Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T18:07:46.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water footprinting of pasture-based farms; beef and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2017

E. Murphy ,
T. P. Curran ,
N. M. Holden ,
D. O’Brien  and
J. Upton
E. Murphy
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland UCD School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
T. P. Curran
Affiliation:
UCD School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
N. M. Holden
Affiliation:
UCD School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
D. O’Brien
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland
J. Upton*
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: john.upton@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

In the context of water use for agricultural production, water footprints (WFs) have become an important sustainability indicator. To understand better the water demand for beef and sheep meat produced on pasture-based systems, a WF of individual farms is required. The main objective of this study was to determine the primary contributors to freshwater consumption up to the farm gate expressed as a volumetric WF and associated impacts for the production of 1 kg of beef and 1 kg of sheep meat from a selection of pasture-based farms for 2 consecutive years, 2014 and 2015. The WF included green water, from the consumption of soil moisture due to evapotranspiration, and blue water, from the consumption of ground and surface waters. The impact of freshwater consumption on global water stress from the production of beef and sheep meat in Ireland was also computed. The average WF of the beef farms was 8391 l/kg carcass weight (CW) of which 8222 l/kg CW was green water and 169 l/kg CW was blue water; water for the production of pasture (including silage and grass) contributed 88% to the WF, concentrate production – 10% and on-farm water use – 1%. The average stress-weighted WF of beef was 91 l H2O eq/kg CW, implying that each kg of beef produced in Ireland contributed to freshwater scarcity equivalent to the consumption of 91 l of freshwater by an average world citizen. The average WF of the sheep farms was 7672 l/kg CW of which 7635 l/kg CW was green water and 37 l/kg CW was blue water; water for the production of pasture contributed 87% to the WF, concentrate production – 12% and on-farm water use – 1%. The average stress-weighted WF was 2 l H2O eq/kg CW for sheep. This study also evaluated the sustainability of recent intensification initiatives in Ireland and found that increases in productivity were supported through an increase in green water use and higher grass yields per hectare on both beef and sheep farms.

Keywords

grassfreshwater consumptionbeef productionsheep production sustainable intensification
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , May 2018 , pp. 1068 - 1076
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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 56 300, 6541–6556.Google Scholar
Basset-Mens, C, Ledgard, S and Boyes, M 2009. Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand. Ecological Economics 68, 1615–1625.Google Scholar
BordBia 2015a. Export performance and prospects. Irish Food, Drink & Horticulture, Dublin.Google Scholar
BordBia 2015b. Origin green. Sustainability Report. Retrieved on 16 September-2016 from http://www.origingreen.ie/wp-content/themes/origingreen/sustainability_report/Origin_Green_Sustainability_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Casey, J and Holden, N 2006a. Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional, agri-environmental scheme, and organic Irish suckler-beef units. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 231–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casey, J and Holden, N 2006b. Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef production in Ireland. Agricultural Systems 90, 79–98.Google Scholar
Chatterton, J, Hess, T. and Williams, A. 2010. The water footprint of English beef and lamb production. Retrieved on 12 June 2014 from http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/5425.Google Scholar
Creighton, P and Kelly, F 2014. The effect of stocking rate and ewe prolificacy potential on grass utilisation in sheep grassland systems. Agricultural Research Forum, Co. Offaly, Ireland, p. 132.Google Scholar
CSO 2012. “Taking Stock” – census of agriculture 2010, Cork, Ireland. Retrieved on 16 September 2016 from http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/agriculture/2010/full2010.pdf.Google Scholar
CSO 2015. Central Statistics Office. Statbank database. Retrieved on 1 April 2016 from http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/statire/SelectTable/Omrade0.asp?Planguage=0.Google Scholar
DAFM 2010. Food harvest 2020 – a vision for Irish agri-food and fisheries, Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved on 21 October 2015 from http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/agri-foodindustry/foodharvest2020/.Google Scholar
DAFM 2015. Food Wise 2025 – a 10‐year vision for the Irish agri‐food industry. Retrieved on 21 October 2016 from https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/foodwise2025/.Google Scholar
Doorenbos, J and Kassam, A 1979. Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33, 257.Google Scholar
FAO 2014. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Retrieved on 14 September 2014 from http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E.Google Scholar
Griffith, V, O’Donovan, M, Geoghegan, A, Shalloo, L, Hopkins, A, Collins, R, Fraser, M, King, V, Lloyd, D and Moorby, J 2014. PastureBase Ireland – the measurement of grass dry matter production on grassland farms. The Future of European Grasslands 19, 279.Google Scholar
Grunert, KG, Hieke, S and Wills, J 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44, 177–189.Google Scholar
Hennessy, T, Kinsella, A, Quinlan, G and Moran, B 2010. National Farm Survey 2010 Estimates. Athenry: Teagasc. Retrieved on 14 August 2016 from https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2011/994/National_Farm_Survey_10_Estimates.pdf.Google Scholar
ISO 2014. 14046 Water footprint – principles, requirements and guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R 1989. Ruminant nutrition: recommended allowances and feed tables. John Libbey Eurotext, Montrougue, France.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, M and Hoekstra, A 2012. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415.Google Scholar
Murphy, E, de Boer, IJM, van Middelaar, CE, Holden, NM, Shalloo, L, Curran, TP and Upton, J 2017. Water footprinting of dairy farming in Ireland. Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (Pt 2), 547–555.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D, Bohan, A, McHugh, N and Shalloo, L 2016. A life cycle assessment of the effect of intensification on the environmental impacts and resource use of grass-based sheep farming. Agricultural Systems 148, 95–104.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, M, Lewis, E and O’Kiely, P 2011a. Requirements of future grass-based ruminant production systems in Ireland. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 1–21.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, M and Hennessey, D. 2011b. Harnessing the potential of grass of beef farms. In Proceedings of the Teagasc National Beef Conference, 5 April 2011, Kilkenny, pp. 38–40.Google Scholar
O’Mara, F 1996. A net energy system for cattle and sheep. Department of Animal Science and Production, University College Dublin.Google Scholar
PAS 2008. 2050 2008. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. Publicly Available Specification, British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
Pfister, S, Koehler, A and Hellweg, S 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environmental Science & Technology 43, 4098–4104.Google Scholar
Ridoutt, BG and Pfister, S 2010. A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Global Environmental Change 20, 113–120.Google Scholar
Ridoutt, BG, Sanguansri, P, Freer, M and Harper, GS 2012a. Water footprint of livestock: comparison of six geographically defined beef production systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridoutt, BG, Sanguansri, P, Nolan, M and Marks, N 2012b. Meat consumption and water scarcity: beware of generalizations. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 127–133.Google Scholar
Rockström, J, Karlberg, L, Wani, SP, Barron, J, Hatibu, N, Oweis, T, Bruggeman, A, Farahani, J and Qiang, Z 2010. Managing water in rainfed agriculture – the need for a paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management 97, 543–550.Google Scholar
Walsh, S 2012. A summary of climate averages for Ireland. Retrieved on 1 October 2016 from http://www.met.ie/climate-ireland/SummaryClimAvgs.pdf.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, S, McGahan, E, Murphy, C and Yan, M 2016a. Resource use and environmental impacts from beef production in eastern Australia investigated using life cycle assessment. Animal Production Science 56, 882–894.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, S, Yan, M-J and Murphy, C 2016b. Resource use and environmental impacts from Australian export lamb production: a life cycle assessment. Animal Production Science 56, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Zonderland-Thomassen, MA, Lieffering, M and Ledgard, SF 2014. Water footprint of beef cattle and sheep produced in New Zealand: water scarcity and eutrophication impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production 73, 253–262.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Murphy et al supplementary material 1

Murphy et al supplementary material

Download Murphy et al supplementary material 1(File)
File 30.2 KB