Assessing the impact of water use in conventional and organic carrot production in Poland
The LCA approach includes the potential effects of depriving humans and ecosystems of water resources, as well as the specific potential effects of pollutants affecting water and thus the environment49. Water stress is commonly defined as the ratio of total freshwater consumption to the level of its hydrological availability. ISO 14046 presents a new concept, i.e., WF, which is associated with the LCA approach. The standard’s “water scarcity footprint” refers to the potential impacts associated with the quantitative aspect of water use50. Figure 2 shows the WF per cultivation area of conventional and organic carrot production. In general, there are significant differences in the total value of the WF in question. For conventional carrot production technology, it is 10.25 m3 ha−1, while for organic technology, it is only 1.96 m3 ha−1. In the case of conventional production, treatments using significant amounts of chemicals have the greatest impact on the WF, i.e., fertilization (mainly mineral) (WF = 6.85 m3 ha−1), and chemical plant protection (WF = 1.19 m3 ha−1). The analysis of WF in organic farming showed that its highest value (WF = 0.84 m3 ha−1) concerns the harvesting of carrots, while soil preparation ranks second (WF = 0.45 m3 ha−1). A slightly lower WF of 0.38 m3 ha−1 was recorded in the case of transporting the harvested carrots to the farm buildings. It can therefore be concluded that in organic farming, it is (diesel) fuel consumption that has the greatest impact on WF level.Figure 2Water footprint in conventional and organic carrot production (m3 ha−1).Full size imageIn terms of production volume, in conventional technology, the WF is 0.196 m3 t−1. On the other hand, in organic technology the value of WF is approx. four times lower and amounts to 0.049 m3 t−1 of harvested carrots. For comparison, the WF in tomato production is 160 m3 per 1 tonne of produce51. Such a high value results mainly from irrigation of the plants.In order to explain in detail the impact of individual agricultural treatments on the water deficit in carrot production, a detailed WF analysis was carried out for the treatments that demonstrated the highest values. In the case of conventional technology, it was fertilization (Fig. 3). Upon analyzing Fig. 3, it can be observed that the use of urea, and hence nitrogen, has the greatest impact on WF with regard to fertilization. Most nitrogen mineral fertilizers have a negative impact on the environment, causing ozone depletion in the stratosphere, groundwater pollution, global warming, and water eutrophication52,53. The largest water footprint associated with the use of mineral fertilizers in conventional cultivation is mainly due to a very energy-intensive fertilizer production process. Depending on the type of fertilizer and the technology used, the production process involves machines and equipment for cleaning, grinding, drying, sieving, extruding, granulating, packing, pumping, evaporation (crystallization) and transport. The vast majority of these treatments are powered by electricity. In contrast, conventional power production, regardless of the technology and fuel used (nuclear, natural gas, or coal), is characterized by very high water consumption. Mineral fertilizers are also a material whose consumed mass is relatively high compared to other production materials (seeds, pesticides, and diesel fuel). These two factors mentioned above have a decisive impact on the largest water footprint associated with the use of mineral fertilizers in conventional carrot cultivation. Processes requiring the use of machinery, i.e., fertilizer spreaders (1%) and the consumption of diesel fuel (0.1%) have the lowest impact on the level of fertilization-induced WF. Such a low impact of diesel fuel results mainly from its relatively low consumption during fertilization, most often using very efficient centrifugal spreaders. For comparison, WF related only to the use of carrot irrigation water is 20 m3 t−1 of harvested crops54.Figure 3Water footprint related to carrot fertilization in conventional production (m3 ha−1).Full size imageIn the case of organic technology, WF of harvesting was analyzed in detail (Fig. 4). Carrots were excavated with harvesters, which cut the aboveground parts, cleaned the roots and collected them in a hopper. Sometimes the excavation was preceded by mowing the carrot leaves with mowers. Carrot harvesters are machines that require farm tractors with high-power combustion engines, and the harvesting procedure itself is very time-consuming, hence such a large impact of fuel consumption on WF in carrot harvesting. Despite the above, the share of diesel consumption in the total value of WF related to carrot harvesting is only 11%. However, when comparing the WF related to fuel consumed during harvesting and during fertilization, it can be noticed that in the case of harvesting, WF is approx. 15 times higher.Figure 4Water footprint related to carrot harvest in organic production (m3 ha−1).Full size imageIn LCA, the potential effects of water pollution have traditionally been addressed in impact categories such as (eco) toxicity, acidification, and eutrophication42,43. In the WF analysis, the impact of water consumption is generally related to specific goals within a given conservation area, such as: Human Health, Ecosystems Quality and Resources43. The impact of water consumption on human health is expressed in DALY and is obtained by modeling the cause-effect chain of water scarcity (lack of irrigation water) leading to malnutrition. Ecosystem quality is assessed by modeling the cause-effect chain of freshwater consumption with the quality of the terrestrial ecosystem, based on the number of species disappearing each year (species * year). On the other hand, the impact of water consumption in the resources category is assessed by modeling the cause-effect chain of freshwater consumption in relation to the depletion of water resources, along with the cost ($) of extracting an additional cubic meter of water46. The data in Table 2 shows WF in conventional carrot production related to the three impact categories, and Fig. 5 shows its structure. The total impact of individual processes in the Human Health category is 1.15E−05 DALY, in the Ecosystem Quality category—1.53E−07 species * year, and in the Resources category—2.97 $ surplus. For comparison, WF in the above-mentioned impact areas per 1 ha of tomatoes is, respectively: Human Health—5.00E−03 DALY, Ecosystem Quality—2.50E−05 species * year55. When analyzing Fig. 5, it can be observed that in all impact categories, fertilization has the greatest environmental impact, the share of which in individual categories is at approx. 67.0–67.7%. Chemical plant protection ranks second, the impact of which in the three categories ranges from 11.9 to 12.6%. In addition to the treatments related to fertilizers and chemicals, treatments associated with high consumption of diesel fuel, i.e., soil preparation and harvest, have a significant impact on the value of individual categories in carrot production. This confirms the results of many studies, i.e. that the extraction, production and, above all, the use of diesel fuel bring significant damage to the environment56,57.Table 2 Environmental impact related to the use of water in conventional carrot production per area unit (ha).Full size tableFigure 5The structure of WF in individual impact categories in conventional carrot production.Full size imageBearing in mind that carrot yield range in conventional cultivation is 43–65 t ha−1, the total impact of individual processes per 100 tons of harvested carrots is as follows: Human Health: 2.17E−05 DALY, Ecosystem Quality: 2.88E−07 species * year and Resources: 5.57 $ surplus.Upon comparing the obtained results with the research presented in the literature and conducted with a similar methodology, it can be concluded that for the production of 100 tons of tomatoes, the total environmental footprint for the above-mentioned impact areas, including factors other than water, is respectively: Human Health: 2.7E−01 DALY, Ecosystems Quality: 1.45E−03 Species * year, Resources: 1.05E + 06 $58. On the other hand, the WF for green beans, per 100 tons of harvest was reported as follows: Human Health: from 2.00E−2 to 1.08E−1 DALY, Ecosystem Quality: from1.10E−3 to 1.80E−3 species * year, Resources: from 1.90E+2 to 1.40E+3 $ surplus59.Detailed WF results for the fertilization process in conventional carrot production are presented in Fig. 6. Among the individual factors shaping the environmental impact, what stands out is the consumption of urea, i.e. nitrogen (44.9–47.0% of the total impact in individual categories) and of phosphorus fertilizers, the impact of which is at 31.4–32.4%.Figure 6Structure of WF of the fertilization process in conventional carrot production as per individual impact categories.Full size imageIn endpoint analysis, the impact of water use is generally related to specific endpoints in a given conservation area: Human Health, Ecosystems Quality or Resources43. The data in Table 3 shows WF in organic carrot production as per the three impact categories, and Fig. 7 shows its structure. The total WF values in each category are as follows: in the Human Health category—2.11E−06 DALY, in the Ecosystem Quality category—3.00E−08 species * year and in the Resources category—0.56 $ surplus. The above results are over five times lower compared to the footprint in conventional production (Table 2), and therefore it can be concluded that organic production not only enables the production of healthy carrot, but also has a very positive impact on the broadly understood environment. Upon analyzing the data from Tables 2 and 3, it can be observed that the environmental impact of fertilization treatment in organic production is over thirty times lower compared to the impact of fertilization in conventional production. Moreover, the fact that no pesticides are used means that the impact of chemical plant protection treatments is 0. Upon analyzing Fig. 7, it can be observed that the largest share in the total value of WF in individual impact categories is that of carrot harvest, from 41.9% (Ecosystem Quality) to 43.1% (Resources). The reason for such a significant environmental impact of carrot harvesting technology is the use of complex harvesters, as explained in Fig. 8. When calculating WF, both direct water consumption in a technology is taken into account, as well as indirect, related e.g., to the production of agricultural equipment used in the technology. The complexity of the machinery, the type of materials it is made of and the type of technology used in its production determine the WF.Table 3 Environmental impact related to the use of water in organic carrot production per area unit (ha).Full size tableFigure 7The structure of WF in individual impact categories in organic carrot production.Full size imageFigure 8Structure of WF of the harvest process in organic carrot production as per individual impact categories.Full size imageThe methodology for calculating WF is very diverse and includes many methods. Moreover, the results of research on WF related to the production of vegetable species presented in the literature often differ in terms of the analyzed system boundaries, production technology, irrigation, etc. Therefore, the possibility of a broad discussion of the results of WF of conventional and organic carrot production is limited.The detailed structure of WF of the carrot harvesting process in organic farming is shown in Fig. 8. The use of machines, i.e. harvesters, has a decisive share (90.3–96.6%) in the total value of individual impact categories. The reason for this significant impact was explained above. Relatively high consumption of fuel during harvester operation contributes little to the water footprint structure. The use of diesel fuel has the highest impact on damage caused in the Ecosystem Quality category, with the lowest impact in the Human Health category. More
