Assessing the Blue and Green Water Footprint of Lucerne for Milk Production in South Africa

Scheepers, Morné Erwin; Jordaan, Henry

doi:10.3390/su8010049

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• 120921 (Seed; lucerne (alfalfa) seed, of a kind used for sowing) -green and blue WF for South Africa is taken from Scheepers and Jordaan (2016); 56 • 151411 (Vegetable oils; low erucic acid rape or colza oil and its fractions, crude) -all WF types for all countries are taken as the world average, basing on Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2010b); 57 • 151800 (Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions; oxidised, boiled or otherwise chemically modified, (excluding those of heading no. 1516), inedible mixtures or preparations of fats or oils) -world average WF types for butter, provided by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) 58 are used as a substitute for all countries;…”

Section: Prospects For the Brics Water Factor: Suggestions For Further Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Dimension of BRICS Cooperation: National Challenges and Joint Opportunities

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the evolution and potential of the water agenda of BRICS. The members of this international association of major countries of South America, Eurasia, Asia and Africa are rich in water resources and population. The development of water resources extends beyond their borders to projects in other countries through the activities of a major development institution, the New Development Bank of BRICS. Such conditions suggest some anticipation of a global and comprehensive view on the part of BRICS on the issues relating to water resources. However, the hypothesis of this article is opposite: despite the unique potential of the BRICS water strategy, it remains non-specific, focused on the lower common denominators for the member countries such as cleanliness, sanitation and water management. To account for this, the authors take the position that the bureaucratic logic of basic common interest downgrades strategic vision. This is reflected in the growing gap between the multifaceted nature of the issues related to water resources in the world and the narrowly specialized approach of BRICS association which perceives water de facto without its resource and global function. To study this, the authors analyze the water portfolios of the BRICS member countries and compare the national water agendas based on an analysis of policy documents. They then systematize water initiatives under the auspices of the BRICS and, finally, calculate virtual water flows and their structure between the BRICS countries using agricultural products trade as an example. The conducted analysis allows the authors to identify a wide gap between the current and potential water agenda of the BRICS. The authors then propose a number of initiatives that can create added value for the BRICS as an association both for its member countries and for developing countries facing water resource challenges. The authors assert that such a new approach, based on a profound understanding of the resource function of water as a commodity with global value, has all the potential to be implemented by BRICS.

show abstract

Section: Prospects For the Brics Water Factor: Suggestions For Further Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Dimension of BRICS Cooperation: National Challenges and Joint Opportunities

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…WF полезны для оценки использования воды с точки зрения экономической выгоды и создания рабочих мест [31], а также для информирования разработчиков политики с целью улучшения устойчивого развития [30]. Подчеркнута важность вычисления WF с локальными данными и интерпретации WF в локальном контексте [29,35].…”

Section: F Dmin ≤ D(t -1) + Re(t) Req(t) =unclassified

Assessment of water footprint of vegetable crops

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relevance. Agricultural production is the main consumer of water. Globally, about 70% of fresh water is annually used for agricultural (food and non-food) production. Nearly 40% of the world's food supply comes from irrigation. Globally, the scarcity of irrigation water due to competition between industry and urban consumption threatens food security. Future population growth, income growth and changes in nutrition are expected to increase demand for water. The rate of warming in Russia since the mid-1970s about 2.5 times the global average. The highest rate of temperature increase occurs at high latitudes. The entire territory of Russia is subject to warming, both as a whole for the year and in all seasons. Water Footprint Accounting (WF), proposed by the Water Footprint Network (WFN), has the potential to provide important information for water management, especially in water-stressed regions that rely on irrigation to meet food needs.Methodology. The purpose of this systematic review was to collate and synthesize available data on global water use in vegetable production. Searched online databases covering the areas of environment, social sciences, public health, nutrition and agriculture: Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, OvidSP MEDLINE, EconLit, OvidSP AGRIS, EBSCO GreenFILE, and OvidSP CAB Abstracts. The search was conducted using predefined search terms that included the concepts of "vegetable crops" and "water footprint".Results. This article provides a brief overview of the vegetable growing water footprint and the sustainability of the blue water footprint. In general, a high green or overall (green + blue) WF may indicate that the vegetable crops are having low yields or inefficient water use. Low green and high blue WF indicate inefficient use of rainwater, which can lead to overexploitation of surface and groundwater. The water footprint can be considered a good economic ergometer, showing the level of water consumption required to obtain a certain vegetable product, whether it brings economic benefits or not, beneficial to society or not.

show abstract

“…This requires a robust quantification and assessment of water use in different agricultural production systems to help identify potential mitigation measures. Water footprinting has been developed and increasingly applied to quantify and compare the water use of different agricultural products and processes across different regions for promoting water use efficiency and to help achieve productivity and sustainable water resource management in agricultural production systems, including dairy milk production [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. However, several water footprint methods have been developed, including the Water Footprint Network (WFN)-based consumptive water footprint method [8] and the life cycle analysis (LCA)-based environmental impact-oriented water footprint indicators based on water stress or scarcity characterisation factors to differentiate water use in areas of different water availability [9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Water Footprint of Pastoral Dairy Farming: The Effect of Water Footprint Methods, Data Sources and Spatial Scale

Higham,

Singh,

Horne

2024

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The water footprint of pastoral dairy milk production was assessed by analysing water use at 28 irrigated and 60 non-irrigated ‘rain-fed’ pastoral dairy farms in three regions of New Zealand. Two water footprint methods, the WFN-based blue water footprint impact index (WFIIblue) and the Available WAter REmaining (AWARE) water scarcity footprint (WFAWARE), were evaluated using different sets of global or local data sources, different rates of environmental flow requirements, and the regional or catchment scale of the analysis. A majority (~99%) of the consumptive water footprint of a unit of pastoral dairy milk production (L/kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk) was quantified as being associated with green and blue water consumption via evapotranspiration for pasture and feed used at the studied dairy farms. The quantified WFIIblue (-) and WFAWARE (m3 world eq./kg of FPCM) indices ranked in a similar order (from lowest to highest) regarding the water scarcity footprint impact associated with pastoral dairy milk production across the study regions and catchments. However, use of the global or local data sets significantly affected the quantification and comparative rankings of the WFIIblue and WFAWARE values. Compared to the local data sets, using the global data sets resulted in significant under- or overestimation of the WFIIblue and WFAWARE values across the study regions and catchments. A catchment-scale analysis using locally available data sets and calibrated models is recommended to robustly assess water consumption and its associated water scarcity impact due to pastoral dairy milk production in local catchments.

show abstract

Assessing the Blue and Green Water Footprint of Lucerne for Milk Production in South Africa

Cited by 16 publications

References 9 publications

Water Dimension of BRICS Cooperation: National Challenges and Joint Opportunities

Water Dimension of BRICS Cooperation: National Challenges and Joint Opportunities

Assessment of water footprint of vegetable crops

The Water Footprint of Pastoral Dairy Farming: The Effect of Water Footprint Methods, Data Sources and Spatial Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About