Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production

Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Peters, Greg M. [verfasserIn] Wiedemann, Stephen G. Rowley, Hazel V. Tucker, Robyn W.

Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2010

Schlagwörter:	Beef Hybrid LCA Meat Sheep Water

Anmerkung:	© Springer-Verlag 2010

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: The international journal of life cycle assessment - Springer-Verlag, 1996, 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:15 ; year:2010 ; number:3 ; day:13 ; month:02 ; pages:311-320

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x

Katalog-ID:	OLC2051195412

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	OLC2051195412
003	DE-627
005	20230504090356.0
007	tu
008	200820s2010 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)OLC2051195412
035			\|a (DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 650 \|a 330 \|a 333.7 \|q VZ
082	0	4	\|a 690 \|q VZ
100	1		\|a Peters, Greg M. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production
264		1	\|c 2010
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen \|b n \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Band \|b nc \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © Springer-Verlag 2010
520			\|a Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced.
650		4	\|a Beef
650		4	\|a Hybrid LCA
650		4	\|a Meat
650		4	\|a Sheep
650		4	\|a Water
700	1		\|a Wiedemann, Stephen G. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Rowley, Hazel V. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Tucker, Robyn W. \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t The international journal of life cycle assessment \|d Springer-Verlag, 1996 \|g 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320 \|w (DE-627)211584533 \|w (DE-600)1319419-7 \|w (DE-576)059728728 \|x 0948-3349 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:15 \|g year:2010 \|g number:3 \|g day:13 \|g month:02 \|g pages:311-320
856	4	1	\|u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x \|z lizenzpflichtig \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_OLC
912			\|a SSG-OLC-UMW
912			\|a SSG-OLC-ARC
912			\|a SSG-OLC-TEC
912			\|a SSG-OPC-FOR
912			\|a GBV_ILN_30
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_252
912			\|a GBV_ILN_267
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2016
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2018
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4046
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 15 \|j 2010 \|e 3 \|b 13 \|c 02 \|h 311-320

Indexfelder

author_variant	g m p gm gmp s g w sg sgw h v r hv hvr r w t rw rwt
matchkey_str	article:09483349:2010----::conigowtrsiasrlard
hierarchy_sort_str	2010
publishDate	2010
allfields	10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x doi (DE-627)OLC2051195412 (DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Peters, Greg M. verfasserin aut Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production 2010 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2010 Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. Beef Hybrid LCA Meat Sheep Water Wiedemann, Stephen G. aut Rowley, Hazel V. aut Tucker, Robyn W. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:15 year:2010 number:3 day:13 month:02 pages:311-320 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 15 2010 3 13 02 311-320
spelling	10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x doi (DE-627)OLC2051195412 (DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Peters, Greg M. verfasserin aut Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production 2010 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2010 Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. Beef Hybrid LCA Meat Sheep Water Wiedemann, Stephen G. aut Rowley, Hazel V. aut Tucker, Robyn W. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:15 year:2010 number:3 day:13 month:02 pages:311-320 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 15 2010 3 13 02 311-320
allfields_unstemmed	10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x doi (DE-627)OLC2051195412 (DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Peters, Greg M. verfasserin aut Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production 2010 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2010 Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. Beef Hybrid LCA Meat Sheep Water Wiedemann, Stephen G. aut Rowley, Hazel V. aut Tucker, Robyn W. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:15 year:2010 number:3 day:13 month:02 pages:311-320 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 15 2010 3 13 02 311-320
allfieldsGer	10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x doi (DE-627)OLC2051195412 (DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Peters, Greg M. verfasserin aut Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production 2010 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2010 Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. Beef Hybrid LCA Meat Sheep Water Wiedemann, Stephen G. aut Rowley, Hazel V. aut Tucker, Robyn W. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:15 year:2010 number:3 day:13 month:02 pages:311-320 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 15 2010 3 13 02 311-320
allfieldsSound	10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x doi (DE-627)OLC2051195412 (DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Peters, Greg M. verfasserin aut Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production 2010 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag 2010 Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. Beef Hybrid LCA Meat Sheep Water Wiedemann, Stephen G. aut Rowley, Hazel V. aut Tucker, Robyn W. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer-Verlag, 1996 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:15 year:2010 number:3 day:13 month:02 pages:311-320 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046 AR 15 2010 3 13 02 311-320
language	English
source	Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320 volume:15 year:2010 number:3 day:13 month:02 pages:311-320
sourceStr	Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment 15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320 volume:15 year:2010 number:3 day:13 month:02 pages:311-320
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Beef Hybrid LCA Meat Sheep Water
dewey-raw	650
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	The international journal of life cycle assessment
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Peters, Greg M. @@aut@@ Wiedemann, Stephen G. @@aut@@ Rowley, Hazel V. @@aut@@ Tucker, Robyn W. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2010-02-13T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	211584533
dewey-sort	3650
id	OLC2051195412
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2051195412</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504090356.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2010 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2051195412</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">690</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Peters, Greg M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag 2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Beef</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hybrid LCA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sheep</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Water</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wiedemann, Stephen G.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rowley, Hazel V.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tucker, Robyn W.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of life cycle assessment</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)211584533</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1319419-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)059728728</subfield><subfield code="x">0948-3349</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2010</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:13</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:311-320</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-UMW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-ARC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_30</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_252</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2010</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">13</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">311-320</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Peters, Greg M.
spellingShingle	Peters, Greg M. ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Beef misc Hybrid LCA misc Meat misc Sheep misc Water Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production
authorStr	Peters, Greg M.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)211584533
format	Article
dewey-ones	650 - Management & auxiliary services 330 - Economics 333 - Economics of land & energy 690 - Buildings
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	OLC
remote_str	false
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	0948-3349
topic_title	650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production Beef Hybrid LCA Meat Sheep Water
topic	ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Beef misc Hybrid LCA misc Meat misc Sheep misc Water
topic_unstemmed	ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Beef misc Hybrid LCA misc Meat misc Sheep misc Water
topic_browse	ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Beef misc Hybrid LCA misc Meat misc Sheep misc Water
format_facet	Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	nc
hierarchy_parent_title	The international journal of life cycle assessment
hierarchy_parent_id	211584533
dewey-tens	650 - Management & public relations 330 - Economics 690 - Building & construction
hierarchy_top_title	The international journal of life cycle assessment
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728
title	Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production
ctrlnum	(DE-627)OLC2051195412 (DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p
title_full	Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production
author_sort	Peters, Greg M.
journal	The international journal of life cycle assessment
journalStr	The international journal of life cycle assessment
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology 300 - Social sciences
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2010
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	311
author_browse	Peters, Greg M. Wiedemann, Stephen G. Rowley, Hazel V. Tucker, Robyn W.
container_volume	15
class	650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ
format_se	Aufsätze
author-letter	Peters, Greg M.
doi_str_mv	10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x
dewey-full	650 330 333.7 690
title_sort	accounting for water use in australian red meat production
title_auth	Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production
abstract	Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. © Springer-Verlag 2010
abstractGer	Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. © Springer-Verlag 2010
abstract_unstemmed	Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced. © Springer-Verlag 2010
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_30 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4046
container_issue	3
title_short	Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production
url	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x
remote_bool	false
author2	Wiedemann, Stephen G. Rowley, Hazel V. Tucker, Robyn W.
author2Str	Wiedemann, Stephen G. Rowley, Hazel V. Tucker, Robyn W.
ppnlink	211584533
mediatype_str_mv	n
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x
up_date	2024-07-04T03:47:48.921Z
_version_	1803618740003143680
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2051195412</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504090356.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2010 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2051195412</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11367-010-0161-x-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">690</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Peters, Greg M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag 2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background and theory Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle inventory (LCI) practice needs to engage with the debate on water use in agriculture and industry. In the case of the red meat sector, some of the methodologies proposed or in use cannot easily inform the debate because either the results are not denominated in units that are meaningful to the public or the results do not reflect environmental outcomes. This study aims to solve these problems by classifying water use LCI data in the Australian red meat sector in a manner consistent with contemporary definitions of sustainability. We intend to quantify water that is removed from the course it would take in the absence of production or degraded in quality by the production system. Materials and methods The water used by three red meat supply systems in southern Australia was estimated using hybrid LCA. Detailed process data incorporating actual growth rates and productivity achieved in two calendar years were complemented by an input–output analysis of goods and services purchased by the properties. Detailed hydrological modelling using a standard agricultural software package was carried out using actual weather data. Results The model results demonstrated that the major hydrological flows in the system are rainfall and evapotranspiration. Transferred water flows and funds represent small components of the total water inputs to the agricultural enterprise, and the proportion of water degraded is also small relative to the water returned pure to the atmosphere. The results of this study indicate that water used to produce red meat in southern Australia is 18–540 L/kg HSCW, depending on the system, reference year and whether we focus on source or discharge characteristics. Interpretation Two key factors cause the considerable differences between the water use data presented by different authors: the treatment of rain and the feed production process. Including rain and evapotranspiration in LCI data used in simple environmental discussions is the main cause of disagreement between authors and is questionable from an environmental impact perspective because in the case of some native pastoral systems, these flows may not have changed substantially since the arrival of Europeans. Regarding the second factor, most of the grain and fodder crops used in the three red meat supply chains we studied in Australia are produced by dryland cropping. In other locations where surface water supplies are more readily available, such as the USA, irrigation of cattle fodder is more common. So whereas the treatment of rain is a methodological issue relevant to all studies relating water use to the production of red meat, the availability of irrigation water can be characterised as a fundamental difference between the infrastructure of red meat production systems in different locations. Conclusions Our results are consistent with other published work when the methodological diversity of their work and the approaches we have used are taken into account. We show that for media claims that tens or hundreds of thousands of litres of water are used in the production of red meat to be true, analysts have to ignore the environmental consequences of water use. Such results may nevertheless be interesting if the purpose of their calculations is to focus on calorific or financial gain rather than environmental optimisation. Recommendations and perspectives Our approach can be applied to other agricultural systems. We would not suggest that our results can be used as industry averages. In particular, we have not examined primary data for northern Australian beef production systems, where the majority of Australia’s export beef is produced.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Beef</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hybrid LCA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sheep</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Water</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wiedemann, Stephen G.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rowley, Hazel V.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tucker, Robyn W.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of life cycle assessment</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2010), 3 vom: 13. Feb., Seite 311-320</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)211584533</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1319419-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)059728728</subfield><subfield code="x">0948-3349</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2010</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:13</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:311-320</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-UMW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-ARC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_30</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_252</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2010</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">13</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">311-320</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399295

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?