English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Planting greenhouse tomatoes ( Solanum lycopersicum ) in the same perlite more than once without reconditioning to restore medium loose structure, desalination to remove excess salt, and disinfection to guard against pest contamination is risky, and replacing the perlite to produce every new crop is costly. Reconditioning and treating perlite with hot water at a minimum cost provides a favorable solution for both problems and saves natural resources. A study was conducted in a 30 × 96-ft greenhouse in Spring 2007, 2008, and 2009 (January–July) to evaluate three methods for perlite recycling cost, desalination efficiency, and effects on tomato yield at three or four fruit per cluster. Each recycling method consisted of two components: the reconditioning action and the hot water treatment. The three recycling methods included no stir/sift then disinfect, stir then disinfect, and sift then disinfect. Perlite recycled with the no stir/sift then disinfect method was not reconditioned before the hot water treatment. Instead, it was agitated with a nozzle mounted on a pressure washer wand during the hot water treatment. Perlite recycled with the stir then disinfect method was reconditioned first with an auger mounted on an electric drill and then treated with hot water. Perlite recycled with the sift then disinfect method was reconditioned first by sifting the perlite with a homemade apparatus and was then treated with hot water. Recycling perlite with the no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced labor input by 49% and 81% compared with the stir then disinfect and the sift then disinfect methods, respectively. The no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced recycling cost by 22% and 50% compared with the other two methods, respectively. Perlite that was not reconditioned (no stir/sift) had higher nitrate-nitrogen (NO 3 -N) before hot water treatment than the stirred perlite and equal NO 3 -N to the sifted perlite. Hot water treatment significantly reduced medium electrical conductivity, NO 3 -N, potassium, and sodium. Tomatoes grown in perlite recycled with any of the three methods produced similar marketable and cull yields and fruit weight. Pruning fruit to three per cluster increased marketable yield, fruit weight, and reduced cull yield. There was no significant recycling method × cluster pruning interaction for yield components, indicating that all recycling methods had similar effects on tomato yield at three or four fruit per cluster. We conclude that the no stir/sift then disinfect method is less time consuming, more economical, and has no negative impact on yield. Tomatoes grown with three fruit per cluster in perlite recycled with any of the three methods produced greater marketable yield, less cull yield, and heavier fruit than tomatoes grown with four fruit per cluster.

Reducing Time and Expense to Recycle Perlite for Repeat Use in Greenhouse Tomato Operations