Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:44:30.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water footprint and economic water productivity assessment of eight dairy cattle farms based on field measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2019

R. Ibidhi  and
H. Ben Salem
R. Ibidhi*
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT), Laboratoire des Productions Animale et Fourragère, Université de Carthage, rue Hédi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisia
H. Ben Salem
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT), Laboratoire des Productions Animale et Fourragère, Université de Carthage, rue Hédi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Water scarcity prevailing in the drylands is threatening the sustainability of livestock production systems. The water footprint (WF) indicator was proposed as a metric of water use. This study aimed to determine the WF and the economic water productivity (EWP) of 1 kg of fat and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) in eight dairy farms (n = 8; animals = 117 ± 62; area = 198 ± 127; 95% confidence level) in northern Tunisia. Then, to assess the effects of three simulation scenarios targeting the reduction of the WF of milk production (scenario A: using triticale silage to replace, on DM basis, the silage of maize, sorghum or ray-grass; scenario B: reducing by 56% the wastage of water devoted to milking, cooling, cleaning and servicing; scenario C: using concentrate feeds imported from Brazil and Argentina instead of that imported from France). A year-round monitoring of on-farm practices was performed using water-meters and recording equipment installed in key locations in the target dairy farms: (i) water used for feed production, (ii) cow watering, (iii) servicing water, (v) crop and forage production and (iv) economic and production performance were controlled by water source (green and blue). Over the eight farms evaluated, milk production consumed on average 1.36 ± 0.41 m3/kg FPCM, of which 0.93 ± 0.40 m3/kg FPCM was green water and 0.42 ± 0.30 m3/kg FPCM was blue water. However, virtual water of 1 kg FPCM averaged 43% ± 14.3%. Water used for feed production for lactating cows represents approximately 87% ± 6% of the total WF of milk production. However, drinking and servicing water contributed by 3.75% ± 2% and 9% ± 5% to the total WF of milk, respectively. The EWP assessment revealed that the selected dairy farms had a relatively small gross margin per m3 of water averaging US$ 0.05 ± 0.04. The variation in WF of milk was mainly associated with diets’ ingredients, which affected milk productivity and water consumption. Scenario analysis indicated that using feed with less water requirements or importing feeds from countries where its water consumption is low could reduce consumptive water use for milk production by up to 16%. The efficient use of servicing water could reduce blue WF of milk by up to 4%. The implementation of these measures would lead to potential total water savings in the Tunisian dairy sector of 646 million m3 per year (30%).

Keywords

water useblue waterwater scarcitygross marginmilk
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 180 - 189
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amamou, H, Sassi, MB, Aouadi, H, Khemiri, H, Mahouachi, M, Beckers, Y and Hammami, H 2018. Climate change-related risks and adaptation strategies as perceived in dairy cattle farming systems in Tunisia. Climate Risk Management 20, 38–49.Google Scholar
Batchelor, C, Reddy, VR, Linstead, C, Dhar, M, Roy, S, and May, R 2014. Do water saving technologies improve environmental flows? Journal of Hydrology 518 (Part A), 140–149.Google Scholar
Berger, M and Finkbeiner, M 2010. Water footprinting: how to address water use in life cycle assessment? Sustainability 2, 919–944.Google Scholar
Besbes, M, Chahed, J and Hamdane, A 2018. National water security: case study of an arid country: Tunisia. Springer International Publishing AG, Switzerland.Google Scholar
FAO, 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector. A life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
GIVLAIT, 2017. Interprofessional Group of Red Meat and Milk. Retrieved on 20 June 2018 from http://www.givlait.com.tn/Google Scholar
Hoekstra, AY and Chapagain, AK 2007. Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management 21, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, AY, Chapagain, AK, Aldaya, MM and Mekonnen, MM 2011. The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard. Earthscan, London, UK.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, AY and Hung, PQ 2002. Virtual water trade. A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade. Value of Water Research Report Series 11. pp. 166.Google Scholar
Ibidhi, R and Ben Salem, H 2018a. Water footprint assessment of sheep farming systems based on farm survey data. Animal 13, 1–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Ibidhi, R and Ben Salem, H 2018b. Water footprint and economic water productivity of sheep meat at farm scale in humid and semi-arid agro-ecological zones. Small Ruminant Research 166, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibidhi, R, Hoekstra, AY, Gerbens-Leenes, PW and Chouchane, H 2017. Water, land and carbon footprints of sheep and chicken meat produced in Tunisia under different farming systems. Ecological Indicators 77, 304–313.Google Scholar
Kayouli, C 2006. Country pasture/forage resource profiles: Tunisia. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Legesse, G, Ominski, KH, Beauchemin, KA, Pfister, S, Martel, M, McGeough, EJ, Hoekstra, AY, Kroebel, R, Cordeiro, MRC and McAllister, TA 2017. BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: quantifying water use in ruminant production1. Journal of Animal Science 95, 2001–2018.Google Scholar
Lu, Y, Payen, S, Ledgard, S, Luo, J, Ma, L and Zhang, X 2018. Components of feed affecting water footprint of feedlot dairy farm systems in Northern China. Journal of Cleaner Production 183, 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, D and Kinzelbach, W 2015. Food security and sustainable resource management. Water Resources Research 51, 4966–4985.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, M and Hoekstra, A 2010. The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. Value of Water Research Report Series No.48, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, MM and Hoekstra, AY 2012. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekonnen, MM and Hoekstra, AY 2016. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Science Advances 2, e1500323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, E, Curran, TP, Holden, NM, O’Brien, D and Upton, J 2017a. Water footprinting of pasture-based farms; beef and sheep. Animal, 12, 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, E, de Boer, IJM, van Middelaar, CE, Holden, NM, Shalloo, L, Curran, TP and Upton, J 2017b. Water footprinting of dairy farming in Ireland. Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (pt 2), 547–555.Google Scholar
Owusu-Sekyere, E, Scheepers, ME and Jordaan, H 2017. Economic water productivities along the dairy value chain in South Africa: implications for sustainable and economically efficient water-use Policies in the dairy industry. Ecological Economics 134, 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palhares, JCP and Pezzopane, JRM 2015. Water footprint accounting and scarcity indicators of conventional and organic dairy production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 93, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poore, J and Nemecek, T 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sraïri, MT, Benjelloun, R, Karrou, M, Ates, S and Kuper, M 2016. Biophysical and economic water productivity of dual-purpose cattle farming. Animal 10, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steduto, P, Hsiao, TC, Fereres, E and Raes, D 2012. Crop yield response to water. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Steen-Olsen, K, Weinzettel, J, Cranston, G, Ercin, AE and Hertwich, EG 2012. Carbon, land, and water footprint accounts for the European Union:consumption, production, and displacements through international trade. Environmental Science & Technology 46, 10883–10891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sultana, MN, Uddin, MM, Ridoutt, B, Hemme, T and Peters, K 2015. Benchmarking consumptive water use of bovine milk production systems for 60 geographical regions: an implication for global food security. Global Food Security 4, 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vazifedoust, M, van Dam, JC, Feddes, RA and Feizi, M 2008. Increasing water productivity of irrigated crops under limited water supply at field scale. Agricultural Water Management 95, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar