Request budget direction Compare greenhouse production strategies
A coherent greenhouse comparison binds each technology level to its own marketable yield, season, plant count, labour, water, losses, market timing and risk.
The comparison rule
A low structure price does not automatically create a low cost per kilogram. Equally, a professional greenhouse does not automatically deliver a high yield. Crop performance depends on the greenhouse, location, variety, planting date, climate strategy, water and nutrition, crop protection, workforce, technical reliability and management discipline working together.
The illustration below compares three FlowGrow routes against a common annual tomato production target. It is a decision example, not a quotation or yield promise. Its purpose is to show why area, technology and required marketable yield must move together. Before commercial use, every assumption must be replaced or confirmed for the actual geography, crop cycle, supply scope and market.
Working tomato illustration
| System | Indicative area | Working investment | Required yield | Investment / annual kg | Risk structure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FlowGrow TunnelMore routine crop work | 8,000 m² | €465,000 | 18.75 kg/m² | €3 | Distributed physical risk |
| FlowGrow Single-SpanBalanced skill profile | 6,000 m² | €485,000 | 25.00 kg/m² | €3 | Balanced control and resilience |
| FlowGrow Multi-SpanFewer, higher-skilled roles | 4,500 m² | €465,000 | 33.33 kg/m² | €3 | Concentrated professional performance |
Decision orientation. Africa-focused tomato working figures from the strategic brief, scaled linearly for exploration. Formal quotations and crop projections follow verification of location, season, variety, plant density, losses, scope, local works, currency basis and validity.
Two greenhouses producing the same annual kilograms may not create the same sales. Earlier or later harvests, consistency, grade, pack-out and access to a stronger market window can change the average realized price. Revenue should therefore be modelled as weekly marketable kilograms multiplied by the relevant weekly price.
Separated tunnels can distribute damage, disease and restart risk across units, but use more land, plants and routine crop work for the same output target. A connected multi-span greenhouse concentrates control and professional performance in a smaller footprint, while a crop, irrigation or management failure can affect a larger share of production at once.
More plants can increase plant material, irrigation, fertilizer, crop-protection exposure and crop-work volume. Higher technology can reduce land and routine labour but increase energy, maintenance and specialist-management requirements. Local wages, energy prices, water quality and operating strategy decide the result.
What the final feasibility model must show
The final project model should connect investment and working capital to a monthly crop and sales curve. It should show normal, adverse and strong-season scenarios and make the effect of yield, price, timing and loss visible. No desired return may be created by silently increasing yield, selling price or terminal value.
The decision is operational
The correct greenhouse is not necessarily the cheapest structure or the most advanced technology. It is the coherent system that fits the site, crop, market window, workforce, capital and operating organization.
Build the verified project case