Analysis of Water Resources and Water Environmental Carrying Capacity of Animal Husbandry in China—Based on Water Footprint Theory

Abstract

Water shortage and water pollution have become the key factors restricting the sustainable development of animal husbandry in China. In this study, the water footprint model was used to analyze the water resource carrying capacity and water environment bearing pressure of animal husbandry in 31 provinces of China from 2001 to 2019. The findings indicate that: (1) The development of animal husbandry has exacerbated the regional water deficiency problem. Shandong, Henan, Hebei, and Liaoning have become the most serious water deficit areas of animal husbandry in China. The decreasing water resource carrying capacity indicates that water resources are difficult in supporting the growth of animal husbandry; (2) the change of animal feeding structures has led to the decrease of gray water footprint and the alleviation of the water environment bearing pressure; however, the water environment of animal husbandry in northern China and the northwest is still overburdened, which poses a major challenge to the control of agricultural non-point source pollution; (3) furthermore, according to the spatial and temporal characteristics of the water resource carrying capacity and water environment bearing pressure, the main livestock-producing areas in the north are facing a profound “water-livestock” contradiction and showing an increasing trend. The research results will help decision-makers to adjust the development mode of animal husbandry, optimize resource allocation, and promote the sustainable development of resource-saving and environment-friendly animal husbandry.

The effect of animal husbandry on economic growth: Evidence from 13 provinces of North China

“…Wei et al (2022) study found that the accelerated expansion of cities in the middle of the study area, and the habitat quality has also declined. Yu et al (2021) found that regional heterogeneity of water resources severely limits the development of animal husbandry. Specifically, western areas of the study areas mostly suffered from desertification and grassland desertification.…”

“…Jayaraman and Nyachoti (2016) approached the subject from the perspective of livestock breeding and proposed that the effectiveness in breeding could be the key to a healthy livestock development. Liu et al (2022a) and Yu et al (2021) considered that the development of animal husbandry was, to some extent, affected by demographic factors. Influenced by global warming, climate in many regions had changed greatly, which could directly affect vegetation dynamics and biomass.…”

Research on scale inhibition law of high sulfate mine water based on response surface methodology

“…The pH value of mine water is often low, accompanied by a large number of ferrous ions, which increases the difficulty of its treatment. The water quality characteristics of mine water with high calcium and magnesium ions, high carbonate ions, and high sulfate ions will cause it to be very easy to scale in the circulating cooling system, where the formation of sulfate scale is difficult to be removed by conventional methods 1–8 …”

“…The water quality characteristics of mine water with high calcium and magnesium ions, high carbonate ions, and high sulfate ions will cause it to be very easy to scale in the circulating cooling system, where the formation of sulfate scale is difficult to be removed by conventional methods. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] In circulating cooling water systems, the following types of scale may be generated: carbonate scale, sulfate scale, and silicate scale.…”

Spatiotemporal variations of water, land, and carbon footprints of pig production in China

“…The studies evaluating carbon footprints of pig production have also been conducted in numerous countries, such as Canada (Vergé et al 2016), Argentina (Arrieta and González 2019), Spain (Noya et al 2016), and Italy (Bava et al 2017). Given the significant water consumption of pig production, previous studies have also analyzed water footprint from various perspectives, such as carrying capacity (Yu et al 2012), trade (Zhuo et al 2019), farming scale (Xie et al 2020), and water use efficiency (Zhang et al 2022). The study of carbon emissions from pig farming is often combined with land use (Meul et al 2012, Monteiro et al 2019.…”