Freshwater use analysis of cassava for food feed fuel in the Mun River basin, Thailand

  • Prus Pingmuanglek
  • Napat Jakrawatana
  • Shabbir H. Gheewala
PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY IN EMERGING ECONOMIES VIA LIFE CYCLE THINKING
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This research aims to assess the current freshwater use in the cassava supply chain for food, feed fuel in the Mun basin, and the water scarcity impact and possible options to increase cassava production to meet the future demand following the Renewable and Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP) target.

Methods

This research analyzes freshwater use based on ISO 14046 water footprint assessment. The analysis was implemented based on a life cycle perspective that determines the impact on freshwater use from cassava products along their supply chain. Both direct water use and indirect water use that associated are analyzed. Midpoint impact of water use was assessed using water stress index (WSI) to calculate water scarcity footprint.

Results and discussion

The results show that in the current situation, total freshwater use of all cassava-related product in Mun basin in the base case is 1140 million m3/year. When WSI was applied, water scarcity footprint of all cassava-related products in the Mun basin in the base case was only 147 million m3/year. In the scenario 1, increasing irrigation to increase yield in the existing cassava cultivation area in the Mun basin has the largest water use compare to other scenarios. Scenarios 2 and 3, expanding cassava cultivation area in Mun basin and in other regions, have lower water and water scarcity impact than scenario 1. The benefit from transforming paddy rice (in unsuitable areas) to cassava cultivation was also good. However, more resources are required including land, energy, or fertilizer, and other environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emission or eutrophication could be increased from the increasing resource use. Therefore, the decision-making process needs to consider the trade-off between those factors, and a more complete life cycle assessment (LCA) on the envisioned alternatives should be applied for further analysis.

Conclusions

The increasing demand of biofuels derived from cassava can increase stress on water in the Mun River basin. Increasing irrigation water use in the area as per requirement could possibly increase yield to meet the future feedstock demand but has large water scarcity impact. However, this could be alleviated by using groundwater from additional wells in the farm. Expanding cassava cultivation area could be another option having low water scarcity impact, but it requires more resources and could increase other environmental impacts that need to be further analyzed by a complete LCA.

Keywords

Cassava Food Fuel Material flow analysis Water footprint 

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1286_MOESM1_ESM.docx (685 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 684 kb)

References

  1. Babel MS, Shrestha B, Perret SR (2011) Hydrological impact of biofuel production: a case study of the Khlong Phlo watershed in Thailand. Agr Water Manage 101:8–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BTNRO (2014) Report of ethanol situation 2013 and trend 2014. Bank of Thailand’s Northeastern Region Office, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  3. DEDE (2015) Alternative Energy Development Plan 2015–2036. Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, Ministry of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  4. FAO (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements—FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department. FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  5. FAO (2013) Save and grow; cassava (a guide to sustainable production intensification). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerbens-Leenes PW, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer ThH (2008) The water footprint of bio-energy: global water use for bio-ethanol, biodiesel, heat and electricity. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 34, The Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE, DelftGoogle Scholar
  7. Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T, Nilsalab P, Mungkung R, Chaiyawannakarn N, Perret SR (2013) Implications of the biofuels policy mandate in Thailand on water: the case of bioethanol. Bioresource Technol 150:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T, Nilsalab P, Mungkung R, Chaiyawannakarn N, Perret SR (2014) Water footprint and impact of water consumption for food, feed, fuel crops production in Thailand. Water 6:1698–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. HAII (2012) Watershed data warehouse development projects in 25 watersheds and drought and flood models: Mun watershed. Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute (Public Organizations), BangkokGoogle Scholar
  10. HAII (2015) Thailand integrated water resource management 2015. Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute (Public Organizations), Bangkok http://www.haii.or.th/haiiweb/index.php?lang=th_TH Google Scholar
  11. ISO (2014) ISO 14046:2014 Water footprint: principles, requirements and guidelines. International Standards OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  12. JGSEE (2013) Final report for the project “water footprinting of food, feed and fuel for effective water resource management”. Thailand Research Fund, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  13. JGSEE (2016) Final report for the project “water footprinting of food, feed and fuel for effective water resource management (phase II)”. Thailand Research Fund, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaewruang S (2010) Optimum water irrigation system. Agricultural Science, 55, volume 3, June–SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  15. Kongboon R, Sampattagul S (2012) The water footprint of sugarcane and cassava in northern Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 40:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NETTA (2015) The number of North Eastern Tapioca Trade Association 2015. North Eastern Tapioca Trade Association. Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand http://www.nettathai.org/2012-01-18-08-23-58/2012-01-18-08-24-12.html Google Scholar
  17. NSTDA (2011) Strategic planning for research and development in cassava industry of Thailand. National Science and Technology Development Agency, Ministry of Science and Technology, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  18. Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE) (2015a) Background information of agricultural economics. Center for agricultural information. Office of agricultural economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  19. Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE) (2015b) Commodity crop production cost calculation. Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  20. Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE) (2016a) Price of paddy rice and paddy jasmine rice in 2017–2016. Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  21. Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE) (2016b) Price of fresh cassava root in 2017–2016. Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  22. Odubanjo OO, Olufayo AA, Oguntunde GP (2011) Water use, growth, and yield of drip irrigated cassava in a humid tropical environment. Soil Water Re 6(1):10–20Google Scholar
  23. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scanlon BR, Jolly I, Sophocleous M, Zhang L (2007) Global impacts of conversions from natural to agricultural ecosystems on water resources: quantity versus quality. Water Resour Res 43. doi:10.1029/2006WR005486
  25. Shinatiphkorn P, Thumrongrut M (2011) Water footprint of bioethanol production from cassava in Thailand. Kasetsart Engineering Journal 75:41–52Google Scholar
  26. Sinworn S, Duangpatra P (2014) Effect of drip irrigation systems and chemical fertilizer on growth and yield of cassava in dry season. SDU Research Journal Sciences and Technology 7(2)Google Scholar
  27. Suksri P, Moriizumi Y, Hondo H, Wake Y (2007) An introduction of bio-ethanol to Thai economy (I)—a survey on sugarcane and cassava fields. Academic Frontier Project “Digital Asia Building: Regional Strategy Design Platform”Google Scholar
  28. TEMA (2014) Annual report of ethanol manufacturing association 2014. Thai Ethanol Manufacturing Association, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  29. The Meteorological Department (2015) Rainfall report 2014–2015. The Meteorological Department, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  30. The Royal Irrigation Department (2011a) Reference crop evapotranspiration by Penman-Monteith (second edition). Irrigation Water Management Dissemination Branch, Irrigation Water Division, Office of Hydrology and Water Management, Royal Irrigation DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  31. The Royal Irrigation Department (2011b) Crop coefficient of 40 varieties. Irrigation Water Management Research Group, Irrigation Water Management Division, Office of Hydrology and Water Management, Royal Irrigation DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  32. UNEP (2007) Global environment outlook: environment for development (GEO-4). United Nations Environment Programme, VallettaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prus Pingmuanglek
    • 1
  • Napat Jakrawatana
    • 1
  • Shabbir H. Gheewala
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Energy and EnvironmentUniversity of PhayaoMuangThailand
  2. 2.The Joint Graduate School of Energy and EnvironmentKing Mongkut’s University of Technology ThonburiBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Center of Excellence on Energy Technology and EnvironmentPERDOBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations