Combatting drought: a multi-dimensional challenge

Water will be a major limitation to food production in the 21st century, and drought issues already prevail in many parts of the world. Finding solutions to ensure that farmers harvest profitable crops, and secure food supplies for families and feed for animals that will provide for them through to the next season are urgent necessities. The Interdrought community has been addressing this issue for almost 30 years in a series of international conferences, characterized by a multi-disciplinary approach across the domains of molecular biology, physiology, genetics, agronomy, breeding, environmental and social sciences, policy, and systems modeling. This special issue presents papers from the 7th edition of the conference, the first to be held in Africa, that paid special attention to drought in a smallholder context, adding a 'system' dimension to the crop focus from the previous Interdrought events (Varshney et al., 2018; Hammer et al., 2021).

Water use intensity of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared to 2011

The amount of beef produced per animal in Canada increased significantly from 1981 to 2011, due to enhanced production efficiency and increased carcass weight. This study examined the impact of improvements in production efficiency on water use intensity over this period. Temporal and regional differences in cattle categories, water use for drinking, feed production and meat processing, feeding systems, average daily gains, and carcass weight were considered in the analysis. Potential evapotranspiration (PET) was estimated by the National Drought Model (NDM) from 679 weather stations across Canada using the Priestley and Taylor equation. To adjust PET estimates for each crop included in cattle diets, FAO crop coefficients were used to calculate total feed water demand. Estimates of drinking water consumed by a given class of cattle accounted for physiological status, body weight and dry matter intake as well as ambient temperature. In both years, drinking water accounted for less than 1% of total water use with precipitation (i.e., green water) included for feed and pasture production. With exclusion of green water, drinking water accounted for 24% and 21% of total water use for Canadian beef production in 1981 and 2011, respectively. The estimated intensity of blue water (surface and groundwater) use per kilogram of boneless beef was 577L in 1981 and 459 in 2011, a 20% decline. The observed reduction in water use intensity over the past three decades is attributed to an increase in average daily gain and slaughter weight, improved reproductive efficiency, reduced time to slaughter as well as improvements in crop yields and irrigation efficiency. Given that feed production accounts for the majority of water use in beef production, further advances may be achieved by improving feeding efficiencies and reducing water use per unit of feed crop and pasture production.

BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Quantifying water use in ruminant production

The depletion of water resources, in terms of both quantity and quality, has become a major concern both locally and globally. Ruminants, in particular, are under increased public scrutiny due to their relatively high water use per unit of meat or milk produced. Estimating the water footprint of livestock production is a relatively new field of research for which methods are still evolving. This review describes the approaches used to quantify water use in ruminant production systems as well as the methodological and conceptual issues associated with each approach. Water use estimates for the main products from ruminant production systems are also presented, along with possible management strategies to reduce water use. In the past, quantifying water withdrawal in ruminant production focused on the water demand for drinking or operational purposes. Recently, the recognition of water as a scarce resource has led to the development of several methodologies including water footprint assessment, life cycle assessment, and livestock water productivity to assess water use and its environmental impacts. These methods differ with respect to their target outcome (efficiency or environmental impacts), geographic focus (local or global), description of water sources (green, blue, and gray), handling of water quality concerns, the interpretation of environmental impacts, and the metric by which results are communicated (volumetric units or impact equivalents). Ruminant production is a complex activity where animals are often reared at different sites using a range of resources over their lifetime. Additional water use occurs during slaughter, product processing, and packaging. Estimating water use at the various stages of meat and milk production and communicating those estimates will help producers and other stakeholders identify hotspots and implement strategies to improve water use efficiency. Improvements in ruminant productivity (i.e., BW and milk production) and reproductive efficiency can also reduce the water footprint per unit product. However, given that feed production makes up the majority of water use by ruminants, research and development efforts should focus on this area. More research and clarity are needed to examine the validity of assumptions and possible trade-offs between ruminants' water use and other sustainability indicators.

Livestock and feed water productivity in the mixed crop-livestock system

Recently with limited information from intensified grain-based farming systems in developed countries, livestock production is challenged as being huge consumer of freshwater. The smallholder mixed crop-livestock (MCL) system which is predominant in developing countries like Ethiopia, is maintained with considerable contributions of crop residues (CR) to livestock feeding. Inclusion of CR is expected to reduce the water requirement for feed production resulting improvement in livestock water productivity (LWP). This study was conducted to determine feed water productivity (FWP) and LWP in the MCL system. A multistage sampling procedure was followed to select farmers from different wealth status. Wealth status dictated by ownership of key farm resources such as size of cropland and livestock influenced the magnitude of livestock outputs, FWP and LWP. Significant difference in feed collected, freshwater evapotranspired, livestock outputs and water productivity (WP) were observed between wealth groups, where wealthier are relatively more advantaged. Water productivity of CR and grazing land (GL) analyzed separately showed contrasting differences where better-off gained more on CR, whereas vice versa on GL. These counterbalancing of variations may justify the non-significant difference in total FWP between wealth groups. Despite observed differences, low WP on GL indicates the need of interventions at all levels. The variation in WP of CR is attributed to availability of production factors which restrained the capacity of poor farmers most. A linear relationship between the proportion of CR in livestock feed and FWP was evident, but the relationship with LWP was not likely linear. As CR are inherently low in digestibility and nutritive values which have an effect on feed conversion into valuable livestock products and services, increasing share of CR beyond an optimum level is not a viable option to bring improvements in livestock productivity as expressed in terms of LWP. Ensuring land security, installing proper grazing management, improved forage seed supply and application of soil and water conservation are expected to enhance WP on GL. Given the relationship of production factors with crop biomass and associated WP, interventions targeted to improve provision of inputs, credit, extension and training support due emphasis to the poor would increase CR yield and reduce part of water use for feed production. Optimizing feed value of CR with treatment and supplementation, following water efficient forage production methods and maintenance of healthy productive animals are expected to amplify the benefits from livestock and eventually improve LWP.