Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:33:22.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water footprint assessment of sheep farming systems based on farm survey data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2018

R. Ibidhi  and
H. Ben Salem
R. Ibidhi*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire des Productions Animale et Fourragère, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT), Université de Carthage, rue Hédi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisia Faculté des Sciences de Bizerte, Université de Carthage, 7021 Zarzouna, Tunisia
H. Ben Salem
Affiliation:
Laboratoire des Productions Animale et Fourragère, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT), Université de Carthage, rue Hédi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Water scarcity is among the main challenges making vulnerable the livestock farming systems in drylands. The water footprint (WF) indicator was proposed as a metric to measure the impacts of livestock production on freshwater resources. Therefore, this study aimed to assess water use in five different Tunisian sheep production systems using the Water Footprint Network methodology. The primary data were obtained from 1050 sheep farms located in 13 Tunisian provinces. A multivariate analysis was performed to characterize the different farming systems. A validation step of the WF modeled values of sheep meat was conducted in 12 sheep farms belonging to two different farming systems. This was done through year-round monitoring of on-farm practices using water metres and recording equipment’s taking into account the direct and indirect water use. The typology analysis came up with five sheep farming systems that are the mixed sheep-cereal (MSC), the agro-sylvo-pastoral (ASP), the agro-pastoral (AP), the extensive agro-pastoral (EAP) and the mixed sheep-olive tree farming systems. The WF of sheep meat produced under the target farming systems ranged from 8654 to 13 056 l/kg live weight. The evaluation of WF of five different sheep production systems figured out that sheep raised under the EAP farming system had the greatest WF per ton of live animal. However, the ASP farming system exhibited the lowest WF. Water used to grow feedstuffs for sheep production accounts for 98% of the total WF of sheep. The green WF accounts for more than 92% of the total WF in all farming systems. Results of monitoring water use at farm scale show that the modeled values of WF are overestimated by an average of 23.3% and 24.1% for the selected farms assigned to the MSC and AP farming systems, respectively. Water use for sheep production is high in most of the Tunisian farms. Therefore, the general assumption that ‘meat production is a driver of water scarcity’ is supported and should be considered as an important focal point in agricultural and water policies. Particular attention should be given to forage crops with low WFs and high contribution to dry matter to provide ration with low WF. The efficient use of green water along the meat value chain is essential to minimize the depletion of blue water resources and to reduce the economic dependency on virtual water through the import of feedstuffs.

Keywords

water footprintsheepmeatcropfarming system
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , February 2019 , pp. 407 - 416
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Allen, RG, Pereira, LS, Raes, D and Smith, M 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements – FAO Irrigation and drainage, paper No. 56. FAO, Rome, Italy, 300, D05109.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
Chukalla, AD, Krol, MS and Hoekstra, AY 2015. Green and blue water footprint reduction in irrigated agriculture: effect of irrigation techniques, irrigation strategies and mulching. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 19, 4877–4891.Google Scholar
de Fraiture, C, Wichelns, D, Rockstrom, J, Kemp-Benedict, E, Eriyagama, N, Gordon, LJ, Hanjra, MA, Hoogeveen, J, Huber-Lee, A and Karlberg, L 2007. Looking ahead to 2050: scenarios of alternative investment approaches. International Water Management Institute. Earthscan, London, UK.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2009. CROPWAT 8.0 Model. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2012. Annex I Crop parameters, Aqua Crop reference manual. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Forbes, J 1968. The water intake of ewes. British Journal of Nutrition 22, 33–43.Google Scholar
Frija, A, Chebil, A and Speelman, S 2016. Farmers’ adaptation to groundwater shortage in the dry areas: improving appropriation or enhancing accommodation?. Irrigation and Drainage 65, 691–700.Google Scholar
Gerbens-Leenes, PW, Mekonnen, MM and Hoekstra, AY 2013. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: a comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resources and Industry 1–2, 25–36.Google Scholar
Hammami, M, Soltani, E and Snoussi, S 2007. Importance de la filière viande ovine en Tunisie: stratégies des acteurs (cas de la région de Zaghouan). New Medit 6, 14–22.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Havlík, P, Valin, H, Notenbaert, A, Rufino, MC, Thornton, PK, Blümmel, M, Weiss, F, Grace, D and Obersteiner, M 2013. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 20888–20893.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, AY 2012. The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy. Animal Frontiers 2, 3–8.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, AY and Chapagain, AK 2007. The water footprints of Morocco and the Netherlands: Global water use as a result of domestic consumption of agricultural commodities. Ecological Economics 64, 143–151.Google 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
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
Ibidhi, R, Frija, A, Jaouad, M and Ben Salem, H 2018. Typology analysis of sheep production, feeding systems and farmers strategies for livestock watering in Tunisia. Small Ruminant Research 160, 44–53.Google Scholar
Louhaichi, M, Hassan, S, Clifton, K and Johnson, DE 2017. A reliable and non-destructive method for estimating forage shrub cover and biomass in arid environments using digital vegetation charting technique. Agroforestry Systems 1–12.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.Google Scholar
Molden, D 2007. Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK.Google Scholar
Murphy, E, Curran, TP, Holden, NM, O’Brien, D and Upton, J 2017a. Water footprinting of pasture-based farms; beef and sheep. Animal 1–9.Google Scholar
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 (Part 2), 547–555.Google Scholar
National Institute of Metrology of Tunisia 2016. Climatologic database. Retrieved on 8 February 1999 from http://www.meteo.tn/htmlen/bdonnees/presentation.html.Google Scholar
Nefzaoui, A, Ben Salem, H and El Mourid, M 2012. Innovations in small ruminants feeding systems in arid Mediterranean areas. In New trends for innovation in the Mediterranean animal production (ed. R Bouche, A Derkimba and F Casabianca), pp. 99–116. EAAP – European Federation of Animal Science, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.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.Google Scholar
Ridoutt, BG and Pfister, S 2013. A new water footprint calculation method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18, 204–207.Google Scholar
Schlink, A, Nguyen, M and Viljoen, G 2010. Water requirements for livestock production: a global perspective. Soil and Water Management & Crop Nutrition Subprogramme 6, 603–619.Google Scholar
Schyns, JF and Hoekstra, AY 2014. The added value of water footprint assessment for national water policy: a case study for Morocco. PLoS One 9, e99705.Google Scholar
Steduto, P, Faurès, J-M, Hoogeveen, J, Winpenny, J and Burke, J 2012. Coping with water scarcity: an action framework for agriculture and food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Steduto, P, Hsiao, TC, Raes, D and Fereres, E 2009. AquaCrop – the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agronomy Journal 101, 426–437.Google Scholar
Tarhouni, M, Ben Salem, F, Tlili, A, Ouled Belgacem, A, Neffati, M and Louhaichi, M 2016. Measurement of the aboveground biomass of some rangeland species using a digital non-destructive technique. Botany Letters 163, 281–287.Google Scholar
Toro-Mujica, P, Aguilar, C, Vera, R and Cornejo, K 2016. A simulation-based approach for evaluating the effects of farm type, management, and rainfall on the water footprint of sheep grazing systems in a semi-arid environment. Agricultural Systems 148, 75–85.Google Scholar
Tunisian Institute for Strategic Studies 2017. Strategic review of the food and nutrition security in Tunisia volume 216, Tunis, Tunisia (in French).Google Scholar
Zhang, Y, Huang, K, Yu, Y and Yang, B 2017. Mapping of water footprint research: a bibliometric analysis during 2006–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production 149, 70–79.Google Scholar
Zhuo, L, Mekonnen, MM, Hoekstra, AY and Wada, Y 2016. Inter- and intra-annual variation of water footprint of crops and blue water scarcity in the Yellow River basin (1961–2009). Advances in Water Resources 87, 29–41.Google Scholar