OPTIMIZING CROP PRODUCTION IN CEA FARMS: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ON PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT SAMPLE
Introduction
The simulation for a Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) system using the Flexsim software gave very significant insights into the efficiency and viability of the system. Key parameters involved are nutrient solution composition, seeding and growing areas, NFT channels, transporters or movers of plants, and human operators. It is assumed that the model will simulate a multi-level Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) system using quite automated systems for the growth and harvest of plants. Environmental control, including light, temperature, and humidity, was maintained during the simulation of this study. Its focus was crop yield maximization, resource utilization optimization, and performance improvement of the overall system.
Simulation Outcomes
Crop Yield and Growth Rates
Crop yields and growth rates have been shown in the simulation to be considerably greater than those from traditional systems have. The controlled environment of a Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) system will allow crops to be produced year-round with more than one harvest a year on the same plot (Wang et al. 2021). Leafy greens were the primary crop used in this simulation. A yield per square meter of 30% higher than normal greenhouse production was achieved with leafy greens. This was decreased by 20% seed to harvest under optimized conditions as far as environment and nutrient delivery are concerned.OPTIMIZING CROP PRODUCTION IN CEA FARMS: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ON PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT SAMPLE
Figure 1: Model Design
(Source: FlexSim)
NFT channels proved more efficient. They helped promote a plant density 50% higher than soil-based systems that did not affect individual plant health. While yield variation occurred in different levels of the Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems, productivity was most pronounced at the middle levels (Kliment et al. 2022). It was ascribed to effective light and temperature management in the areas, emphasizing the need for even environmental management in multilevel systems.
Resource Utilization (water, nutrients, energy)
Resource use by the modelled Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems was significantly efficient. Water use was 95% less compared to field crops raised conventionally. This was mainly attributed to the NFT system’s closed loop and highly controlled delivery of the nutrient solution. The use of nutrients increased by 40%, since it was possible to minimize runoff and waste. The automatic mixing and distribution of nutrients provided optimal concentration during the growing cycle and adjusted to plant requirements at any stage of growth. However, the energy consumption was more than regular farming, mainly because of artificial lighting and climate control systems. The whole simulation showed that lighting was the parameter accounting for 60%, while HVAC accounted for 30% energy use. The overall energy efficiency per kilogram, however, was 20% better than in greenhouses due to the optimal growing conditions and high plant density (Azhra, 2020). These results indicate promising prospects for the use of CEA systems in water-scarce regions with an abundance of renewable energy resources.
Figure 2: Farm full of product
(Source: FlexSim)
System Performance Metrics
The system performance metrics were high on overall efficiency. The automated transporters ensured 98% on-time delivery of plants from seeding, growth, and harvesting areas that minimized labor. High-value activities like quality control, preventive maintenance, and system maintenance had 85% of the operators’ time utilized (Krynke, 2021). NFT channels had achieved a high uptime of 99% with only low-point interventions for maintenance. Thus, the sensor system kept the environmental parameters within ±2% of target values 95% of the time and ensured consistent growing conditions. These measures depict the robust and reliable nature of the simulated CEA systems system.
Design Optimization Findings
Layout Efficiency
The simulated model took into account various layout options to generate maximum space efficiency and an effective operational layout. The most efficient layout for growth was hexagonal, with a 15% increase in the plant density over that of a traditional linear layout. The vertical spacing of levels was optimized at 40 cm between vertical levels for maximum use of sunlight penetration and heat displacement. The transport time to the seeding area was reduced by 25% based on the centrally located seeding area.
Figure 3: Bar chart between seeding area and collector
(Source: FlexSim)
Nutrient solution tanks and pumps were disposed of in a way to have the least pipe length and ensured even dispersion. This arrangement optimized up to 20% efficiency in total space use from prior designs, demonstrating spatial planning holds an important place in the productivity of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems.
Environmental Control Optimization
Fine-tuning the iterated simulations gave environmental control systems. LED lighting with spectrum and intensity control had the best returns: Energy consumption was reduced by 30%, with optimal plant growth at the best levels. The zoned HVAC system created microclimates tailored to the different stages of development in a process that saved 25% compared to having one uniform environment (Syahputri et al. 2021). CO2 enrichment was optimized at 1000 ppm during light periods which increased photosynthetic efficiency by 20% at its optimal rate. Means of Humidity control: Application of both dehumidifiers and air circulation maintained levels of 65-75% whereby the chances of fungal diseases were drastically reduced and, in general, plant health was improved.
Automation and Labor Efficiency
The introduction of automation made the labour efficiency much stronger. Automated seeders and harvesters reduced manual labor by 70% in those areas. Plant health monitoring through AI-driven imaging systems reduced up to 80% of the time spent on manual inspections. Time was taken out of detection to allow operators to address issues. Predictive maintenance algorithms reduced system downtime by half compared to best-in-class approaches through a combination of scheduled maintenance practices. The automation upgrade further optimized the ratio of plants to full-time operators at 10,000:1, as opposed to traditional greenhouses’ multiple comparisons of 100,000. Other than efficiency, the quality of the plants would be consistent, whether the care or harvesting time.
Economic Viability Analysis
Capital Expenditure Projections
One of the simulations provided insight into “CAPEX” required to establish the Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems. CAPEX for a 5000 m² facility setting based on building costs, hydroponics systems, environmental controls, and automation equipment were estimated to be $8 million (Sun et al. 2021). Although large, this amount would be an expected amount that comes in at 30% less per unit of annual production compared with equivalent capacity in traditional greenhouses. The design would allow for phased implementation; that mainly means cost-sharing with investors step by step.
Figure 4: Staytime histogram between nutrition solution and environmental control system
(Source: FlexSim)
Operational Cost Analysis
In the simulation, OPEX was separated carefully. The cost of energy proved to be the largest component, accounting for 45 percent of the total OPEX, followed by labor at 25 percent and nutrients at 15 percent. The OPEX per kg of produce was relatively 20 percent cheaper than in traditional farming wherein top factors are reduced water and pesticide costs plus better labor efficiency, though energy use is high (Attajer et al. 2021). A similar simulation showed that both predictive maintenance and automated quality control systems could reduce surprise operational costs by up to 40% and bring an even better economic prospect than initially envisioned to the Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems.
Return on Investment Estimates
As can be perceived from the simulated output, the ROI of the proposed Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems project is likely to be positive. The calculated annual revenue stream of $4 million at an OPEX of $2.5 million will recover the initial investment over 5-7 years, subject to the current market. IRR for the model will remain at 15% over a period of 10 years, thus creating a good feeling for investors to invest in this Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) system. Energy cost and crop prices are identified to be very sensitive parameters and those with maximum influence on the ROI during sensitivity analysis, thereby areas for possible future optimisation.
Sustainability Impacts
Water Conservation
Quite efficiently, the Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems model can conserve water. Water consumption is reduced to 95% that of a traditional field farm, with the closed-loop NFT system representing most of this efficiency. From the model, it was revealed that for every kilogram of produce, 2 liters were consumed. A comparison is made here to show 50 liters per kilogram in conventional agriculture. It simply means that this reduction in the amount of water used is significant and points to the potential available in systems of CEA in water-stressed regions.
Energy Efficiency
More energy is consumed during energy-intensive artificial lighting and the establishment of a controlled climate than with traditional farming methods. Nevertheless, the total energy efficiency per unit of crop increased in the simulation. Energy use is reduced by 20% per kilogram compared with greenhouse production, an astonishing fact that came with installing LED lighting and optimized HVAC systems. Renewable energy integration also needs work to further the sustainability improvements it seeks to implement.
Reduced Environmental Footprint
The Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) systems model had a much smaller environmental footprint. There was no use of pesticides, and fertilizer runoff was minimal through a closed-loop system. Land use efficiency was increased by 20-fold compared with the traditional farming approach. As the facility was based in an urban setting in the simulation, transportation distances were reduced on average by 100 km, and associated carbon emissions from distribution were diminished by 30%.
Comparison with Traditional Farming Methods
The simulation findings indicated many beneficial outcomes of CEA systems compared to traditional approaches. Crop yields per square meter were 10 times higher than those of conventional field farming and 3 times more than those from greenhouse production. Control of the environment allowed for year-round production with no seasons, not dependent on natural seasonal changes. Water usage was only 5% compared to that of traditional field farming, while pesticide use was completely eliminated. Labor efficiency improved by 70%, accompanied by a significant reduction in tasks that require strenuous labor.
Figure 5: Average content
(Source: FlexSim)
However, a few potential disadvantages were also identified. High initial capital input makes it difficult for smaller operators to enter the industry. The energy consumption for lighting and climate control was much higher than for traditional farming but, at least partly, compensated for by better productivity. The range of crops that can be farmed in this system also turns out to be limited in comparison with traditional farming, based on the current model, only leafy greens and herbs.
Challenges and Limitations of the Study
Such limitations there were to the study, and further interpretation should be made with proper considerations for these things: The simulation was founded on just one crop type-simply leafy greens-which would not qualify for the total sum of crops. Long-term continuous cultivation effects in a controlled environment could not be factored since the simulation could only run for such a short amount of time. It was also assumed in the model that all systems functioned ideally while they may not function ideally in the real world. The economic analysis used here is considered as the price and energy cost in the market. However, these prices are not fixed in the current scenario and their fluctuations may change the final outcome. Thus, in future studies, all these limitations should be considered, with more extreme scenarios and crop types.
Figure 6: WIP by type vs time
(Source: FlexSim)
Future Implications and Potential Applications
Such findings of the simulation study hold deep implications for the future of urban agriculture and food security. Systems like CEA, as modeled here, can assume an important role in fresh, locally grown produce in urban areas with reduced transportation costs and emissions. Great water-saving potential is particularly relevant for water-stressed regions. Future Applications This system can easily be integrated with systems of urban wastes management systems for nutrient recycling, and energy supply through renewable sources has a bright prospect of relieving the high energy demands associated with this system. This system may further be adapted for pharmaceutical and nutraceutical crop production.
Conclusion
The simulation results show the high promise of CEA systems in addressing food security and sustainability challenges. There are challenges with energy and investment, but the benefits in terms of water and land use efficiency and year-round production will be significant. Much future research and development could transform urban agriculture.
Reference List
Journals
Attajer, A., Darmoul, S., Chaabane, S., Riane, F., & Sallez, Y. (2021). Benchmarking simulation software capabilities against distributed control requirements: FlexSim vs AnyLogic. In Service Oriented, Holonic and Multi-Agent Manufacturing Systems for Industry of the Future: Proceedings of SOHOMA 2020 (pp. 520-531). Springer International Publishing. Retrieved From: https://hal.science/hal-03383779/file/BenchmarkingSimulationSoftwareCapabilitiesAgainstDistributedControlRequirementsFlexSimVsAnyLogic%20%281%29.pdf [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Azhra, F. H. (2020). Designing The Simulation Model to Increase Production Using Flexsim Software. Kresna Social Science and Humanities Research, 1, 1-6. Retrieved From: https://ksshr.kresnanusantara.co.id/index.php/ksshr/article/download/8/70 [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Kliment, M., Pekarcikova, M., Trojan, J., & Kronova, J. (2022). Use of the FlexSim simulation tool for creating simulation models. Acta Simulatio, 8(1). Retrieved From: https://www.actasimulatio.eu/issues/2022/I_2022_01_Kliment_Pekarcikova_Trojan_Kronova.pdf [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Krynke, M. (2021). Personnel management on the production line using the FlexSim simulation environment. Manufacturing Technology, 21(5), 657-667. Retrieved From: https://www.journalmt.com/pdfs/mft/2021/05/08.pdf [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Medan, N. (2021). Modelling and Simulating a Technological Flow Using the FlexSim Application. Scientific Bulletin Series C: Fascicle Mechanics, Tribology, Machine Manufacturing Technology, 35, 62-66. Retrieved From: https://nordtech.ubm.ro/issues/2021/BSSC_v2021_issXXXV_62to66(1).pdf [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Sun, P., Zhang, Y., Wu, X., Du, J., Hou, R., & Liu, J. (2024). SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS OF A PREEMPTIVE TRANSPORTATION MODEL USING FLEXSIM SOFTWAR. International Journal of Simulation Modelling (IJSIMM), 23(2). Retrieved From: http://www.ijsimm.com/Full_Papers/Fulltext2024/text23-2_CO7.pdf [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Syahputri, K., Sari, R. M., Rizkya, I., & Tarigan, U. (2021, March). Simulation of vise production process using Flexsim Software. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 1122, No. 1, p. 012036). IOP Publishing. Retrieved From: http://simulation.su/uploads/files/default/2022-leon-marone-peyman-li-calvet-dehghanimohammadabadi-juan.pdf [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Velyka, O. (2020). Optimization of Parameters of Technological Processes Means of the FlexSim Simulation Simulation Program. Retrieved From: https://sci.ldubgd.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/7214/1/Malets_DSMP2020.pdf [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Wang, L., Iddio, E., & Ewers, B. (2021). Introductory overview: Evapotranspiration (ET) models for controlled environment agriculture (CEA). Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 190, 106447. Retrieved From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0168169921004646 [Retrieved On: 15.09.2024]
Know more about UniqueSubmission’s other writing services:
