Comparison of water use in global milk production for different typical farms

Sultana, M. N.; Uddin, MT; Ridoutt, Bradley G.; Peters, Kurt J.

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.002

Cited by 42 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This agrees with previous research in Morocco (Sraïri et al, 2009a) and other countries (Armstrong, 2004;Sultana et al, 2014). High variability among farms was observed, reflecting differences resulting from on-farm practices in all production functions, from water to cattle products.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Such a trend will certainly imply a growing pressure on water resources, since livestock already accounts for 10% of global water use (Schlink et al, 2010). A benchmark of the water footprint of dairy farms at a global scale reported a mean value of 1.7 m 3 /kg of milk (Sultana et al, 2014). Such a figure, however, masks the existing variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biophysical and economic water productivity of dual-purpose cattle farming

Sraïri

Benjelloun

Karrou³

et al. 2016

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzes key factors influencing water productivity in cattle rearing, particularly in contexts characterized by water scarcity. This was done through year-round monitoring of on-farm practices within five smallholder farms located in the Saïss area (northern Morocco). The on-farm monitoring protocol consisted of characterizing: (i) volumes of water used for fodder production and distinguished by source (rainfall, surface irrigation and groundwater), (ii) virtual water contained in off-farm feed resources, (iii) total forage biomass production, (iv) dietary rations fed to lactating cows and their calves and (v) milk output and live weight gain. Findings reveal a mean water footprint of 1.62 ± 0.81 and 8.44 ± 1.09 m 3 /kg of milk and of live weight gain, respectively. Groundwater represented only 13.1% and 2.2% of the total water used to get milk and live weight gain, respectively, while rainfall represented 53.0% and 48.1% of the total water for milk and live weight gain, respectively. The remaining water volumes used came from surface irrigation water (7.4% for milk and 4.0% for live weight gain) and from virtual water (26.5% for milk and 44.7% for live weight gain). The results also revealed a relatively small gross margin per m 3 of water used by the herd, not exceeding an average value of US $ 0.05, when considering both milk and live weight. Given the large variability in farm performances, which affect water productivity in cattle rearing throughout the production process, we highlight the potential for introducing a series of interventions that are aimed at saving water, while concurrently improving efficiency in milk production and live weight gain. These interventions should target the chain of production functions that are implemented throughout the process of water productivity in cattle rearing. Moreover, these interventions are of particular importance given our findings that livestock production depends largely upon rainfall, rather than groundwater, in an area afflicted with sustained droughts, overexploitation of groundwater resources and growing water scarcity.Keywords: cattle, gross margin, live weight gain, milk, water productivity ImplicationsFew research results linking the livestock sector and its water use are available, at a time when a significant increase in animal production is expected to fulfill a rapidly growing demand. This study is based on the assumption that in regions with water scarcity, there is a need to consider improvements in water productivity in cattle farming operations. Our results suggest that more attention should be devoted to the origins of water (rainfall, rather than irrigation water from surface and groundwater, and virtual water in purchased feed) to implement sustainable livestock systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Biophysical and economic water productivity of dual-purpose cattle farming

Sraïri

Benjelloun

Karrou³

et al. 2016

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using green water doesn't generally limit the availability of blue water for others; therefore, green water needs to be treated quite differently from blue water because its use can only be accessed by the occupier of that land Sultana et al (2013;2014). Using green water doesn't generally limit the availability of blue water for others; therefore, green water needs to be treated quite differently from blue water because its use can only be accessed by the occupier of that land Sultana et al (2013;2014).…”

Section: Production System Analysis and Their Implications On Farm Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking consumptive water use of bovine milk production systems for 60 geographical regions: An implication for Global Food Security

Sultana

Uddin

Ridoutt

et al. 2015

Global Food Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Also recently, water consumption has gained more attention, especially in studies on milk production (e.g. de Boer et al, 2013;Sultana et al, 2014). Some of the studies that investigated energy use also focused on the efficiency with which these energy resources were used (Meul et al, 2007;Vigne et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%