Farm water productivity in broiler production: case studies in Brazil

Drastig, Katrin; Palhares, Julio César Pascale; Karbach, Katharina; Prochnow, Annette

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.052

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…W indirect includes all the water that is used externally for the production of feed as well as the water demand for the construction of machines or of buildings or that is needed to produce energy, fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides. In this paper, this indirect water, except for the off-farm produced feed, was not taken into consideration, since it was assumed to be negligible [20,40,41].…”

Section: Calculation Of Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A consideration at the farm scale can show farmers directly and more accurately where, when and how much water resources were used and how an optimizing of water use in agriculture could be achieved [19]. Up to now, water flows and water productivity of various farms, crops as well as animal husbandry, were examined within different studies [19][20][21][22]. However, up to now there are to our knowledge only two studies on relating water input to farm output which compare organic and conventional farming: Krauß et al [21] and Palhares et al [5] examined organic and conventional dairy production systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Farm Water Productivity in Conventional and Organic Farming: Case Studies of Cow-Calf Farming Systems in North Germany

Vellenga

Qualitz

Drastig

2018

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increase of organic agriculture in Germany raises the question of how water productivity differs from conventional agriculture. On three organic and two conventionally farming systems in Germany, water flows and water related indicators were quantified. Farm water productivity (FWP), farm water productivity of cow-calf production (FWP livestock ), and farm water productivity of food crop production (FWP food crops ) were calculated using the modeling software AgroHyd Farmmodel. The FWP was calculated on a mass and monetary basis. FWP livestock showed the highest productivity on a mass basis occurring on a conventional farm with 0.09 kg m −3 W input , whereas one organic farm and one conventional farm showed the same results. On a monetary basis, organic cow-calf farming systems showed the highest FWP livestock , with 0.28 € m −3 W input . Since the productivity of the farm depends strongly on the individual cultivated plants, FWP food crops was compared at the level of the single crop. The results show furthermore that even with a precise examination of farm water productivity, a high bandwidth of temporal and local values are revealed on different farms: generic FWP for food crops and livestock are not within reach.

show abstract

Section: Calculation Of Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farm Water Productivity in Conventional and Organic Farming: Case Studies of Cow-Calf Farming Systems in North Germany

Vellenga

Qualitz

Drastig

2018

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This software runs on the Sponge JS modeling platform [30]; at different scales, from the farm scale, using individual farm operating data, up to the regional scale water flow can be systematically quantified. Using the modeling software AgroHyd Farmmodel, water flows can be modeled and systematically quantified at different scales, from the farm scale (Brazilian broiler farms [31]), to the regional scale (feeding rations in Brandenburg [32]; Irrigation water demand in Germany [33,34]). Data from different sources (local climate, crop, soil, and farm data) are combined in modeling units to provide detailed modeling of the local hydrological processes.…”

Section: Calculation Of Crop Transpiration (From Precipitation)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The indirect water demand is not considered in the present study, because it is assumed to be negligible. Wineries do not import plant biomass (e.g., feed purchased from outside the farm); animal farming takes the highest share of indirect water demand [31,32,44]. Water demand for the production of fertilizer, electricity, and fuel is marginal [45], as is the indirect water demand of buildings [46].…”

Section: Indirect Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantity- and Quality-Based Farm Water Productivity in Wine Production: Case Studies in Germany

Peth

Drastig

Prochnow

2017

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The German wine sector has encountered new challenges in water management recently. To manage water resources responsibly, it is necessary to understand the relationship between the input of water and the output of wine, in terms of quantity and quality. The objectives of this study are to examine water use at the farm scale at three German wineries in Rhenish Hesse, and to develop and apply, for the first time, a quality-based indicator. Water use is analyzed in terms of wine production and wine-making over three years. After the spatial and temporal boundaries of the wineries and the water flows are defined, the farm water productivity indicator is calculated to assess water use at the winery scale. Farm water productivity is calculated using the AgroHyd Farmmodel modeling software. Average productivity on a quantity basis is 3.91 L wine per m 3 of water. Productivity on a quality basis is 329.24 Oechsle per m 3 of water. Water input from transpiration for wine production accounts for 99.4%-99.7% of total water input in the wineries, and, because irrigation is not used, precipitation is the sole source of transpired water. Future studies should use both quality-based and mass-based indicators of productivity.

show abstract

“…For this reason, the occurrence of mycotoxins in feed has become a problem to be discussed, as it represents a serious risk to the health of animals and humans and could be a considerable obstacle to the poultry economy (DRASTIG et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micotoxinas na produção de frangos de corte

Oliveira

Souto

Martins

et al. 2018

Rev. Ciên. Agrovet.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The occurrence of mycotoxins has become a problem to be discussed, due to its harmfulness to humans and animal's health, and may be an obstacle to the poultry economy. Mycotoxins are toxic metabolites produced by certain species of fungi and may contaminate food. Aflatoxins are mainly produced by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, and B1, B2, G1 and G2 are its best known types. Fumonisin, with its B1, B2 or B3 types, are produced by Fusarium, while ochratoxin A is produced by Penicillium and Aspergillus. The main trichothecenes mycotoxins are T-2 toxin, deoxynivalenol and diacetoxyscirpenol. Zearalenone, produced by different species of Fusarium fungi affects chickens only when they are exposed to extremely high levels of contamination. Generally, immunosuppression, hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity as a decrease in performance and production gains are the most observed effects. There are several laboratory methods that can be used for the determination of mycotoxins. In order to control the contamination, it is necessary to adopt proper farming practices which prevent fungi growth. Once grains and feed are contaminated, biological, physical and/or chemical decontamination methods may be employed, although the physical process with adsorbents mixed to the feed is more widely used. Due to the importance of mycotoxins to poultry production, it is necessary to adopt measures to prevent contamination, and also develop a control and an anti-fungal growth and toxin production program by reviewing the critical points favorable to the emergence of toxin-producing fungi. KEYWORDS: aflatoxin, fumonisins, ochratoxins, trichothecenes, zearalenone. RESUMOA ocorrência de micotoxinas tornou-se um problema a ser discutido, pois representa riscos à saúde dos animais e humanos, podendo constituir um obstáculo à economia avícola. Micotoxinas são metabólitos tóxicos produzidos por algumas espécies de fungose podem contaminar os alimentos. Aflatoxinas são majoritariamente produzidas por Aspergillus flavus e Aspergillus parasiticus, sendo B1, B2, G1 e G2 os tipos mais conhecidos. Fumonisinas são do tipo B1, B2 e B3, e produzidas pelo gênero Fusarium, enquanto a ocratoxina A é produzida por fungos da espécie Penicillium e Aspergillus. As principais micotoxinas dos tricotecenos são toxina T-2, deoxynivalenol e diacetoxyscirpenol. A zearalenona, produzida por diferentes espécies de fungos do gênero Fusarium, afeta os frangos apenas quando estes são expostos a níveis extremamente altos de contaminação. De modo geral, são observados efeitos imunossupressores, hepatotóxicos e nefrotóxicos, com queda no desempenho e nos ganhos de produção. Vários são os métodos laboratoriais que podem ser utilizados para a determinação de micotoxinas. Para o controle da contaminação, é necessário adoção de práticas agrícolas correta, com vistas à prevenção do crescimento de fungos. Após a contaminação de grãos e rações, métodos de descontaminação, biológicos, físicos e/ou químicos podem ser empregados, embora o processo físico com adsor...

show abstract

Farm water productivity in broiler production: case studies in Brazil

Cited by 24 publications

References 31 publications

Farm Water Productivity in Conventional and Organic Farming: Case Studies of Cow-Calf Farming Systems in North Germany

Farm Water Productivity in Conventional and Organic Farming: Case Studies of Cow-Calf Farming Systems in North Germany

Quantity- and Quality-Based Farm Water Productivity in Wine Production: Case Studies in Germany

Micotoxinas na produção de frangos de corte

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About