks to a pad cooling system (cooling of the air thanks to cold water
flowing along a panel of honeycombed cellulose) and heating thanks to heat
exchangers which distribute the air in ducts located under each culture gutter. This
type of greenhouse has a reduced number of openings at the level of the roof
(seven times less than in a conventional greenhouse) because these only serve to
manage the overpressure generated by the forced admission of outside air.
5. Experimental device
The experimental device aimed at studying the effect of different climatic behaviors on the growth
and production of tomatoes consists of 18 plots distributed in 3 modalities, i.e. 6 blocks per modality.
The three modalities of the studied variable are the control greenhouse, the greenhouse equipped
with the AVS system and the semi-closed greenhouse.
Table 3: Experimental device for the “climatic behavior” test

Factor studied: climate effect
Variable: type of greenhouse (control, equipped with an AVS system, semi-closed)
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6
Witness P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
AVS system P33 P34 P35 P36 P37 P38
Semi-closed P.57 P.58 P.59 P60 P.61 P.62
The plots of each block are placed in exactly the same place in each greenhouse. Each block
includes 8 plants with a single stem and 4 plants with an extra arm, which amounts to 16
stems in all. An example of the control greenhouse plot is below.
TOMATO 2015 KUBO Greenhouse 1 Witness
CLODANO (Sy) / DRO 141 (DRG)
All measurements
are made on the
Clodano variety. THE
blocks were placed
2 2 4 4 6 8 12 18 24
10 14 16 20 22 in the middle of the
rows to avoid edge
effects. A
Forcas low
Forcas low
MANAGUA
Density 2
DRT 1176
SIRANZO
ADMIRO
PLEASURE
Density 2
Density 2
(DRG)
(DRG)
(DRG)
(RZ)
(RZ)
elementary plot
is composed of 12
11 17 23
rods at the base
1 1 3 3 5 7 9 13 15 19 21
and 16 rods once
the density is
increased thanks to
Density 1: 2.51-3.35 plants/m²
Density2: development of
2.80-3.73 plants/m²
27 modules/row
81 cubes/row
30 modules/row extra arm.
90 cubes/row
Plots used for agronomic monitoring Plot used for phenological and morphological monitoring
Figure 4: Location of the plots of the experimental device in the control greenhouse
15
6. Climatic instructions
During cultivation, the three greenhouses were not entirely subjected to the same climatic
instructions. Indeed, the objective being to make the most of the capacities of each
greenhouse, the instructions have been adapted to meet this goal. Table 4 summarizes the
main differences between the three modalities. The complete setpoint changes for the
entire culture can be found in Appendix II.
Table 4: Summary of the main differences between greenhouses regarding climatic setpoints
12/03/14 12/17/14 12/23/14 01/27/15 03/31/15
Track 51 65°C 60°C
PE 45°C
Tight
Witness
Forcas 60°C
Ventilation
1.9
(volume/h)
Track 51 65°C 60°C 45°C
PE 45°C
Tight
AHV Forcas 60°C 45°C
Ventilation
0.65
(Volume/h)
Track 51 45°C
PE 45°C
Tight
Semi-
Forcas 45°C
closed Ventilation
4 Between 5 and 7
(Volume/h)
Pad cooling Activation from 18/03/2015
It should also be noted that from April 26, the ventilation setpoint in semi-closed greenhouses
has been increased by 1°C to improve CO containment.2. The stated objective here was to make
the most of low temperature heating in this greenhouse. This is why the maximum temperatures
were set lower from the start of the campaign. From March 31, it was decided to do the same
thing in the greenhouse equipped with the AVS system and the maximums were adjusted to the
same temperature as in the semi-closed greenhouse.
Another difference between greenhouses in climate management concerns the opening of

shade screens. They are deployed manually in control and AVS greenhouses when the outside
temperature is above 28°C and the radiation is strong. On the other hand, in a semi-closed
greenhouse, the shade screen always remains closed.
The management of high heat is therefore different between greenhouses. This is also
found in the conduct of stripping. In control and AVS greenhouses, when high
temperatures are forecast for the week, leaf stripping will be lighter to preserve a large
leaf surface. This increases plant transpiration and limits the temperature increase
inside the greenhouse. In a semi-closed greenhouse, leaf stripping remains defined at
18 leaves regardless of the outside climate and management is done using pad cooling.
16
7. Variables measured
Agronomic monitoring
Twice a week, weighings are carried out on the harvests of the 18 plots of 12 plants that interest
us. These weighings make it possible to determine the average marketable yield achieved on
each greenhouse, the quantity and nature of the waste (botrytis, apical necrosis, green fruit, split
fruit, etc.) but also to estimate the average size and the turnover that would have realized a
producer.
Phenological and morphological monitoring

Each week, plant notations are made to precisely monitor the state of the crop.
To do this, different aspects are noted on each plant. The flowering stage, which
corresponds to the number of the last bouquet having fruited or having open flowers, is
recorded. At the same time, the harvest stage is noted, which corresponds to the number of
bunches harvested and therefore to the number of the last bouquet harvested. The fruit
load is also noted: the number of fruits present on the plant whose diameter is greater than
a pea is thus counted. Plant growth measurements are also made by measuring the
distance between the apex of the week and that of the previous week, the distance between
the apex and the last bunch and the diameter of the stem at the level of the apex. of the
previous week. These three measurements are crucial in determining whether the plant is
too vegetative or too generative. The open flowers marked by traces of the passage of
bumblebees are also noted to quantify the activity of auxiliary pollinators which play an
extremely important role in the culture. Finally, the leaf area index (LAI) is monitored by
noting the length and width of the leaves every two weeks to enable better management of
leaf stripping.
All these measurements are carried out on the Clodano variety. The blocks were placed in the middle
of the rows to avoid edge effects and in the same place in each greenhouse. A total of 108 plants,
divided into 9 blocks of 12 plants on 3 greenhouses, is therefore noted each week.
Climatic parameters
Regarding climatic parameters, many measurements are carried out. First of all, the
Ctifl installed a weather station right next to the greenhouses to obtain the most
precise possible temperature, radiation, air humidity and wind speed values. This
weather station is connected to the greenhouse climate and irrigation management
computer.
Inside the greenhouses, climate and irrigation management is provided by the Synopta®
software developed by Hortimax. This software, installed on a Multima® computer also
developed by Hortimax, allows precise and regular monitoring of temperature, hygrometry,
and CO concentration.2air in greenhouses. These data are measured on site by Ektron
ventilated probes. Each greenhouse contains 4 probes of this type at different heights to
determine the differences in climate between the top and the bottom of the
17
tight. Infrared cameras are also installed and make it possible to determine the
temperature of tomato leaves.
Calorie meters are installed and make it possible to determine the energy
consumption of the various heating networks (rail 51, polyethylene, forcas) of each
greenhouse. Water meters and a CO meter2liquid are also installed. Electricity
meters are also present to make it possible to estimate as closely as possible all the
energy expenditure of the greenhouses.
Statistical analyzes
The various statistical analyzes were carried out using the R software. An ANOVA analysis of
variance is carried out through the following steps:
- analysis of the normality of the residuals

- residual independence analysis
- analysis of the homoscedasticity of the residuals
- analysis of the variance of the samples
- post-hoc Newman-Keuls means comparison test
Estimates
All the economic values necessary for carrying out the technical and economic balance
were estimated over the total duration of a professional soilless tomato crop in the Nantes
region.
A professional tomato crop typically ends in week 47, roughly the third week of
November. All values were estimated using 2014 data from professionals in the
Nantes region or the Ctifl of Carquefou.
Calorie, electricity and water consumption were estimated using Ctifl data for 2014,
to which a ratio was applied. In 2014, Ctifl tomato cultivation having stopped in
week 42, a projection was made to estimate the values for the end of week 47
based on data from professional greenhouse growers.
For production, the yield of the control greenhouse was estimated using the average of the final
yields of the professionals for the 2014 crop. The yields of the greenhouse equipped with the AVS
system and the semi-closed greenhouse were then calculated by proportionality with the control
greenhouse from the cumulative yields at the end of August.
The turnover figures were then estimated from the data of the price of the vine tomato
of the previous years available on the site of the market news network.
18
IV. Results
1. Temperatures and energy consumption
Greenhouse temperatures
The average temperatures of the 3 greenhouses are substantially the same over the entire crop.
Figure 5 shows however that on the second part of the culture, the average temperatures of the
semi-closed greenhouse are always higher than the two other modalities. This is a voluntary
effect because the daytime ventilation set point for this greenhouse has been increased by 1°C
from 26/04.
25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
Temperature (°C)
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
Witness Greenhouse
17.0 AVS greenhouse
16.0 Semi-closed greenhouse
15.0
49 51 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Week
Figure 5: Weekly averages of 24-hour greenhouse temperatures
Indeed, one of the objectives of the semi-closed greenhouse is to confine the CO2in order to
increase the size of the fruits but this was not possible by controlling the climate in the same
way as the other two greenhouses. This decision was therefore taken to try to exploit a little
more the potential of this type of greenhouse. This management is possible largely thanks
to the cooling pad which allows effective humidity control in the event of excessive heat and
could therefore not be applied in the other two greenhouses.
Table 5: Comparison of average temperatures of the 3 methods

Witness greenhouse AVS greenhouse Semi-closed greenhouse
Of Of Of
From 01/12/14 From 01/12/14 From 04/26/15
04/26/15 to 01/12/14 to 04/26/15 to
on 30/05/15 on 30/05/15 on 30/08/15
08/30/15 05/30/15 08/30/15
Average of
20.0 21.4 19.9 21.4 20.2 21.9
24h temp
Average of
21.9 23.4 21.9 23.5 22.2 24.0
daytime temperature
Average of
17.5 18.0 17.4 17.9 17.9 18.3
night temperature
19
This modification of the instructions has led to an increase in the average
temperature of 0.5°C since 26/04 compared to the control but has no real impact on
the whole culture as shown in Table 5.
This increase of 0.5°C is logically explained by the increase in daytime temperatures in

the semi-closed greenhouse, the average of which is 0.6°C higher than the control since
26/04.
Gas consumption
At the start of the campaign, figure 6 shows that there are very few differences in heating
between the different modes. From the end of February, a gap begins to widen between the
semi-closed greenhouse and the other two. Then, from the beginning of April, the
consumption of the AVS greenhouse is reduced and follows the trend of that of the semi-
closed greenhouse. These differences in consumption are amplified as the crop progresses
because of the different heating strategies that have been put in place. The maximum
temperature of the heating networks in the semi-closed greenhouse was always maintained
at 45°C, while that of the two other greenhouses was set at 60°C at the start of the
campaign. However, from 03/31, the maximum of the AVS greenhouse was lowered to 45°C,
which explains the difference observed compared to the control greenhouse from this date.
350 3000
300
2500
Total consumption 24h (kWh/m²)
250
2000
Radiation (J/cm²)
200
1500
150
Witness Greenhouse
1000
100 AVS greenhouse
Semi-closed greenhouse
500
50
Radiation
0 0
Figure 6: Cumulative gas consumption of different modalities and radiation
20
The control greenhouse therefore has a much higher gas consumption than the other two. Until
the end of August, the strategies put in place allowed a saving of more than 13% for the AVS
greenhouse and more than 16% for the semi-closed greenhouse compared to the control as
shown in the table 6.
Table 6: Comparison of the gas consumption of the different methods compared to the control greenhouse
Greenhouses Weekend gas consumption 35
Witness base 100
(kWh/m²)
Witness 298 100
AHV 259 86.9
Semi-closed 249 83.6
Power consumption
Figure 7 shows that, concerning electricity consumption, the trends are reversed. It
is the control greenhouse which is, by far, the most energy efficient. In fact, the
ventilation systems enabling better climate control are active almost constantly
during the day, which immediately leads to high electricity consumption.
16
14
Total consumption (kWh/m²)
12 Witness Greenhouse
10 AVS greenhouse
8 Semi-closed greenhouse
Figure 7: Cumulative power consumption of the different modalities
Until the end of August, the AVS greenhouse consumed nearly 50% more electricity than the
control greenhouse. For its part, the semi-closed greenhouse is 130% more, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Comparison of the electricity consumption of the different modalities compared to the control greenhouse
Weekend power consumption 35(kWh/m²) Base indicator 100

Greenhouses
Witness 4.4 100

AHV 6.4 145.5
Semi-closed 14.6 331.8
21
2. Plant development
Growth
Regarding plant growth, visible in Figure 8, the difference between the semi-closed
greenhouse and the other two is once again significant.
1000
900
800
700
Growth (cm)
600
500
400
AVS greenhouse
100
0
Figure 8: Cumulative weekly growth as of August 30
The postulates of normality and homoscedasticity of the residuals are verified with
respective p-values of 0.527 and 0.696. The results of the ANOVA and the Newman-Keuls
test can be found in Tables 8 and 9.
Table 8: 2-way ANOVA with additive model of cumulative growth as of August 30

df sum squares Mean-squares F value Pr(>F)
Greenhouses 2 29314 14657 20,468 9.52.10-6
Block 11 5676 516 0.721 0.708
Residuals 22 15754 716
Table 9: Newman-Keuls test of the ANOVA of cumulative growth as of August 30

Greenhouses Mean Band
Witnesses 891 AT
AHV 876.9 AT
Semi-closed 824.7 B
The semi-closed greenhouse presents plants with weaker growth, especially at the end of the
campaign. Thus, on August 30, the average growth of plants in a semi-closed greenhouse was 66
cm less than in a control greenhouse. This weak growth can be explained by 3 main reasons.
First of all, the much higher air circulation rate allows plants to be activated by reducing the
boundary layer on the leaves. This allows the leaf to improve its gas exchange and will induce
more generative plants. Then, the day-night temperature difference is slightly greater in a semi-
closed greenhouse, which reduces the size of the internodes and therefore the growth of the
plant. Finally, shade screens were deployed in the control greenhouses and
22
AVS during episodes of high temperatures while it was not useful in semi-closed
greenhouse thanks to the use of pad cooling. This influences the direct radiation received by
the plants.
These 3 factors therefore played a role in increasing the generativity of plants in a semi-closed
greenhouse and limited its vegetative development.
Flowering and harvest stages

35 Flowering stage Control
30 AVS flowering stage
Flowering stage Semi-closed

25
Harvest stage Control
Stadiums (Unit)
20 AVS harvest stage
Semi-closed harvest stage

15
10
Figure 9: Evolution of flowering and harvesting stages
Figure 9 shows that the flowering and harvesting stages evolve at the same speed in the
three modalities. Flowering and fruit discharge rates are slightly increased over the
entire duration of the culture. When it takes 11 weeks between flowering and
harvesting a bouquet in March, it only takes 8 in August (Appendix III).
Flower-apex distance
The distance between the apex of the plant and the first flowering clump gives a pretty good
idea of the plant's situation: the greater this distance, the more it means that the plant is
vegetative.
Figure 10 shows that in the first part of the culture, this distance is quite large. This is
quite logical because it corresponds to the period when the plant is not yet producing.
At this time, we therefore seek to promote the vegetative development of the plant so
that it can make reserves before entering production. Once this stage is over, the
flower-apex distance gradually decreases until it stabilizes around 20 cm. We note that
the semi-closed greenhouse has slightly lower averages than the other two
greenhouses. Being more generative, it remains perfectly logical.
23
60
50
Flower-Apex Distance (cm)
Witness Greenhouse
40 AVS greenhouse
30
20
10
Figure 10: Evolution of the distance between the apex and the first flower
Stem diameter
In Figure 11, it can be seen that the stem diameter of the plants is substantially the same in the
different modalities. The vigor at the top of the plants is therefore not influenced by the three
climatic behaviors studied.
14
12
10
Rod diameter (mm)
AVS greenhouse
Figure 11: Evolution of the mean stem diameter
At first, we have an extremely rapid increase which simply corresponds to the

growth of the developing plant. Then, over the rest of the cultivation period, we see
that the stem diameter increases and decreases in turn, but overall we have a slight
and constant increase.
These variations in stem diameter are easily explained. Indeed, if we relate this
parameter to the number of fruits present on the plant, we notice that when one of the
24
values increases, the other decreases (Appendix IV). These variations are therefore linked to
plant production peaks.
This means that the plants are well balanced because they have a vegetative development and a
production of fruits which compensate each other with always a slight advantage for one or the other.
Number of fruits present on the plants

The number of fruits per m² increases for a good part of the crop before reaching its maximum
between 120 and 130 fruits/m² depending on the method, then gradually decreases. This
evolution can be seen in Figure 12.
140
Number of fruits present per m² (
120
100
80
Unit )
AVS greenhouse
20
0
Figure 12: Number of fruits per m² of crop
In the first part of the cultivation, the number of fruits on the plants increases because the
plant grows and develops its first fruits without these being yet ripe enough to be
harvested. On March 11, we see a slight slowdown due to the first harvest. However, the
number of fruits per m² continues to increase because the extra-arms put in place to
increase the density have not yet reached their first harvest. The extra arms having been
developed under the 6ebouquet, so they are harvested for the first time at the same time as
this one, on April 29.
Then, in the second part of the crop, with the gradual reduction of the time between
flowering and harvesting on the bunches, the number of fruits present on the plants also
slowly decreases.
Leaf area index (LAI)

Figure 13 presents the LAI of the three modalities estimated for 18 leaves. This means
that it is not the actual LAI which is presented here, but the LAI which would have been
observed if the plants had all had 18 leaves. Actual LAI is very difficult to compare
between greenhouses due to leaf removal status at time of scoring, broken leaf issues,
etc.
25
6
5
Estimated LAI 18F ( Unit )
AVS greenhouse
1
Figure 13: Evolution of the estimated LAI for 18 leaves
In view of the curves, it can be seen that the LAIs of the control and AVS greenhouses
are substantially the same, while that of the semi-closed greenhouse is much lower. It is
also the only one that is below 4 unlike the other two which are still above. This value of
4 m² of leaves per m² of soil is the optimum value according to the literature (Heuvelink,
2005). This means, in theory, that it would still be possible to increase the leaf area of
plants in a semi-closed greenhouse to optimize the yield a little more. On the other
hand, in the other two greenhouses, the LAI is slightly too high which means that the
plants are slightly too vegetative. The values are nevertheless very reasonable.
The lower LAI of the semi-closed greenhouse is the result of a higher mixing rate in
this modality.
By leafing less, we make sure to keep a certain humidity in the greenhouse because it is the
leaves that transpire. The higher the leaf area of the plants, the more they will transpire. As the
control and AVS greenhouses do not have a humidification system such as pad cooling, you have
to be more careful about leaf stripping, which can have an impact on the LAI.
3. Production
Total marketable yield

Regarding yield, Figure 14 shows that there is a very clear advantage for the semi-closed
greenhouse compared to the other two. After 25 weeks of harvesting, i.e. August 30, the
semi-closed greenhouse obtains a higher yield of more than 3.5 kg/m² compared to the
control greenhouse. Table 10 shows that the energy efficiency of the semi-closed
greenhouse is 30% higher than that of the control greenhouse.
26
50
45
40
Witness Greenhouse
Total common yield ( kg/m² )
35
AVS greenhouse
30
25
20
15
10
Figure 14: Cumulative Total Marketable Yield through August 31
Table 10: Yield after 25 weeks of harvest
Cumulative return Gas consumption Energy efficiency

weekend 35 cumulative weekend (kg/kWh)
(kg/m²) 35 (kWh/m²)
Witness Greenhouse 43.92 298 0.147
AVS greenhouse 43.79 259 0.169

Semi-closed greenhouse 47.46 249 0.191
These yield differences are statistically different based on the 2-way ANOVA test
with additive model below in Tables 11, 12, and 13.
Table 11: Verification of the assumptions of the cumulative return ANOVA

Statistical P-value
Normality of residuals (Shapiro-Wilk) 0.938 0.267
Residual homoscedasticity (Bartlett) 0.634 0.728
The Shapiro-Wilk test poses the null hypothesis that the samples follow a normal
distribution. Bartlett's test poses the null hypothesis that the variances of the samples are
identical. The P-values are both greater than 0.05: we cannot therefore reject either of the
two null hypotheses at the 5% risk. The postulates are thus checked and one can carry out
the ANOVA.
Table 12: 2-way ANOVA with additive model of cumulative return

df Sum Squares Mean Squares F value Pr(>F)
Greenhouses 2 52.21 26.105 14,519 0.0011
Block 5 21,273 4,255 2,366 0.115
Residuals 10 17.98 1,798
27
According to table 12, there is no block effect on yield but the type of greenhouse does have a
significant impact on the cumulative yield obtained. The post-hoc test in Table 13 allows groups
of samples to be produced:
Table 13: Newman-Keuls test of the ANOVA of cumulative return

Greenhouses Number of observations Mean Band
Semi-closed 6 47,464 AT
Witness 6 43,916 B
AHV 6 43,789 B
The semi-closed greenhouse therefore has a significantly higher production than the other two
greenhouses which are classified in the same group.
The semi-enclosed greenhouse first stood out from the others at the end of May and the
difference only increased after that date. This first demarcation corresponds to the harvest
of the first bouquets which benefited from the increase in the aeration setpoint of
+ 1°C. The advantage of the semi-closed greenhouse is therefore proven in a hot climate.
Humidity being easier to manage, it is easy to afford to increase the temperature of this
greenhouse which will be enhanced in part by the radiation, which is also higher in a semi-closed
greenhouse thanks to a number of openings weaker and the absence of use of shading screen.
Looking more closely at figure 14, the curve shows that the semi-closed greenhouse takes a definite advantage in terms of production from April 13.
Week 15, beginning on April 6, 2015, corresponds to the beginning of the first weeks with strong radiation. Since greenhouse 3 makes better use of
radiation, we immediately notice an impact on yield. However, this rise in radiation also caused a rise in temperature in the greenhouses. The
ventilation and humidification of the greenhouses therefore had to be adapted to maintain an optimal climate in each of the greenhouses. The semi-
closed greenhouse was managed thanks to pad cooling which allows very fast and precise control of temperature and humidity in the greenhouse.
Unfortunately, this tool has been used a bit too heavily. The quantities of water added to the cooling pad were too great, which induced too cold air
renewal in the greenhouse (Appendix V). The ventilation ducts being located just below the maturing bouquets, the fruits were hit hard by this cold
air, which explains the drop in yield from the semi-closed greenhouse over this period. In addition, the slight increase in humidity in the greenhouse
somewhat limited the activity of the plants, which became less generative. It would have been necessary to reduce the quantity of water brought by
the valves on the cooling pad to renew the air over a longer period but with higher temperatures. the fruits were hit hard by this cold air, which
explains the drop in yield from the semi-closed greenhouse over this period. In addition, the slight increase in humidity in the greenhouse somewhat
limited the activity of the plants, which became less generative. It would have been necessary to reduce the quantity of water brought by the valves
on the cooling pad to renew the air over a longer period but with higher temperatures. the fruits were hit hard by this cold air, which explains the
drop in yield from the semi-closed greenhouse over this period. In addition, the slight increase in humidity in the greenhouse somewhat limited the
activity of the plants, which became less generative. It would have been necessary to reduce the quantity of water brought by the valves on the
cooling pad to renew the air over a longer period but with higher temperatures.
Caliber
Figure 15 shows that, in general, the size of the fruits of the 3 modalities is
increasing over the whole season.
28
160
140
120
Average common weight ( g )
100
80
Witness Greenhouse
60
AVS greenhouse
40
20
0
Figure 15: Average size of marketable fruits by harvest date
According to Table 14, the control greenhouse has a lower average size than the other two
greenhouses. However, the control greenhouse and the greenhouse equipped with the AVS have an
equal yield over the total duration of the culture, noted in table 10. It can therefore be deduced that
the high caliber in the AVS greenhouse is counterbalanced by a number of fruits marketable lower. It
is also in the AVS greenhouse that the number of waste is the most important.
Table 14: Average fruit weight and number of scraps

Witness Greenhouse AVS greenhouse Semi-closed greenhouse
Caliber average of March 2015 104 111 111

July 2015 caliber average 138 144 146
Average caliber over the whole culture 121 126 127
Number of marketable fruits
357 341 366
harvested/m² as of August 30
Number of waste/m² as of August 30 9 14 12
4. Economic balance sheet
Costs
For heating, estimates were made using data on calories consumed in 2014 by the
control greenhouse at the Ctifl center in Carquefou. Table 15 shows that the total
heating consumption in the control greenhouse for the years 2014 and 2015 are
substantially the same. Being slightly lower in 2015, a coefficient of 0.99,
corresponding to the difference in consumption observed in week 35 between the
two years, was applied to best reflect reality.
29
Table 15: Estimated total 2015 gas consumption for the control greenhouse up to week 47
Consumption Consumption
Consumption Total consumption
total gas 2014 total gas 2015 Coefficient
total gas 2014 gas 2015 estimated
in week 35 in week 35 calculated
(kWh/m²) (kWh/m²)
(kWh/m²) (kWh/m²)
Tight
299 298 0.99 351 347
Witness
The estimated total 2015 consumption of the AVS and semi-closed greenhouses were then
estimated in table 16 from the difference observed at the end of week 35 compared to the
control greenhouse.
Table 16: Estimated gas consumption for the different methods up to week 47
Total gas consumption Coefficient Total gas consumption 2015
2015 in week 35
Greenhouses
calculated estimated (kWh/m²)
Witness 298 1 347

AHV 259 0.87 302
Semi-closed 249 0.84 291
The control greenhouse will therefore be the one that will consume the most gas over the entire crop with
nearly 350 kWh/m² against less than 300 for the semi-closed greenhouse.
For electrical consumption, the same method was carried out. The results can be
found in Tables 17 and 18.
Table 17: Estimated total 2015 electricity consumption for the control greenhouse up to week 47
Consumption Consumption Consumption
Consumption
total electricity total electricity Coefficient total electricity
total electricity
2014 weekdays 2015 weekdays calculated 2015 estimated
2014 (kWh/m²)
35 (kWh/m²) 35 (kWh/m²) (kWh/m²)
Tight
4.2 4.4 1.06 5.7 6.0
Witness
Table 18: Estimates of electricity consumption for the various methods up to week 47
Total electricity consumption Coefficient Total electricity consumption
2015 in week 35 (kWh/m²)
Greenhouses
calculated 2015 estimated (kWh/m²)
Witness 4.4 1 6.0

AHV 6.4 1.45 8.7
Semi-closed 14.6 3.31 19.9
It is logical that the semi-closed greenhouse will arrive at an electricity consumption more than twice higher
than the AVS greenhouse and more than three times higher than the control.
For water consumption, i.e. irrigation in the 3 greenhouses plus the pad cooling of the semi-
closed greenhouse, the estimates can be found in tables 19 and 20.
Table 19: Estimated total 2015 water consumption for the control greenhouse up to week 47
Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption
Coefficient
total water 2014 total water 2015 total water 2014 total water 2015
calculated
weekdays 35 (l/m²) weekdays 35 (l/m²) (l/m²) estimated (l/m²)
Tight
771.6 799.1 1.04 991.4 1027
Witness
30
Table 20: Estimated water consumption for the different modalities up to week 47
Total water consumption Coefficient Total water consumption
Greenhouses
2015 in week 35 (l/m²) calculated 2015 estimated (l/m²)
Witness 799.1 1 1027

AHV 759.4 0.95 976
Semi- Irrigation 778.6 0.97 1000
closed Pad cooling 95.3 0.12 122
The semi-closed greenhouse is the one that should consume the most water because of its pad
cooling system which requires drinking water.
The fertilizer costs were calculated from the water consumption by the plants according to
the values put forward by Moumouni in his study (MOUMOUNI, 2012). The fertilizer price
calculated in this way can be found below.
363,000 − 145,200
= = €0.0013 ′ é
(255,000 − 89,450) x 1000
CO consumption estimates2liquid were calculated based on consumption for the

year 2014. The values are found in tables 21 and 22.
Table 21: Estimation of CO consumption2liquid 2015 total for the control greenhouse until week 47
Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption

Coefficient
Greenhouses total CO22014 in total CO22015 in total CO22014 total CO22015
calculated
week 35 (kg/m²) week 35 (kg/m²) (kg/m²) estimated (kg/m²)
Witness 6.0 8.6 1.43 6.5 9.3
Table 22: CO consumption estimates2liquid of the different modalities until week 47
Total CO consumption2 Coefficient Total CO consumption 22015

2015 in week 35 (kg/m²)
Greenhouses
calculated estimated (kg/m²)
Witness 8.6 1 9.3

AHV 8.7 1.01 9.4
Semi-closed 8.7 1.01 9.4
CO consumption2liquid will therefore be globally the same regardless of the

modality.
Regarding labor costs, the working times are the same regardless of the type of
greenhouse except for trellising. The plants in the semi-closed greenhouse grow
significantly less over the entire crop, so there will be fewer passes to be made for
training. In our case, the growth of the semi-closed greenhouse is about 50 cm less,
which represents two weeks less growth, and therefore two less trellising sessions.
According to Vitre, the average time of training by rolling over a year is about 30
hours per hectare (VITRE, 2003). Considering the salary of a worker at the minimum
wage, the saving of two trellising passes over a year is so negligible that this value
will not be used to carry out the technical and economic assessment.
31
The prices of kWh for electricity and gas as well as the price of m3market garden water, drinking
water and the price per kg of CO2used in the following calculations are the prices listed on the
invoices paid by the Ctifl of Carquefou, i.e.:
- Average price per kWh of electricity: €0.0625 excl. tax
- Price per kWh of gas: €0.0361 excl. tax
- Price per m3market water: 0.213 € tax excl.
- Price per m3drinking water: 2,530 € excl. tax
- Price per kg of CO2liquid : €0.235 excl.
Table 23: Summary of running costs with difference between modalities

Greenhouses Witness AHV Semi-closed
Total gas consumption (kWh/m²) 347 302 291
Total gas price (€/m²) 12.52 10.90 10.51
Total electricity consumption (kWh/m²) 6.0 8.7 19.8
Total electricity price (€/m²) 0.38 0.54 1.24
Total irrigation consumption (l/m²) 1027 976 1000
Total pad cooling consumption (l/m²) - - 122
Total water price (€/m²) 0.219 0.208 0.523
Total fertilizer price (€/m²) 1.34 1.27 1.30
Total CO consumption2liquid (kg/m²) 9.3 9.4 9.4
CO total price2liquid (€/m²) 2.18 2.23 2.21
Total (€/m²) 16.64 15.13 15.78
Cost difference compared to control (€/m²) 0.00 - 1.51 - 0.86
Table 23 shows that the control greenhouse costs more than two euros more per m² than
the semi-closed greenhouse in terms of heating but nearly one euro less in relation to
electricity consumption. The difference in water consumption in a semi-closed greenhouse
is solely due to pad cooling. This is reflected in the total price of water because it is
necessary to use drinking water so as not to risk dirtying the system. In the end, the control
greenhouse is the one that incurs the most expenses and it is only because of its gas
consumption, that is to say heating. The AVS and semi-closed greenhouses have a real
advantage on operating costs compared to the control with respective savings of €1.51/m²
and €0.86/m².
Turnover
To be able to estimate the gross turnover that will be achieved at the end of week 47, it was
first necessary to estimate the returns that would be achieved on the same date. The
forecasts were therefore calculated from the average crop yields of professionals for the
year 2014 as specified above. However, for the semi-enclosed greenhouse, an adjustment
had to be made to make all yields comparable from an economic point of view.
Indeed, the semi-closed greenhouse works thanks to a corridor 1.78 m wide on one
side of the greenhouse. For a producer, this loss of area therefore represents a loss
of yield. The classic length of a professional gutter is 80
32
meters long. The yield loss due to the surface occupied by the corridor is therefore of the order
of 1.78/81.78 = 2.18% on the total surface of a greenhouse.
Table 24: Calculation of the average percentage of the total yield of the 2014 crop achieved in week 35 by professional
greenhouse growers in Nantes
Medium professional greenhouses
from the Nantes region
Yield 2014 weekend 35 (kg/m²) 43

Yield 2014 weekend 47 (kg/m²) 58
Percentage of total 2014 crop yield achieved in
74
week 35 (%)
According to the result of table 24, we can consider that in week 35 of the year 2015, the control
greenhouse produced 74% of its total yield for the year, which makes it possible to estimate it in
table 25.
Table 25: Estimated cumulative returns for the end of week 47 for the year 2015
Yield 2015 weekend 35 (kg/m²) 43.9 43.8 46.42
Percentage of control greenhouse
1 0.997 1,057
yield in week 35 (%)
2015 yield estimated at the end of week
59.001 58.80 62.402
47 (kg/m²)
1Rounded value due to the imprecision of the estimate
2Yield taking into account the loss of surface due to the presence of the corridor
The tomato price is quite variable over a year. To estimate the gross turnover achieved by a
producer with the three types of greenhouses tested, the weekly average of the shipping
prices of the previous years (2012 to 2014) was used.
3
2012
2.5 2013
2014
Price (excl. VAT €/kg)
2
Mean
1.5
1
0.5
0
Week
Figure 16: Pre-tax shipping price of tomato from previous years
Figure 16 shows us the evolution of shipping prices excluding tax for vine tomatoes in the
Nantes region during the year.
The forecasts of final yields as final turnovers are therefore in favor of the semi-
closed greenhouse as shown in table 26.
33
Table 26: Estimated cumulative turnover at the end of week 47
Estimated final yield (kg/m²) 59.00 58.80 62.40
Estimated final turnover (€/m²) 67.75 67.52 72.24
Difference in turnover compared to the control greenhouse (€/

0 - 0.23 4.49
m²)
Balance sheet
By adding these estimated operating costs with these forecast turnovers, we obtain a value that
does not reflect the gain that a producer would realize at the end of his crop since the labor costs
have not been taken into account. into account. On the other hand, the difference between these
values represents a gain for a producer. It is therefore necessary to look at whether this
difference is positive or negative compared to the control greenhouse to know if this equipment
is profitable.
Table 27: Comparison of estimated gains compared to the control greenhouse

AHV Semi-closed
Difference in operating cost compared to the control greenhouse (€/m²) - 1.51 - 0.86
Difference in turnover compared to the control greenhouse (€/m²) - 0.23 4.49
Gain compared to the control greenhouse 1.28 5.35
For the 2015 season, the estimates made in table 27 predict a gross profit of approximately €1.30/m²
for the AVS greenhouse compared to the control greenhouse. However, we know that this
greenhouse costs 10 €/m² more to purchase than the control greenhouse. This therefore means that
it would take 8 years before making this investment profitable and starting to make profits with a
greenhouse equipped with an AVS system.
The semi-closed greenhouse, for its part, could make it possible to achieve a gross profit of
approximately €5.30/m²/year compared to the control greenhouse. Knowing that the purchase
requires an additional €30/m², the initial investment can be amortized in less than 6 years.
The lifespan of a glass greenhouse is very variable but it can reasonably be considered that
it can be used for about fifteen years while remaining efficient and relatively competitive
compared to the new materials developed during this period. On this basis, a return on
investment of 8 years still seems rather long and therefore unattractive for a producer. In
addition, once the investment has been amortized, the potential annual gain with an AVS
system remains quite low even if that is enough to make the difference. On the other hand,
an amortization over 5 years followed by a gross profit of more than 5 €/m²/year seems
potentially very interesting.
V.Discussion
In view of the economic balance sheet, it seems that a greenhouse equipped with an AVS system is
less interesting. However, in recent years, more and more greenhouse growers in the Nantes region
have equipped themselves with this type of equipment. An active ventilation system allows
34
management of the humidity rate much finer and faster than in a normal
greenhouse. Knowing that excessive hygrometry is due to excessive plant
transpiration, the water deficit of a greenhouse is directly dependent on the state of
vegetation of the plants and the conduct of leaf stripping. During the 2015 crop, the
Ctifl team of workers was efficient and saw very little delay in carrying out the
weekly stripping. Among producers, a delay in leaf stripping can quickly occur due
to very busy periods and/or labor problems. In addition, many producers install
cogeneration systems. This allows them to sell electricity by committing to consume
a certain quantity of gas. For this reason, they easily tend to over-consume heating
because it does not cost them money. This excess heating causes the plants to
sweat which lowers the DH and will therefore put the plants in a vegetative state. In
this case, an AVS system may eventually become interesting to promote plant
activity by increasing the leaf-air VPD. On the other hand, if stripping is carried out
regularly and the heating is moderate, the plants will be well balanced and the DH
better controlled. Under these conditions, the value of a dehumidification system by
admitting outside air, such as the AVS, is less obvious.
In the greenhouse equipped with the AVS system, the number of waste per square meter is the
highest, with many fruits that are green or affected by apical necrosis. It is possible that lowering
the maximum temperature of the forcas to 45°C instead of 60°C in the control greenhouse had
an influence on the ripening of the last fruit of the bunch. Indeed, this last fruit was more often
found green in the AVS greenhouse but also in the semi-closed greenhouse where the maximum
temperature of the forcas was also 45°C. These green fruits can also be explained by poor fruit
set during a brief period when the bumblebees were no longer very active.
However, the greenhouse equipped with the AVS system has lower gas and water
consumption than the control greenhouse. It could therefore be interesting from an
environmental point of view even if its electricity consumption is a little higher.
Regarding the semi-closed greenhouse, the difference in final yield is significant and the
investment made when purchasing the greenhouse seems to be able to be amortized relatively
quickly, which makes it a profitable tool compared to a professional control greenhouse.
However, it should be noted that to obtain this result, the climatic management was
different in a semi-closed greenhouse. Driving is therefore to be adapted and
improvements are surely still possible in this area. A yield gap earlier in the season
could for example be considered in view of this year's curves. By confining earlier to
maintain temperatures and CO levels2higher from the start of cultivation, one could
envisage obtaining higher yields than a conventional greenhouse from the first months.
This would be a definite advantage given the tomato price which is much higher at this
35
period. Yield and turnover could be significantly increased. This could not be tested
on this crop due to a lack of plant vigor.
In a semi-closed greenhouse, there were a large number of fruits affected by apical

necrosis. This phenomenon is due to excessive plant transpiration which leads to
excessive migration of calcium towards the leaves to the detriment of the fruits and
this results in the appearance of necrosis at the level of the pistillate attachment of
certain fruits. High heat, which can cause plants to sweat excessively, can be well
managed in this greenhouse thanks to pad cooling. It is therefore surprising to see
so many fruits affected by necrosis appear. This may be due to the deliberate
absence of use of a shade screen on hot, sunny days: the direct radiation suffered
by the plants may have been too intense.
On the other hand, improvements could be considered to limit greenhouse

consumption and therefore expenses. Water and electricity consumption is much
higher in this greenhouse. Cleaner equipment in terms of energy consumption would
have the advantage of reducing operating costs but also of providing a positive image
of the greenhouse sector in the eyes of the consumer.
Changing the type of opening of the corridor shutter could be a solution to facilitate the
management of its opening. The pivoting flap has an influence on the proportion of outside air
mixed with the recirculated air due to the angle of arrival of the air. A top-to-bottom sliding
shutter could improve this problem.
The use of a semi-closed greenhouse therefore requires real adaptation on the part of the
cultivation manager to exploit the maximum of his possibilities. The time to adapt to new
equipment is not a criterion that could be taken into account in this study, but it is of great
importance in a professional situation because an error in climate management is easy to make
and can quickly penalize the culture.
Another factor that may have influenced the experiment is the presence of the corridor in a semi-
closed greenhouse. Indeed, the corridor is traditionally installed on the north side of the greenhouse.
In the case of Ctifl, the corridor was built on the south side. This therefore has an impact on the
radiation received by the greenhouse, the development of plants near the corridor, which tend to
wither during the winter period.
From the point of view of the system put in place, the size of the greenhouses used for the
experiment is representative of a professional greenhouse. However, with 1000 m² of
surface area, they are still small compared to greenhouses of several hectares as can be
seen in the Nantes region. We must therefore remain cautious about these economic results
because the differences observed could be different over larger areas.
36
Finally, it should not be forgotten that the results of the technical-economic study are based
on estimates. Even if the estimation methods used are reasonable and seem very plausible,
this is not worth a result recorded at the end of cultivation. To obtain more reliable results,
cultivation should be continued until week 47, as with the majority of professional
greenhouse growers in the Nantes region. This would make it possible to have results that
are truly representative of an above-ground tomato crop in a greenhouse in the Nantes
region.
VI. Conclusion
The two methods studied here respond well overall to the current challenges of the
sector, both in terms of the environment and of production. The AVS and the semi-
closed greenhouse allow energy-saving climate control, which has an influence on their
operating cost.
The AVS allows easier management of DH and therefore has a finer management of plant
activity. This system made it possible to obtain a yield equivalent to the control greenhouse
and to manage dehumidification just as effectively with heating temperatures limited to
45°C, ie 15°C less than in the control greenhouse. This reduction in energy consumption is a
significant step forward in a sector that remains poorly perceived by many consumers in
terms of respect for the environment. This study does not confirm that this system is
profitable for a producer, but this is partly due to the management of dehumidification
which was already optimized in the control greenhouse, which is not necessarily the case for
all producers.
The management of the dehumidification of a classic greenhouse with heating temperatures

limited to 45°C is hypothetical and could constitute a line of research.
The semi-closed greenhouse, for its part, makes it possible to overcome the outside climate
in the summer period, which is a huge advantage. It appears that, even in this type of
greenhouse, if we want to confine the CO2, we are obliged to increase the temperature but
this remains easier to implement than in a conventional greenhouse. Gas consumption is
significantly reduced thanks to this greenhouse, which seems to be a potentially interesting
solution for greenhouse growers in order to maintain their competitiveness in the years to
come. It requires additional technicality in terms of climate management, which will result in
a short period of adaptation. However, the long-term advantage is more than enough to
compensate for this adaptation time and makes it a profitable investment. It has a higher
energy efficiency than a conventional greenhouse.
Improving the management of the corridor section could be an interesting research

theme to further optimize this system.
The AVS and the semi-closed greenhouse have significant advantages, but
improvements can still be made to these systems to move towards waste-free
production with even higher energy efficiency.
37
VII. Bibliography
ADAMS SR, COCKSHULL KE, CAVE CRJ (2001). Effect of Temperature on the Growth
and Development of Tomato Fruits.Annals of Botany, 88, p. 869-877
BERTIN N., GARY C. (1993). Evaluation of a dynamic model of growth and

development of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill), TOMGRO, for different
levels of supply and demand for assimilates,Agronomy, 13, p. 395-405
BRAKEBOER T. (2008). Root temperature affects plant growth,Fruit and Veg Tech, flight. 8, 3,
p. 23-25
DE GELDER A., DIELEMAN JA, BOT GPA, MARCELIS LFM (2012). An overview of climate
and crop yield in closed greenhouse,Journal of Horticultural Science &
Biotechnology, 87, 3, p. 193-202
DIELEMAN JA, MEINEN E., DUECK TH.A. (2005). Effects of Temperature Integration on
Growth and Development of Roses,Acta Horticulturae, 691, p. 51-58
ELINGS A., MEINEN E., CAMPEN J., GELDER A. (2007). The Photosynthesis Response of
Tomato to Air Circulation,Acta Horticulturae, 761, p. 77-84
FARNETI B., SCHOUTEN R., QIAN T., DIELEMAN J., TIJSKENS L., WOLTERING E. (2013).
Greenhouse climate control affects postharvest tomato quality,Postharvest Biology and
Technology, 86, p. 354–361
GRISEY A., BRAJEUL E. (2007). Heated greenhouses: reduce energy expenditure. Editions
Ctifl, Hortipratic, Paris, 175 p.
HEUVELINK E., BAKKER MJ, ELINGS A., KAARSEMAKER R., MARCELIS LFM (2005).
Effect of Leaf Area on Tomato Yield,Acta Horticulturae, 691, p. 43-50
HEUVELINK E., BAKKER MJ, MARCELIS LFM, RAAPHORST M. (2008). Climate and Yield
in a Closed Greenhouse,Acta Horticulturae, 801, p. 1083-1092
HUDCKSTADT A., SUTHAPARAN A., MORTENSEN L., GISLEROD H. (2013). The Effect of
Low Night and High Day Temperatures on Photosynthesis in Tomato,American Journal
of Plant Sciences, 4, p. 2323-2331
JAGERS F. (2009). Complete control in Ultra-Clima greenhouse,Fruit and Veg Tech, flight. 9, 2,
p. 6-9
MARCELIS LFM, BROEKHUIJSEN AGM, MEINEN E., NIJS EMFM., RAAPHORST MGM
(2006). Quantification of the growth response response to light quantity of
greenhouse grown crops,Acta Horticulturae, 711, p. 97-103
MARCELIS LFM (2011). Advances in energy conservation in greenhouses. In: Proceedings of

the UK controlled Environment Users' Group “Greenhouse technology and
38
practice”, Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ, United Kingdom, 6-7 September 2011, vol. 22, p.
6-11
MAX J., HORST W., MUTWIWA U., TANTAU HJ. (2009). Effects of greenhouse cooling method
on growth, fruit yield and quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in a tropical climate,
Scientia Horticulturae, 122, p. 179–186
MOUMOUNI AK (2012). To what extent will the Pomalie company be able to optimize
its recycling and UV disinfection system for above-ground tomatoes? Final thesis,
Agrocampus Ouest, Angers, 40 p.
PRENGER J., LING P. (2001). Greenhouse Condensation Control: Understanding and Using
Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD),The Ohio State University Extension, Food Agricultural and
Biological Engineering Series, AEX-804-01, p. 1-4
RIGHI E., BURIOL G., ANGELOCCI L., HELDWEIN A., TAZZO I. (2012). Relationships of
Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density, air Temperature and Humidity with Tomato Leaf
Diffusive Conductance and Temperature,Brazilian archives of biology and technology, flight.
55, 3, p. 359-370
SARLIKIOTI V., DE VISSER P., BUCK-SORLIN G., MARCELIS LFM (2011). How plant architecture
affects light absorption and photosynthesis in tomato: towards an ideotype for plant
architecture using a functional–structural plant model,Annals of Botany, 108, p. 1065–1073
SUZUKI M, UMEDA H, MATSUO S, KAWASAKI Y, AHN D, HAMAMOTO H, IWASAKI Y

(2015). Effects of relative humidity and nutrient supply on growth and nutrient uptake in
greenhouse tomato production,Scientia Horticulturae, 187, p. 44–49
VOX G., TEITEL M., PARDOSSI A., MINUTO A., TINIVELLA F., SCHETTINI E. (2010). Chapter
1 - Sustainable Greenhouse Systems. In: Sustainable Agriculture: Technology, Planning
and Management, Edited by SALAZAR A., RIOS I., New-York, pp. 1-79
ZHANG Z, LIU L, ZHANG M, ZHANG Y, WANG Q (2014). Effect of carbon dioxide enrichment
on health-promoting compounds and organoleptic properties of tomato fruits grown in
greenhouse,Food Chemistry, 153, p. 157–163
39
VIII. sitography
DE RUITER (2014). DRO 141TX http://www.deruiterseeds.com/global/uk/products/Documents/
ProductLeaflets/Rootstock/UK_Rootstock_DRO141TX.pdf.pdf
FAOSTAT (2013). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics
Division
http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E (consulted on 03/24/2015)
FRANCE AGRIMER (2014). The fruit and vegetable sectors: 2013 data. http://
www.franceagrimer.fr/content/download/36560/335092/file/
chiffres%20cl%C3%A9s%20FL%202013.pdf (consulted on 03/25/2015)
SYNGENTA (2015). Greenhouse tomatoes 2015. http://www3.syngenta.com/country/fr/

SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/Legumes/tomat e-de-serre-2015.pdf (consulted on
03/27/2015)
VAN DIJK (2012). Active ventilation system (AVS-WTW) http://www.vandijkheating.com/UserFiles/

File/ProductFolders/6.04-EN-V1.0.pdf (consulted on 04/18/2015)
GLASS A. (2002). Climatic management of tomato cultivation. http://www.agrireseau.qc.ca/

legumesdeserre/Documents/05.%20Canada%202002%20Condu
te%20climatique%20de%20la%20culture%20de%20tomate.pdf (consulted on 06/05/2015)
GLASS A. (2003). The management of work in the tomato greenhouse http://www.agrireseau.qc.ca/

legumesdeserre/Documents/09%20Canada%202002%20%20The
%20work%20on%20the%20plants%20of%20tomato.pdf (consulted on 07/24/2015)
40
AGROCAMPUS
WEST
CFR Angers
CFR Rennes
Academic year: 2014-2015 Appendices

Engineer from the Higher Institute of Agronomic, Agrifood,
Specialty:
Horticulture
Master's degree from the Higher Institute of Agronomic, Agrifood,
Specialization (and possible option): Horticultural and Landscape Sciences
Fruits, Vegetables, Food and Markets from another establishment (student arriving in M2)
Impacts and technical-economic analysis of

different climatic behaviors in tomato
above ground in greenhouse
By: Thybaud BRAZEAU
Supported in Angers on 09/11/2015
In front of the jury composed of:

President: Mickaël DELAIRE Other members of the jury:
Internship supervisor: Serge LE QUILLEC Pierre-Emmanuel BOURNET
Referent teacher: Etienne CHANTOISEAU Francois Gregoire
The analyzes and conclusions of this student work engage only the responsibility of its author and not that of AGROCAMPUS OUEST
Annex I: Cultural device of a double chapel
7.85m
0.60m
0.52m
Track 51: underfloor heating 8m
Forcas: heating in vegetation
Polytethylene: heating of the substrate
Gutter
1
from 03/12/2014 to 16/12/2014 from 17/12/2014 to 22/12/2014 from 23/12/2014 to 26/01/2015 from 01/27/2015 to 03/17/2015
2
Appendix II: Climatic instructions for the various greenhouses for the
- PE network activation
- Forcas dual network activation
- Heating by Rail 51 (no Forcas) - Heating priorities: 1:PE / 2:Rail 51 - Heating priorities: 1: Forcas / 2: PE (-
- Heating priorities: 1: Forcas / 2: PE (-
Witness greenhouse - Maxi Rail 51: 65°C (0.5°C below setpoint) 0.5°C) / 3: Rail 51 (-1.5°C)
0.5°C) / 3: Rail 51 (-1.5°C)
- Maxi Rail 51: 65°C - Maximum heating networks: 60°C
- Maximum heating networks: 60°C
- Maximum EP: 45°C
- PE network activation - AVS heating activation on duct
- Forcas dual network activation
- Heating priorities: 1:PE / 2:Rail 51 temperature
- Heating by Rail 51 (no Forcas) - Heating priorities: 1: Forcas / 2: PE (-
AVS greenhouse (0.5°C below setpoint) - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and AVS /
- Maximum heating networks: 65°C 0.5°C) / 3: Rail 51 (-1.5°C)
- Maxi Rail 51: 65°C 2:PE (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-1.5°C)
- Maximum EP: 45°C - Maximum heating networks: 60°C
- PE network activation
- Heating priority: Rail 51 + AHU (no
- Heating priorities: 1:PE / 2:Rail 51 and - Forcas dual network activation - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and AHU /
Semi-greenhouse Forcas)
AHU (0.5°C below setpoint) - Heating priorities: 1: Forcas and AHU / 2:PE (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-2°C)
closed - Maximum heating networks: 45°C
- Maximum heating networks: 45°C 2: PE (-0.5°C) / 3: Rail 51 (-2°C) - Maximum heating networks: 45°C
from 18/03/2015 to 30/03/2015 from 03/31/2015 to 04/25/2015 from 26/04/2015 to 18/05/2015 since 05/19/2015
- Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and:PE / 2:Rail 51
- Heating priorities: 1:Forcas /2:PE - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas /2:PE - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas /2:PE (-0.5°C)
Witness greenhouse (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-1.5°C) (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-1.5°C) (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-1.5°C) - Maximum heating networks: Forcas and Rail
- Maximum heating networks: 60°C - Maximum heating networks: 60°C - Maximum heating networks: 60°C 51: 60°C; PE network: 45°C
- Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and AVS / - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and PE / 2:Rail 51
- Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and AVS / - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and AVS /
AVS greenhouse 2:PE (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-1.5°C) (-0.5°C)
2:PE (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-1.5°C) 2:PE (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-1.5°C)
- Maximum heating networks: 60°C - Maximum heating networks: 45°C
- Maximum heating networks: 45°C - Maximum heating networks: 45°C
entire crop
- Increase of 1°C in the day setpoint

- Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and AHU / - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and AHU / compared to the other 2 modes - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and PE /
Semi-greenhouse
2:PE (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-2°C) 2:PE (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-2°C) - Heating priorities: 1:Forcas and AHU / 3:Rail 51 (-2°C)
closed
- Maximum heating networks: 45°C - Maximum heating networks: 45°C 2:PE (-0.5°C) / 3:Rail 51 (-2°C) - Maximum heating networks: 45°C
Appendix III: Evolution of the flowering-harvest time in the control greenhouse
Time limit
Stadium Stadium bloom-

Week
bloom harvest harvest in
weeks
3 3.2 0
4 4 0
5 4.7 0
6 5.4 0
7 5.9 0
8 6.6 0
9 7.6 0
10 8.5 0
11 9.4 0.7
12 10.1 1.4
13 11 2
14 12 2.9 11
15 13 3.8 11
16 14 4.6 11
17 14.9 5.7
18 16.1 6.8 10
19 16.9 7.5 10
20 17.9 8.8 10
21 18.7 9.8
22 19.9 11 9
23 20.9 12.1 9
24 21.9 13.1 9
25 22.8 14.1 9
26 23.9 15.2
27 25 16.8 8
28 26.2 17.6
29 27.2 18.4
30 28.2 19.7 8
31 29.4 20.5
32 30.3 21.6
33 31.2 22.6 8
34 32.2 23.6
3
AT
d
4
AT
d
5
Diploma: Engineer from the Higher Institute of Agronomic, Agrifood,
Specialty: Horticulture
Specialisation/option: Fruits, Vegetables, Food and Markets
Referring teacher: Etienne CHANTOISEAU
Author(s): Thybaud BRAZEAU Host organisation: Interprofessional Technical
Center for Fruits and Vegetables
Address: ZI Belle Etoile – Antarès 35
Date of birth*: 09/26/1991
alley of Sapins
Number of pages: 40 Appendix(es): 5 Carquefou
44483 Carquefou
Year of defense: 2015
Internship supervisor: Serge LE QUILLEC
Titre anglais : Impacts and technico-economic analysis of different climatic behaviors in tomato
aboveground in greenhouse
English title: Impacts and technical-economic analysis for several climatic managements in
greenhouse of soilless tomato crop
Summary (1600 characters maximum):

With a view to competitiveness, new systems are regularly developed to improve greenhouse
production. This study focuses on the profitability of the Van Dijk active ventilation system (AVS) and
the semi-closed Ultraclima® greenhouse compared to a conventional greenhouse on an above-
ground tomato crop in a glass greenhouse in the Nantes region. It appears that these two materials
make it possible to reduce the operating costs of a tomato crop. A saving of around €1.51/m² with the
AVS and €0.86/m² with the semi-closed greenhouse can be achieved over an entire crop. This cost
reduction is due to a significant gas saving thanks to these two systems which make better use of low
temperature heating. On the other hand, the semi-closed greenhouse allows to increase the turnover
by 4, €49/m², while the AVS has no significant impact on this result. However, the AVS costs 10€/m²
more than a classic greenhouse to install and the semi-closed greenhouse costs an additional 30€/
m². Investing in an AVS therefore seems of little interest to a producer because he will have to wait 8
years before amortizing his purchase. On the other hand, the investment in a semi-closed
greenhouse will be amortized in less than 6 years with significant profits afterwards, which makes it a
profitable material.
Abstract (1600 characters maximum):
New systems are regularly developed to improve greenhouse's crop production. In this study, the
profitability of two systems is examined: an active ventilation system (AVS) from Van Dijk company and a
Ultraclima® semi-closed greenhouse from Kubo company. This trial has been conducted in the region of
Nantes, France. These two materials allow a running cost's decrease. Results showed that AVS is able to
save about 1,51€/m² on this cost at the end of a soilless tomato crop mainly because of a reduction of gas
consumption. A semi-closed greenhouse allows a running cost's save of €0.86/m². Yet, the semi-closed
greenhouse is able to significantly increase production which results in an increase of the turnover. Thus,
an approximate gain of €4.49/m² is possible with this greenhouse. However, the purchase cost of this
greenhouse is about 30€/m² more than a traditional greenhouse. The purchase cost of the AVS is about
10€/m². This means an investment in an AVS doesn't seem to be profitable for a grower because he must
wait 8 years to absorb his expense. On the contrary, an investment in a semi-closed greenhouse could be
profitable because the expense will be absorbed in less than 6 years and the future profits will be
important.
Keywords: tomato, greenhouse, soilless, climate management, active ventilation system, semi-closed,
consumption, profitability
Key Words: tomato, greenhouse, soilless crop, climate management, active ventilation system, semiclosed,
consumption, profitability

Semi-Closed Calims French Paper - Fr.en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semi-Closed Calims French Paper - Fr.en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translated from French to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

Impacts and techno-economic analysis of different

To cite this version:

HAL ID: dumas-01206422

HALis a multi-disciplinary open access archive The multidisciplinary open archiveHAL,is

End of studies dissertation

Impacts and technical-economic analysis of

By: Thybaud BRAZEAU

Supported in Angers on 09/11/2015

In front of the jury composed of:

President: Mickaël DELAIRE Other members of the jury:

Internship supervisor: Serge LE QUILLEC Pierre-Emmanuel BOURNET

Referent teacher: Etienne CHANTOISEAU Francois Gregoire

paper distribution of the dissertation and electronic distribution of the summary

Authorization of distribution by the head of specialization or his

paper and electronic distribution of the dissertation

(2) Signature and stamp of the organization

(3).Author = student writing their end-of-studies dissertation

m²: square meter

1.LA TOMATO:GENERAL.................................................. .................................................. .................... 1

II. BIBLIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS .................................................. .................................................. ........... 3

1.LCLIMATE PARAMETERS.................................................. .................................................. ............. 3

III. MATERIAL AND METHODS............................................... .................................................. ............. 13

3.MPLANT MATERIAL.................................................. .................................................. .............................. 13

IV. RESULTS................................................. .................................................. ........................................ 19

1.TTEMPERATURES AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION.................................................. ............................ 19

V. DISCUSSION ............................................... .................................................. ............................................ 34

VI. CONCLUSION ................................................. .................................................. ................................... 37

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................. .................................................. .............................. 38

VIII. SITOGRAPHY ................................................. .................................................. ................................... 40

IX. APPENDICES ................................................ ........................................ERROR ! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

1. The tomato: general information

The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is an annual herbaceous plant of the Solanaceae

Tomato growth can be determinate or indeterminate depending on the variety. On

2. Tomato production in the world, in Europe and in France

More than half of this production comes

Greenhouse cultivation has many advantages. It allows control of climatic conditions

4. The greenhouse: an energy expenditure

5. The challenges of the “greenhouse” sector

- energy and equipment

7. Announcement of the plan

II. Bibliographic analysis

The ambient temperature is therefore very important in the development and

Table 1: The quantities used to characterize the humidity rate

High relative humidity associated with an atmosphere enriched in CO2results in

The photoassimilates produced through photosynthesis will then be transported

Figure 3: Synthesis of effects and interactions of climate parameters

- manage climatic parameters (radiation, temperature, humidity, CO2, etc) closer to

- use renewable energies

- reduce waste production

- carry out integrated biological protection to limit the use of pesticides

The Active Ventilation System (AVS)

Thanks to this system, we will obtain an increased sensitivity in the management of

The semi-closed greenhouse

The semi-closed greenhouse is a relatively recent innovation in the field of horticulture.

The greenhouse recently built at the Ctifl center in Carquefou is an Ultra-Clima®. It is a

- Overpressure (reduction of sanitary pressure)

In short, the semi-closed greenhouse ideally makes it possible to increase yields

Comparison of innovative systems to a conventional greenhouse

Reduced sanitary pressure = ++

Better temperature management = +

Vertical temperature gradient = --

III. Material and methods