基于商业农场数据的爱尔兰养猪场水足迹

Shilpi Misra , Corina E. van Middelaar , Keelin O’Driscoll , Amy J. Quinn , Imke J.M. de Boer , John Upton
{"title":"基于商业农场数据的爱尔兰养猪场水足迹","authors":"Shilpi Misra ,&nbsp;Corina E. van Middelaar ,&nbsp;Keelin O’Driscoll ,&nbsp;Amy J. Quinn ,&nbsp;Imke J.M. de Boer ,&nbsp;John Upton","doi":"10.1016/j.clwat.2024.100023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Livestock production is getting increased attention due to its impact on natural resources, and freshwater is one such limited resource. To reduce the pressure on freshwater use and develop sustainable livestock systems from farm-to-fork we need to study the whole production cycle, and look for hotspots of major freshwater use. Considering this, we chose intensive pork production as our focal livestock system, since it is one the most eaten meats globally. We focused on pork production in Ireland and studied the freshwater use (green and blue) from cradle-to-farm gate using the water footprint (WFP) method. Detailed farm data (e.g. diet composition, production data) were combined with on-farm water meter data to explore variations in water consumption between farms, and potential explanatory variables for differences in consumption between farms. So far, there have been no WFP studies in pork production that explored this, and insight into variation could help to identify options for improvement. We analyzed the direct (on-farm) and indirect (off-farm) green and blue water footprint of 10 Irish pig farms. Our results show that the average total WFP, including the direct and indirect water footprint, was 2537 L/kg pork, which is at the low end of previously published studies. The indirect green water footprint related to the production of purchased feed was responsible for the largest share (99 %) of the total WFP. The direct blue water footprint formed only a minor component of the total WFP (14 L/kg pork), with drinking water playing the major role. We can conclude from this study that variation in WFP between the least and most efficient farms was small (Q3-Q1 = 181 L/kg pork); nevertheless, this indicates that efficiencies of around 7 % could be gained by the least efficient cohort of farms by adjusting on-farm management practices. We also found a weak negative correlation between WFP and farm size, and WFP and meat produced. Overall, this study suggests that to reduce the burden on freshwater resources and reduce the pork WFP, future research should focus on the feed related impacts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100257,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Water","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100023"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950263224000218/pdfft?md5=385c2ff286221373627d13d171cb42b0&pid=1-s2.0-S2950263224000218-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The water footprint of pig farms in Ireland based on commercial farm data\",\"authors\":\"Shilpi Misra ,&nbsp;Corina E. van Middelaar ,&nbsp;Keelin O’Driscoll ,&nbsp;Amy J. Quinn ,&nbsp;Imke J.M. de Boer ,&nbsp;John Upton\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clwat.2024.100023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Livestock production is getting increased attention due to its impact on natural resources, and freshwater is one such limited resource. To reduce the pressure on freshwater use and develop sustainable livestock systems from farm-to-fork we need to study the whole production cycle, and look for hotspots of major freshwater use. Considering this, we chose intensive pork production as our focal livestock system, since it is one the most eaten meats globally. We focused on pork production in Ireland and studied the freshwater use (green and blue) from cradle-to-farm gate using the water footprint (WFP) method. Detailed farm data (e.g. diet composition, production data) were combined with on-farm water meter data to explore variations in water consumption between farms, and potential explanatory variables for differences in consumption between farms. So far, there have been no WFP studies in pork production that explored this, and insight into variation could help to identify options for improvement. We analyzed the direct (on-farm) and indirect (off-farm) green and blue water footprint of 10 Irish pig farms. Our results show that the average total WFP, including the direct and indirect water footprint, was 2537 L/kg pork, which is at the low end of previously published studies. The indirect green water footprint related to the production of purchased feed was responsible for the largest share (99 %) of the total WFP. The direct blue water footprint formed only a minor component of the total WFP (14 L/kg pork), with drinking water playing the major role. We can conclude from this study that variation in WFP between the least and most efficient farms was small (Q3-Q1 = 181 L/kg pork); nevertheless, this indicates that efficiencies of around 7 % could be gained by the least efficient cohort of farms by adjusting on-farm management practices. We also found a weak negative correlation between WFP and farm size, and WFP and meat produced. Overall, this study suggests that to reduce the burden on freshwater resources and reduce the pork WFP, future research should focus on the feed related impacts.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100257,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleaner Water\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100023\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950263224000218/pdfft?md5=385c2ff286221373627d13d171cb42b0&pid=1-s2.0-S2950263224000218-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cleaner Water\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950263224000218\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Water","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950263224000218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

畜牧业生产对自然资源的影响日益受到关注,淡水就是其中一种有限的资源。为了减轻淡水使用压力,发展从农场到餐桌的可持续畜牧系统,我们需要研究整个生产周期,并寻找主要淡水使用热点。考虑到这一点,我们选择集约化猪肉生产作为重点畜牧系统,因为它是全球食用量最大的肉类之一。我们以爱尔兰的猪肉生产为重点,使用水足迹(WFP)方法研究了从摇篮到农场的淡水使用(绿色和蓝色)。详细的农场数据(如日粮组成、生产数据)与农场水表数据相结合,以探索不同农场间用水量的差异,以及不同农场间用水量差异的潜在解释变量。迄今为止,还没有针对猪肉生产的粮食计划署研究对此进行过探讨,而深入了解差异有助于确定改进方案。我们分析了 10 个爱尔兰养猪场的直接(场内)和间接(场外)绿色和蓝色水足迹。结果表明,包括直接和间接水足迹在内的平均总水足迹为 2537 升/千克猪肉,处于之前公布的研究结果的低端。与外购饲料生产相关的间接绿色水足迹占总水足迹的最大份额(99%)。直接的蓝水足迹只占总水足迹的一小部分(14 升/千克猪肉),其中饮用水占主要部分。我们可以从这项研究中得出结论,效率最低和效率最高的农场之间的 WFP 差异很小(Q3-Q1 = 181 升/千克猪肉);不过,这表明效率最低的一批农场通过调整农场管理方法,可以提高约 7% 的效率。我们还发现,粮食计划署与农场规模、粮食计划署与肉类产量之间存在微弱的负相关。总之,本研究表明,为减轻淡水资源负担并减少猪肉的世界粮食署,未来的研究应侧重于与饲料相关的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The water footprint of pig farms in Ireland based on commercial farm data

Livestock production is getting increased attention due to its impact on natural resources, and freshwater is one such limited resource. To reduce the pressure on freshwater use and develop sustainable livestock systems from farm-to-fork we need to study the whole production cycle, and look for hotspots of major freshwater use. Considering this, we chose intensive pork production as our focal livestock system, since it is one the most eaten meats globally. We focused on pork production in Ireland and studied the freshwater use (green and blue) from cradle-to-farm gate using the water footprint (WFP) method. Detailed farm data (e.g. diet composition, production data) were combined with on-farm water meter data to explore variations in water consumption between farms, and potential explanatory variables for differences in consumption between farms. So far, there have been no WFP studies in pork production that explored this, and insight into variation could help to identify options for improvement. We analyzed the direct (on-farm) and indirect (off-farm) green and blue water footprint of 10 Irish pig farms. Our results show that the average total WFP, including the direct and indirect water footprint, was 2537 L/kg pork, which is at the low end of previously published studies. The indirect green water footprint related to the production of purchased feed was responsible for the largest share (99 %) of the total WFP. The direct blue water footprint formed only a minor component of the total WFP (14 L/kg pork), with drinking water playing the major role. We can conclude from this study that variation in WFP between the least and most efficient farms was small (Q3-Q1 = 181 L/kg pork); nevertheless, this indicates that efficiencies of around 7 % could be gained by the least efficient cohort of farms by adjusting on-farm management practices. We also found a weak negative correlation between WFP and farm size, and WFP and meat produced. Overall, this study suggests that to reduce the burden on freshwater resources and reduce the pork WFP, future research should focus on the feed related impacts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Harnessing microbial synergy: A comprehensive evaluation of consortia-mediated bioremediation strategies for petroleum refinery wastewater treatment Resources optimization using Pareto analysis for sea water desalination plants The incorporation of activated carbon as a substrate in a constructed wetland. A review Long-term AI prediction of ammonium levels in rivers using transformer and ensemble models Groundwater salinization challenges in agriculturally valuable low-lying North Sea region: A review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1