GreyWaterFootprintIndicatorof
WaterPollutionintheProductionof
Organicvs.ConventionalCottonin
India Authors Nicolas Franke and Ruth Mathews, Water Footprint Network Acknowledgments The project presented in this report was funded by the C&A Foundation. We would like to thank Erika Zarate and Derk Kuiper for their contribution to Phase 1 of this project and to Guoping Zhang and Arjen Hoekstra for their review. We would like to thank the Grey Water Footprint Expert Panel, for their contributions to the grey water footprint guidelines: Aaldrik Tiktak (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Netherlands), Alain Renard (Sustainable Business Development, C&A, Brussels), Bernd Lennartz (Faculty for Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Rostock University, Germany), Himanshu Joshi (Indian Institute of Technology at Roorkee (U.P.), India), Julian Dawson (The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Scotland UK), Ranvir Singh (Massey University, New Zealand), Roger Moussa (French National Institute of Agricultural Research, France), Richard Coupe (U.S. Geological Survey, Pearl, Mississippi), Mark Huijbregts (Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands), Colin Brown (University of York – UK), Mathias Zessner (Vienna University of Technology, Austria), and Merete Styczen (KU‐
Life, Copenhagen, Denmark). We would also like to thank Mr. Sumit Garg and Ms. Rosanne Gray from CottonConnect for their valuable work related to the collection and verification of data from the farms in India. We are grateful to Mr. Phil Chamberlain and Alain Renard from C&A for their support of the Water Footprint Network’s mission and for the application of the grey water footprint method at C&A. The material and conclusions contained in this publication are for information purposes only and the authors offer no guarantee for the accuracy and completeness of its contents. All liability for the integrity, confidentiality or timeliness of this publication or for any damages resulting from the use of information herein is expressly excluded. Under no circumstances shall the partners be liable for any financial or consequential loss relating to this product. The publication is based on expert contributions, has been refined in a consultation process and carefully compiled into the present form. The partners of the initiative consider it a living document that will be adapted to the circumstances based on new findings and concepts, future experiences and lessons learnt.
Contents Contents Figures and Tables .............................................................................................................................. 4 Foreword ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Objective ........................................................................................................................................ 9 3. Method and data ............................................................................................................................ 9 3.1. Grey water footprint .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1. The grey water footprint of a farm ..................................................................................... 10 3.1.2. The grey water footprint per unit of crop ........................................................................... 10 3.2. Grey water footprint expert panel guidelines .................................................................................. 11 3.2.1. Handling of organic pesticides ............................................................................................ 11 3.2.2. Nitrogen and phosphorous leaching from compost ........................................................... 12 3.2.3. Leaching‐runoff fractions of phosphorous and pesticides .................................................. 12 3.2.4. Ambient water quality standards and natural background concentrations ....................... 13 3.3. Recalculation of GWF of Phase I ....................................................................................................... 14 3.3.1. Values used for leaching‐runoff fractions ........................................................................... 14 3.3.2. Values used for maximum allowable concentrations ......................................................... 14 3.3.3. Values used for natural background concentration ............................................................ 15 3.4. Farms sampled ................................................................................................................................. 15 3.5. Analysis of farming practices ............................................................................................................ 17 4. Results .......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. Conventional farming systems ......................................................................................................... 18 4.2. Organic farming systems .................................................................................................................. 19 4.3. Comparison between conventional and organic farming systems .................................................. 20 5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 23 References ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Annex I – Expert Panel ............................................................................................................................. 25 Annex II – Quality standards and natural background concentrations used .......................................... 26 Annex III – Conventional and organic fertilizers and pesticides used by farmers for cotton cultivation in India, for the two samples analysed ....................................................................................................... 28 Annex IV – Grey water footprint for the 240 conventional farms ...................................................... ‐ 38 ‐ Annex V – Grey water footprint for the 240 organic farms ................................................................ ‐ 63 ‐
3
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Figures and Tables FiguresandTables
Figures
Figure 1: Location of the Indian districts selected for this study. (Zarate et al., 2011) ............................... 16 Figure 2: Description of the samples used for the evaluation of grey water footprints from conventional and organic cotton cultivation in India. (Zarate et al., 2011) ...................................................................... 16 Figure 3: Grey water footprint related to the corresponding yield for the conventional farmers. ............ 18 Figure 4: Grey water footprint related to the corresponding yield for the organic farmers. ..................... 19 Figure 5: Comparing grey water footprint related to the corresponding yield between conventional and organic farmers. .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Tables
Table 1: Minimum and maximum default values to be used for leaching‐runoff fractions. ....................... 13 Table 2: Average default values to be used for leaching‐runoff fractions. ................................................. 13 Table 3: Maximum allowable concentration for phosphorous suggested by the Expert Panel. ................. 15 Table 4: Determining pesticides for the grey water footprint in conventional farming. ............................. 19 Table 5: Overall results of conventional and organic farming. ................................................................... 20 Table 6: Top 10 highest grey water footprint per tonne comparing conventional and organic farms. ...... 21 Table 7: Determining fertilizers for the grey water footprint. ..................................................................... 22 Table 8: Members of the grey water footprint expert panel 2012. ............................................................. 25 Table 9: Quality standards and natural background concentrations used for grey water footprint calculations. ................................................................................................................................................. 26 Table 10: Summary of fertilizers and its composition for conventional farming. (Zarate et al., 2011) ...... 28 Table 11: Summary of pesticides and its composition for conventional farming. (Zarate et al., 2011) ...... 30 Table 12: Summary of fertilizers and its composition for organic farming. (Zarate et al., 2011) ............... 33 Table 13: Summary of pesticides used for organic farming. (Zarate et al., 2011) ...................................... 35 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 4
Foreword Foreword
Sustainability has a long‐standing tradition at C&A, and has been an integral part of corporate management for over 20 years. The availability and quality of water resources is a key concern for textile companies as population growth, changing lifestyle patterns and increasing urbanization and industrialization, coupled with climate change implications, are increasing pressures on limited water supplies. With a globally distributed supply chain, C&A’s business touches many areas facing long‐term water shortages or poor water quality due to unsustainable use. In support of its strategy to improve the sustainability of its cotton clothing supply chain and ultimately improve the sustainability of the industry as a whole, C&A engaged the Water Footprint Network (WFN) to conduct a comparison of the grey water footprint, an indicator of water pollution, arising from conventional versus organic cotton agriculture. Using data collected from farms in India, this study is the first of its kind to document the grey water footprint reduction opportunities in cotton farming through changes in farming practices. The results point to how C&A and others could help farmers reduce the pollution load coming from cotton agriculture and lessen its impact on freshwater resources. In the context of the world’s water challenges, there is an urgent need for sustainable use of limited water resources. This publication documents the relationship between farming practices and water pollution in a way that gives hope that with practicable changes in farming practices, water quality can be improved, with benefits for all. We share this report in order to facilitate the journey for others who wish to take strategic action on improving the sustainability, efficiency and equitability of the use and management of our precious water resources. The fashion company C&A is one of the leading fashion companies in Europe, with the aim of offering to its customers fashion at affordable prices for the whole family. Sustainability is not just a recent fashion phenomenon for C&A, since it has underpinned its business model in evolving ways in its over 170 years of business. C&A Foundation is committed to improving the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people who make valuable contributions – as farmers, garment workers, store employees, local communities and more – to the cotton and apparel value chain. In collaboration with Water Footprint Network, a global multi‐stakeholder initiative focused on sustainable, fair, and efficient use of freshwater resources through the use of Water Footprint Assessment, the joint partnership has provided valuable insights on actionable response strategies for corporate leadership in water management. We hope you find this document of value. Leslie Johnston, Phil Chamberlain, Ruth Mathews, Executive Director C&A Foundation C&A Head of Sustainable Business Development Executive Director Water Footprint Network 5
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Executive Summary ExecutiveSummary
Chemically intensive agriculture became a widespread human practice in the 20th century. Diffuse pollution generated by this practice has caused serious impacts on the environment and to human health. Cotton agriculture has contributed to these problems due to its reliance on pesticides and fertilizers. In its commitment to reduce these impacts in its cotton clothing supply chain, C&A engaged the Water Footprint Network to compare pollution levels released to the environment of conventional versus organic farming practices. The purpose of this study is to support C&A in working towards a sustainable supply chain by quantifying and comparing the impacts of organic and conventional cotton farming on freshwater pollution using the grey water footprint (GWF) as an indicator of water pollution. The global water footprint standard (Hoekstra et al., 2011) was used to calculate the GWF. The GWF is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards. Approximately 40% of the cotton fibre used in C&A’s clothing is cultivated in India. Therefore two farm samples, one composed of 240 conventional cotton farms and one composed of 240 organic cotton farms in the states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, where analysed. In 2011, a Phase I study identified the need to get expert guidance on the parameters used in calculating the GWF. This Phase II study engaged an expert panel to develop GWF guidelines and these were used to recalculate the Phase 1 results. An international panel of experts was convened to develop guidance on how certain parameters could best be handled when calculating the GWF of diffuse pollution from agriculture. The main outcome of the Expert Panel is a guidance document that addresses the question on how to estimate context‐
dependent leaching‐runoff fractions, how to determine natural concentrations and how to select ambient water quality standards. Based on the clarification of these key issues, the GWF for the two samples from Phase I were recalculated, which allowed further analysis of the relationship between specific farming practices and the GWF. The GWF results of the production of organic vs. conventional cotton in lndia confirmed that conventional farming practices generally have a higher GWF than organic farming practices. Although the total production of 635 metric tonnes in one year for the conventional farms is slightly higher than the 577 tonnes of organic production, it does not justify the 5.5 times larger total GWF (951.583 m3/year for the conventional farms and 30.703.437 m3/year for the organic farms). The average GWF for the production of one tonne of cotton using conventional farming is around 266.042 m3/t, which is about five times as high as for organic farming, which is around 53.257 m3/t. This difference reflects the high WF of pesticides used in conventional cotton farming. When comparing both farming systems, it became clear that the transition towards organic cotton could be a good measure to achieve a more sustainable supply chain. Organic farming practices showed a Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 6
Executive Summary smaller GWF and therefore a lower impact on water resources, while having similar land productivities as in conventional farming. However, it must be remembered that due to the limitations of research on the impacts of organic pesticides on freshwater ecosystems and human health, these were not considered in this analysis. This is an area in need of attention to ensure that no unintended consequences come from a transition to organic farming practices. Additionally, it must be remembered that farming practices also influence other environmental issues; the water footprint methodology could be used for further analysis of different agricultural practices by looking at additional sustainability factors such as volumes of water consumed (blue water footprint) by different agricultural practices and their relation to water scarcity. Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 7
Introduction 1. Introduction
Chemically intensive agriculture became a widespread human practice in the past century, covering in great extent the need for food and fibre of humankind. Diffuse pollution generated by this practice has caused serious impacts on the environment, all around the world. In India, various studies report problems of human health and deterioration of water bodies and ecosystems, due to the widespread use of agrochemicals. C&A has therefore committed to mitigating these pressures by promoting the transition towards a more sustainable cotton production. Approximately 40% of the cotton fibre used in C&A’s clothing is cultivated in India. Therefore, in 2010, C&A asked the Water Footprint Network (WFN) to compare water pollution generated by organic and conventional cotton cultivation in India, with the aim to promote more sustainable farming practices. It was the first time that the grey water footprint (GWF) methodology was applied to quantify and compare the impacts of organic and conventional cotton farming on freshwater pollution. C&A and WFN completed this iconic project in 2011. The results obtained showed a significant difference between the freshwater pollution from conventional and organic cotton cultivation in the two Indian states considered (Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh). Although the organic practice showed to be not free from impacts on water resources (it has a contribution related to leaching of Nitrogen and Phosphorus contained in organic fertilizers), the GWF of conventional farming was significantly larger due to the pesticides used. On the other hand the study showed that the average yield in the organic sample was smaller than the one in the conventional sample, but the increased impacts on water resources were still hard to justify. There were nevertheless organic farms that, with lower GWFs, achieved a higher yield than others using conventional farming practices. Due to the innovative nature of applying the GWF to organic farming practices and insufficient developments in water quality analysis in India, the values chosen for parameters used in the calculations of the GWF were based on limited information and certain assumptions had to be made. In order to provide a more robust comparison between the GWF for conventional and organic farming practices and to learn more about which agricultural practices could reduce the GWF, a Phase II project was proposed, with the aim to review the assumptions made in the first study. This second phase also aims to provide some information to C&A for formulating its sustainability strategy including farm‐
specific response strategies and future agricultural practices which would take into account the reduction of water resources pollution.
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 8
Objective 2. Objective
The objective of this study is to support C&A in working towards sustainability in their supply chain, by quantifying and comparing the impacts of organic and conventional cotton farming on freshwater pollution. The GWF methodology was used to analyse two farm samples, each one composed of 240 cotton farms in India, and taken from the states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. The first sample comprises conventional farms and the second one organic farms. This study is based on an earlier project and has the objective of clarifying the assumptions made in the first study, revising the GWF accounting and further analysing the sustainability of specific farming practices. This study gives a more robust comparison between the different farming systems than the earlier GWF study (Zarate et al., 2011) and will allow C&A to better identify more sustainable cotton farming practices. 3. Methodanddata
3.1.Greywaterfootprint
The grey water footprint (GWF) was calculated using the methodology described in The Water Footprint Assessment Manual – Setting the Global Standard (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The GWF is an indicator of freshwater pollution that can be associated with a certain production process, like cultivating a crop. It is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards The loads of pollutants from non‐point sources to receiving water bodies that create the grey water footprint from agriculture are notoriously difficult to quantify (Zarate, 2010a). Chemical substances applied on the fields go through different degradation and transport processes through the soil until finally reaching water bodies. To which extent each of the processes will affect the overall loss of a substance depends on the physicochemical properties of the substance, the soil characteristics, climatic conditions, terrain slope and land management practices (Racke et al., Dabrowski et al., 2009). Loss of pollutants to water bodies can happen through leaching, runoff or return flow (Dabrowski et al., 2009, Zarate, 2010a). Because of this complexity, a three‐tier approach (Zarate, 2010a) was proposed to evaluate the grey water footprint due to diffuse pollution: Tier 1 ‐ using a single fixed leaching‐runoff fraction to translate data on the amount of chemicals applied to the field to an estimate of the amount of chemicals reaching the water bodies; Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 9
Method and data Tier 2 ‐ applying valid while simplified model approaches to estimate leaching amount of chemicals under study; and Tier 3 ‐ applying sophisticated modelling techniques to estimate the amount of leaching chemicals. This study is based on the tier 1 approach, using fixed leaching – runoff fractions for the estimation of loads of pollutants reaching water bodies. This method can be used as a quick screening method useful for understanding impacts of a given agricultural practice on water resources. 3.1.1. Thegreywaterfootprintofafarm
The grey water footprint of a given process, in this case the cotton cultivation in a farm, is calculated by dividing the pollutant load reaching water bodies (L, in mass per time) by the difference between the ambient water quality standard for that pollutant (the maximum allowable concentration cmax, in mass/volume) and its natural background concentration in the receiving water body (cnat, in mass/volume): The load of a pollutant entering water bodies is calculated as a fraction from the total application of this pollutant on the field. This is represented by the dimensionless factor α, which stands for the leaching‐
runoff fraction, defined as the fraction of applied chemicals reaching freshwater bodies. The variable Appl represents the application of chemicals on or into the soil for a certain farm (in mass/time). Application rates are normally reported in mass per acre per period of time (AR, mass/area/time); therefore, in order to calculate the variable Appl for a given farm, the application rate needs to be multiplied by the area of the farm (A): Appl = AR x A
[mass/time]
Any agrochemical applied to the field is in most of the cases a mixture of substances, not all of them critical to the environment. The critical substances, those of our interest, are known as “active ingredients”, and are reported in percentages by the provider on the labels of agrochemical products (see Annex III). 3.1.2. Thegreywaterfootprintperunitofcrop
The grey component in the water footprint of growing a crop can be computed per tonne of crop product (WFproc,grey, m3/ton) for each farm, and it is calculated as the grey water footprint of the farm (from previous section) divided by its crop yield (Y, tonne/acre). Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 10
Method and data In Phase I of this study certain assumptions had to be made for calculating the GWF, which could influence the final result. These assumptions were further researched in this phase and are presented below. In order to discuss the assumptions made in Phase I, an international panel of experts (see Annex I) was convened. The panel advised on how certain parameters could best be handled when calculating the GWF of diffuse pollution from agriculture. The main outcome of the Expert Panel is a guidance document that addresses the question on how to estimate context‐dependent leaching‐runoff fractions and how to get natural concentrations and select ambient water quality standards (Franke et al., 2013). The document also includes recommendations for default values to be used for the different parameters when data are lacking. Key issues that had to be clarified were: 



How should organic pesticides be handled in the GWF calculations, in particular related to leaching‐runoff fractions and ambient water quality standards for active ingredients? How does the application of compost and other organic fertilizers affect the cycle of nutrients and leaching‐runoff fractions? What context‐specific leaching‐runoff fractions should be used or, in their absence, what assumptions should be taken? When ambient water quality standards do not exist for a specific substance or when standards vary greatly between different countries or regions (e.g. EU versus US standards), what standards can best be used? Based on the clarification of these key issues, the GWF for the two samples from Phase I were recalculated, which allowed further analysis of the relationship between specific farming practices and the GWF. The following section 3.2 presents the major outcomes of the Expert Panel and the information used for the recalculation of Phase I. 3.2.Greywaterfootprintexpertpanelguidelines
Based on the discussions and agreements of the GWF Expert Panel, the following decisions were made regarding the assumptions taken in Phase I. 3.2.1. Handlingoforganicpesticides
In Phase I it was assumed that organic pesticides have no impact on water resources. This assumption was made, because there was very little information found regarding active ingredients, leaching and ambient water quality standards for organic pesticides. The Expert Panel has confirmed that there is very little information regarding active ingredients, leaching and ambient water quality standards for organic pesticides. Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 11
Method and data The lack of information is to one point rooted in that organic pesticide practitioners insist that natural pesticides do not have to be tested, since they are natural substances, and to another extent because researchers have not bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe. Still, there are many natural substances with potential impacts if occurring in concentrations higher than usual, which could put into question this assumption and it is not unusual to find warnings on allowed pesticides in organic agriculture, to use them with caution, because the toxicological effects or their persistence in the soil are unknown. In order to be effective, natural pesticides often have to be applied with higher frequency than synthetic ones. Another argument to treat organic pesticides with caution is their prohibition in some countries. For example, in several countries it is allowed to use sulphur and copper for organic farming, while in Denmark copper‐compounds are not allowed in any form of agriculture. As a conclusion, at this point in time the GWF of organic pesticides cannot be assessed due to the lack of information. Nevertheless organic pesticides should be handled with care. So the assumption that organic pesticides don’t have any impact on water resources may lead to an underestimation of the GWF. The impact of organic pesticides on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems is an area needing further research. 3.2.2. Nitrogenandphosphorousleachingfromcompost
In Phase I it was assumed that nitrogen and phosphorus leaching from compost is zero when compost is applied below a certain application rate. This assumption provided a quick and rough way to proceed during the first phase of the project. After discussions with the Expert Panel, we conclude that nitrogen and phosphorous in compost should be handled like any other nitrogen and phosphorous source. The nutrients in compost are bound to organic material, and therefore, when temperatures are above 5°C, mineralisation processes start which may lead to leaching. As for other organic nitrogen sources, there is also a risk that nitrate is formed during a period in which there is no vegetation cover on the land, also leading to a risk of leaching. For phosphorous it depends on the accumulation in the soil over time compared to the phosphorous‐
sorption capacity of the soil. So depending on the local circumstances there may or may not be a risk of leaching. The argument for compost is often that the nutrients are not easily available, but they will become available over time. The use of compost can result in a more friendly fertilization practice if well managed by the farmer, as with other nutrient sources. The Expert Panel clarified that nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations in compost should be taken into consideration in the GWF recalculations in Phase II. Therefore the total nitrogen and phosphorous contained in the compost was used to calculate the GWF. 3.2.3. Leaching‐runofffractionsofphosphorousandpesticides
The leaching‐runoff fractions of phosphorus and pesticides used in Phase I were 2% and 0.5% respectively. These leaching‐runoff fractions were based on literature research and concluded as suitable Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 12
Method and data for the study. Both values chosen for leaching‐runoff fractions are within the ranges of the suggested values by the Expert Panel (see Table 1) and therefore were reasonable to use in Phase I. Table 1: Minimum and maximum default values to be used for leaching‐runoff fractions. Phosphorous Min and Max αmin Leaching‐
Runoff‐Fraction 0.0001
Pesticides αmax αmin αmax 0.05 0.0001
0.1 The ranges are very large. The actual leaching‐runoff fraction will depend on a variety of environmental factors and management practices as described by the Expert Panel. Since no information on these local influencing factors is available for the farm sample used in the current study, the Expert Panel suggests using global average values of 3% for phosphorous and 1% for pesticides (see Table 2). Table 2: Average default values to be used for leaching‐runoff fractions. Phosphorous Pesticides Average Leaching‐
Runoff‐Fraction 0.03 0.01 The GWF of Phase I was recalculated using these values, which will lead to higher values for both chemicals of concern. 3.2.4. Ambientwaterqualitystandardsandnaturalbackgroundconcentrations
The Water Footprint Methodology recommends the use ambient water quality standards and only in their absence, drinking water standards can be used. In many regions there are no ambient water quality standards available for all chemicals of concern; for these cases, the Expert Panel suggests to apply the stricter value out of the following guidelines:  EC (2008) – European environmental quality standards in the field of water policy.  USEPA (2010b) ‐ US EPA national recommended water criteria for aquatic life.  CCME (2007) ‐ Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. These guideline values were suggested since they are the most comprehensive in terms of numbers of parameters covered, as well as their wide application. These guidelines have been used as a reference for many countries to establish country specific standards. Regarding natural background concentrations, the Expert Panel recommends to use local information where available. The natural background concentration of a chemical depends on many regional factors (e.g. geology, physical and chemical conditions, climate) and is therefore quite difficult to estimate. If natural background levels are not known or difficult to estimate, the Expert Panel recommends using Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 13
Method and data one third of the maximum allowable concentrations as the natural background concentration. For pesticides the natural background concentrations to be used are zero (as in Phase I), since these are not of natural origin. 3.3.RecalculationofGWFofPhaseI
In Phase I the GWF for two farm samples were analysed, each one composed of 240 farms, cultivating cotton in the states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh in India. The first sample comprises conventional farms and the other one organic farms. The GWF method at the Tier 1 level (a basic screening level which calculates the loads of pollutants to water bodies based on a fixed leaching‐runoff fraction) was used (see Hoekstra et al., 2011, Box 3.7). In Phase II we applied the Tier 1 approach as well, but reinforced through the input of the Expert Panel to give more robust and reliable results. 3.3.1. Valuesusedforleaching‐runofffractions
The leaching‐runoff fraction values used for the recalculation were the default global average values suggested by the experts: 


10% for nitrogen, 3% for phosphorous, and 1% for pesticides. In Phase I, a 10% leaching‐runoff fraction for nitrogen was used as well, but it was considered that organic compost does not affect water bodies when the application rate stays below 50 t/ha. This assumption was rejected by the Expert Panel. Therefore the load of nitrogen entering a water body was recalculated, taking compost into account. Both nitrogen and phosphorous were taken into account for leaching and runoff from application of compost. The leaching‐runoff fraction for phosphorous used in Phase I was 2% and for pesticides was 0.5%. By using the higher values suggested by the Expert Panel, the estimated GWFs for these two substances will increase. 3.3.2. Valuesusedformaximumallowableconcentrations
The water quality standards used for pesticides, phosphorous and nitrogen in Phase I were taken from drinking water regulations, which were 0.1 µg/l for all pesticides (according to EC (1998)), 0.2 mg/l (= 200 µg/l) for phosphorus (according to Chinese Drinking Water Regulations) and 10000 µg/l for nitrogen (according to Indian Drinking Water Standard). As recommended by The Water Footprint Assessment Manual and the Expert Panel, the values used for the recalculation were the ambient water quality standards EC (2008), USEPA (2010b), and CCME (2007). If no such standards were available, the drinking water quality standards from the EU (1998) were used. The values used and their sources are listed in Annex II. For the chemicals for which ambient water quality standards were found, the limits are stricter than the ones used in Phase I, which will lead to a larger GWF than calculated in Phase I. The Expert Panel recommends the standards in Table 3 for phosphorous. For this study a maximum Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 14
Method and data allowable concentration of 35 µg/l was chosen, since a concentration above this value would lead to eutrophic conditions (excessive nutrient conditions). Table 3: Maximum allowable concentration for phosphorous suggested by the Expert Panel. Substance Group Maximum Allowable Nutrients Concentration (µg/l) Phosphorus ultra‐oligotrophic <4 oligotrophic 4‐10 mesotrophic 10‐20 meso‐eutrophic 20‐35 eutrophic 35‐100 hyper‐eutrophic >100
Referenced Guideline CCME The maximum allowable concentrations used for the recalculation of nitrogen (as nitrate) is 13 000 µg/l (according to Canadian Standards which are stricter than USEPA or EU standards), which is a higher concentration than the drinking water standards used in Phase I, and could result in lower GWFs. 3.3.3. Valuesusedfornaturalbackgroundconcentration
In Phase I, natural background concentrations for all chemicals of concern were assumed to be zero. This may lead to an underestimation of the GWF, since water bodies that have a natural background concentration of a certain substance will actually have less assimilation capacity for this substance. In the recalculation, the natural background concentrations recommended by the Expert Panel were used (one third of the maximum allowable concentration), since no local information was available. Therefore the value used for nitrogen was 4333 µg/l and for phosphorous 12 µg/l. For pesticides the natural background concentration used was zero, as in Phase I. 3.4.Farmssampled
In this study, 480 farms in total, 240 each for conventional and organic agricultural practices, respectively, were sampled. The samples were taken by Cotton Connect, a non‐for‐profit organization active in India helping farmers in the improvement of agricultural practices (Zarate et al., 2011). The samples were taken in the states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh (Figures 1 and 2). The two states together are home to C&A’s majority of cotton supply: 70‐75% for conventional and 80‐85% for organic cotton. In addition, these two states produce about 40% of India’s total conventional cotton and about 61% of India’s total organic cotton. Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 15
Method and data Figure 1: Location of the Indian districts selected for this study. (Zarate et al., 2011) Figure 2: Description of the samples used for the evaluation of grey water footprints from conventional and organic cotton cultivation in India. (Zarate et al., 2011) Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 16
Method and data 3.5.Analysisoffarmingpractices
Following The Water Footprint Assessment Manual (reference?), we can formulate two criteria that determine whether the GWF of growing a crop is sustainable: 1. Geographic context: the GWF of crop cultivation at a certain farm is unsustainable when situated in a hotspot, i.e. in a catchment area where the total grey water footprint (the aggregate of all GWFs in the area) exceeds the carrying capacity of the catchment area. 2. Practices at the farm itself: the GWF of crop cultivation at a certain farm is unsustainable in itself – independent of the geographic context – when the GWF can be reduced or avoided altogether (at acceptable societal cost). In this study, we focus on the farming practices and look whether the GWF can be reduced at an acceptable societal cost. The latter will be judged based on a comparative analysis between farms, assuming that what can be achieved in terms of a low GWF in combination with a good yield on one farm can be achieved on other farms as well. The analysis will help to identify best practices, which can be transferred to other farmers through training and technical assistance. To calculate the average yield across all farms studied, the yields from the different farms were weighted based on the farm’s production area. Therefore the weighted average is expectedly higher than the unweighted, since farms with larger acreage will contribute more to total cotton production. The average GWF across the farms was weighted based on the total production per farm. The GWF is expressed in m3/tonne, so farms with larger production (tonnes/yr) will contribute more to the total GWF in the states considered. Each farming practice (conventional and organic) was first evaluated individually. In this way, we could assess within each farming practice whether the water footprint can be reduced without loss in yield. In a second step, a comparison between the two farming systems was made. Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 17
Results 4. Results
4.1.Conventionalfarmingsystems
Figure 3 shows the GWF results per tonne for the conventional farms and their corresponding yield per acre. The outliers of the analysis where left out of the figure for better visualization of the results. A detailed presentation is given in the table in Annex IV. The average GWF for the production of one tonne of conventional cotton is 266.042 m3 (see green line in Figure 3) and the average yield is 0.5 tonne per acre m3 (see yellow line in Figure 3). Block A1 shows those farms with large GWF and low yield, while block B1 shows the farms with large GWF but high yield. Block C1 and block D1 show the farms having smaller GWF with low and high yield, respectively. As the figure shows, farmers can have a good yield without generating very high GWF (block D1). It appears that farmers with smaller GWF and high yields (in block D1) are the better practitioners while the farmers with large GWF and low yield (block A1) have large room for improvement. A1 B1 C1 D1 Figure 3: Grey water footprint related to the corresponding yield for the conventional farmers. The high GWFs seem to be mainly due to the type of the pesticides applied and their application rate (see Annex II for maximum allowable concentrations and Annex IV for the application rates). Under the same agricultural circumstances (management practices, environmental conditions, and farm size) the application rate seems to be the dominant factor influencing the GWF (see Annex IV). Pesticides which lead to a high GWF in this study are presented in Table 4. Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 18
Results Table 4: Determining pesticides for the grey water footprint in conventional farming. Pesticides of concern Endosulphan Cypermetrine Difenthiuron
TriAzophos Cyclohexanam Fluchloralin Acephate Acetamiprid Dimethyl Sylphoxide Quinalphos Carbendazim Thiomethoxam Distilled Methyl Soyate 4.2.Organicfarmingsystems
Similar to the analysis for the GWF of the conventional farms, Figure 4 shows the GWF per tonne for the organic farms and their corresponding yield per acre. Also here the outliers of the analysis where left out of the figure for better visualization of the results and a detailed presentation is given in the table in Annex V. A2 B2 D2 C2 Figure 4: Grey water footprint related to the corresponding yield for the organic farmers. Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 19
Results The average GWF for the production of one tonne of organic cotton is around 53.257m3 (see green line in Figure 4) and the average yield is around 0.45 tonnes per acre (see yellow line in Figure 4). We can see that organic farming practices can also have large differences in the GWF and yield. Organic farmers can yield a very good production without generating a high GWF (block D2). Farms within the area of large GWF and low yield (block A2) have wide room for improving their agricultural performance from a yield and GWF point of view. Farms within the block D2 (small GWF and high yield) can be considered as best practitioners in this sampling pool. In the case of organic farming, the agro‐chemicals analysed in this study were limited to nitrogen and phosphorous. This means that the GWFs in organic farming are due to the fertilizers used (mainly due to Compost and Farm Yard Manure, see annex V). The results of the GWF calculations have shown that the critical pollutant of organic farming is phosphorous. This is an interesting result, because nitrogen is often seen as the more critical pollutant in the GWF analysis for diffuse source pollution. Although the concentrations of nitrogen in the used fertilizers are slightly higher than phosphorous (see annex III), the maximum allowable concentration for nitrogen as nitrate (13 000 µg/l) is less strict than for phosphorous (35 µg/l) and therefore nitrogen becomes a less critical element than phosphorous. 4.3.Comparisonbetweenconventionalandorganicfarmingsystems
The samples for both farming systems consisted of 240 farms, with a total surface of 1272 acres of conventional farming and 1271 acres of organic farming. The overall results of the two farming systems are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Overall results of conventional and organic farming. Farming system Total Surface production area (acre) (t/year) Average yield (t/acre) Total GWF (m3/year) Average GWF (m3/t) Conventional 1.272 635 0,50 168.951.583
266.042 Organic 1.271 577 0,45 30.703.437 53.257 Although the total production of 635 t in one year for the conventional farms is slightly higher than the 577 t of organic production, it does not justify the 5.5 times larger total GWF. While the GWF of conventional farming systems is around 168.951.583 m3/year, the one for organic farming is 30.703.437 m3/year. The average GWF for the production of one tonne of cotton using conventional farming is around 266.042 m3/t, which is about five times as high as for organic farming, which is around 53.257 m3/t. The average yields only differ by 10%, with conventional farming being more productive with 0,5 tonnes per acre versus 0,45 tonnes per acre for organic farms. Figure 5 shows the GWF and the corresponding yield for the conventional and organic farms analysed which have a GWF below the average conventional GWF. Only three organic farms have larger GWF than the average conventional GWF of 266.042 m3/t (see annex V). Besides, one can see, in this figure, that Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 20
Results all conventional farms lie above the organic average GWF of 53.257 m3/t. Nevertheless, as the figure shows, there are conventional farms with smaller GWF and higher yields than organic farms. Figure 5: Comparing grey water footprint related to the corresponding yield between conventional and organic farmers. The conventional cotton farms in this study have larger GWFs in general. It is mainly due to the use of pesticides (see Table 6). The GWF per tonne of cotton due to pesticides in conventional farming is between 10 and 20 times larger than that due to nutrients in organic farming. Pesticide application resulting in such a large GWF is largely due to their high toxicity. For the top‐10 conventional farms with the largest GWF, the pesticide Endosulfan, with a maximum allowable concentration in the aquatic environment of 0.003 µg/l (according to CCME, 2007), and Cypermethrin, with a maximum allowable concentration in the aquatic environment of 0.002 µg/l (according to the USEPA), are the ones determining the GWF. For the top‐10 organic farms the nutrient of concern is phosphorous due to fertilization with compost. Table 6: Top 10 highest grey water footprint per tonne comparing conventional and organic farms. Farming System Organic No. of the farm Organic GWF (m3/t) 398 733,696 Conventional Fertilizer of concern Compost
(Phosphorous)
No. of the Conventional Pesticide of farm GWF (m3/t) concern 91 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 7,554,105 Endosulphan 21
Results Farming System Organic Conventional No. of the farm Organic GWF (m3/t) 423 386,817 Fertilizer of concern Compost
(Phosphorous)
330 366,848 360 No. of the Conventional Pesticide of farm GWF (m3/t) concern 507 6,805,500 Endosulphan Compost
(Phosphorous)
316 5,557,825 Endosulphan 249,012 Compost
(Phosphorous)
227 4,640,114 Endosulphan 397 244,467 Compost
(Phosphorous)
508 4,537,000 Endosulphan 414 199,130 Compost
(Phosphorous)
465 4,537,000 Endosulphan 358 178,251 Compost
(Phosphorous)
99 4,158,917 Endosulphan 207 176,087 Compost
(Phosphorous)
460 2,903,680 Endosulphan 155 176,087 Compost
(Phosphorous)
108 2,800,000 Cypermetrine 176,087 Compost
(Phosphorous)
94 2,474,727 Endosulphan 189 Table 7 shows an overview of the fertilizers contributing to the GWF, for both conventional and organic farming. An overview of the composition of their active ingredients is given in annex III. The application rate of fertilizers influences the GWF considerably, since the chemicals of concern (nitrogen and phosphorous) are contained in each type of fertilizers. In poor farming practices excessive application of fertilizers can occur or in some cases the fertilizers applied may contain higher content of nitrogen or phosphorous. Both can lead to higher GWFs than others (see annex IV and V). Table 7: Determining fertilizers for the grey water footprint. Fertilizers of concern Conventional
Organic Compost Compost Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Diammonium phosphate Caster Cake Castor Urea MIX Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 22
Conclusion 5. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to support C&A in its commitment to a more sustainable supply chain, by comparing the grey water footprint from conventionally and organically grown cotton. The Global Water Footprint Standard was used to calculate the volumes of water contaminated through the production of conventional and organic grown cotton and then these were analysed in relation to the yields obtained by each farming practice. Phase I of this study gave a first estimate of the difference in GWF for conventionally and organically grown cotton, but a more robust analysis in Phase II, based on expert recommendations and a detailed comparison of individual farm practices, could provide significant information to C&A for formulating its sustainability strategy. Both conventional and organic farming practices showed room for improvement when comparing the GWF and yield of individual farms within each system. The results showed farms with relatively small GWFs obtaining relatively good yields. First improvements towards a more sustainable supply chain could be achieved by promoting better farming management practices (e.g. lower application rates of pesticides and fertilizers). When comparing both farming systems, it became clear that the transition towards organic cotton could be a good measure to achieve a more sustainable supply chain. Organic farming practices showed a smaller GWF and therefore a lower impact on water resources, while having similar land productivities as in conventional farming. Conventional farms result in such large GWFs compared to organic farming mainly due to the use of pesticides. For the pesticides used in conventional farming a more detailed research could be done, to better understand there leaching and runoff and toxicity. It would be useful to see if they could easily be substituted by less toxic pesticides or if their application rates could be better managed. An important reduction of the GWF and therefore a more sustainable supply chain could be achieved by organizing farmer training, especially for those shown to be the main contributors to the overall water footprint. Especially for conventional farming the possibility of substituting the critical pesticides by less harmful ones, could improve its sustainability. This study showed that organic farming is more sustainable then conventional farming when considering the volumes of water resources contaminated. However, one should be bear in mind that due to the limitations of research on the impacts of organic pesticides on freshwater ecosystems and human health, these were not considered in this analysis. This is an area in need of attention to ensure that no unintended consequences come from a transition to organic farming practices. Additionally, it should be noted that farming practices also influence other environmental issues; other indicators such as the ecological footprint could help to assess the impacts of farming practices on other sustainability factors. The GWF has here been proven to be a helpful indicator of water resource sustainability from a pollution point of view. The water footprint methodology could be used for further analysis of different agricultural practices by looking at additional sustainability factors such as volumes of water consumed (blue WF) by different agricultural practices and their relation to water scarcity. Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 23
References References
Dabrowski. J.M. Murray. K., Ashton. P.J., Leaner. J.J. (2009) Agricultural impacts on water quality and implications for virtual water trading decisions. Ecological Economics 68: 1074–1082. Franke, N.A., Boyacioglu, H., Hoekstra, A.Y., (2013) “Grey Water Footprint Assessment: Tier 1 – Supporting Guidelines”, Water Footprint Network, Enschede, The Netherlands. Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M. and Mekonnen, M.M. (2011) “The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard”, Earthscan, London, United Kingdom. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministry of the Environment) (2007) “Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: A protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life”, Canadian Council of Ministry of Environment, Winnipeg, Canada. EC (European Comission) (1998) “Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998: on the quality of water intended for human consumption”, Brussels, Belgium. EC (2008) “Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy”, Brussels, Belgium. Racke et al. (1997) “Pesticide fate in tropical soils”, Pure & Appl. Chem., Vol. 69, No. 6, pp. 1349‐1371, 1997. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2010b) “US EPA‐National Recommended Water Criteria‐Aquatic Life Criteria”, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., USA. Zarate, E. (ed) (2010a). WFN grey water footprint working group final report: A joint study developed by WFN partners, Water Footprint Network, Enschede, Netherlands. Zarate, E., Zeng, Z., Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011) “Grey water footprint as an indicator of levels of water pollution in the production of organic vs. conventional cotton in India”, Water Footprint Network in collaboration with C&A and Cotton Connect, Enschede, The Netherlands. Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 24
Annex AnnexI–ExpertPanel
Table 8: Members of the grey water footprint expert panel 2012. Name Organization Email Prof Brown Colin University of York ‐ UK [email protected]
Dr Coupe Richard U.S. Geological Survey, Pearl, Mississippi [email protected]
Dr Dawson Julian The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Scotland UK [email protected] Prof Hoekstra Arjen University of Twente, Netherlands [email protected]
Prof Huijbregts Mark Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands Dr Joshi Himanshu Dr Bernd Lennartz Dr Moussa Roger Indian Institute of Technology at Roorkee (U.P.), India Faculty for Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Rostock University, Germany French National Institute of Agricultural Research, France [email protected]
[email protected]
bernd.lennartz@uni‐
rostock.de
[email protected]
Renard Alain Sustainable Business Development, C&A, Brussels bi20@retail‐sc.com Dr Singh Ranvir Massey University, New Zealand [email protected]
Prof Styczen Merete KU‐Life, Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected]
Aaldrik Tiktak Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Netherlands [email protected] Prof Zessner Matthias Vienna University of Technology, Austria [email protected]
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 25
Annex AnnexII–Qualitystandardsandnaturalbackgroundconcentrationsused
Table 9: Quality standards and natural background concentrations used for grey water footprint calculations. Chemical Maximum allowable concentration (µg/l) Standard Natural concentration
(µg/l) Acephate 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Acetamiprid 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Aronex 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Carbendazim 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Carbohydrates 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Cyclohexanam 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Cypermethrin 0.002 USEPA (2010) 0 Deltamethrin 0.0004 CCME (2007) 0 Difenthiuron 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Dimethoate 6.2 CCME (2007) 0 DimethylSulphoxide 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Distilled Methyl Soyate 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Emulsifiers 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Endosulfan 0.003 CCME (2007) 0 Epichlorohydrin 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Fenvalerate 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Fine Silica 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Fluchloralin 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Imidachloprid 0.23 CCME (2007) 0 Indoxacarb 0.1 EC (1998) 0 lambda‐cyhalothrin 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Mancozeb 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Monochrotophos 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Nitrate 13000 CCME (2007) 4333 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 26
Annex Chemical Maximum allowable concentration (µg/l) Standard Natural concentration
(µg/l) Nitrobenzene 27000 USEPA (2010) 0 N‐Tricontanol 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Oxy demeton methyl 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Phosphorous 4 CCME (2007) 1.33 Polyethoxyled 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Polyoxy Glycol 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Pride‐‐Related compounds 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Propylene Glycol 500000 CCME (2007) 0 Pyrrolidone 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Quinalphos 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Ranger 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Seaweed 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Silicak 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Solvent(Xylene) 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Spinosad 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Surfactant 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Thiomethoxam 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Triazophos 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Tricontenel 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Xylene 0.1 EC (1998) 0 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 27
Annex AnnexIII–Conventionalandorganicfertilizersandpesticidesusedbyfarmers
forcottoncultivationinIndia,forthetwosamplesanalysed
Table 10: Summary of fertilizers and its composition for conventional farming. (Zarate et al., 2011)
1
fertilizers name
ingredient name
%
Diammonium
phosphate (DAP)
Nitrogen
4.14 %
source
personal communication with
CC
Phosphorus
20%
2
Urea
Nitrogen
10.81%
personal communication with
CC
3
(Single) Super
phosphate
Phosphorus
8%
personal communication with
CC
4
Farm Yard
Manure
Nitrogen
0.5%
Phosphorus
0.25 %
Potassium
0.04%
5
Potash
Potassium
14.94 %
6
Ash
Phosphorous
0.44 %
http://www.vanashree.in/fym.htm
personal communication with
CC
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/w
oodash.html
7
8
9
Compost
MIX(18:18:18)
MIX(19:19:19)
Potassium
10%
Nitrogen
1%
http://www.klickitatcounty.org/S
olidWaste/fileshtml/organics/com
postCalc.htm
Phosphorous
0.9%
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$dep
artment/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng4466
Nitrogen
4.14%
Phosphorus
7.74 %
Potassium
14.94 %
Nitrogen
4.37 %
personal communication with
CC
personal communication with
CC
Phosphorus
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 8.17 %
28
Annex fertilizers name
10
11
MIX(10:26:26)
MIX(20:20:0)
ingredient name
%
Potassium
15.77 %
Nitrogen
2.3%
Phosphorus
11.18 %
Potassium
21.58 %
Nitrogen
4.6%
source
personal communication with
CC
personal communication with
CC
12
13
MIX
AgroMax
Phosphorus
8.6%
Nitrogen
3.85 %
Phosphorus
7.92 %
Potassium
3.14 %
Ferrous
2.5%
Molybednum
8%
Zinc
3%
14
BioVita
Phosphorous
0.44 %
15
Castor Fertilizer
Nitrogen
4%
Phosphorous
1%
Potassium
1%
16
pond soil
17
Gypsum
personal communication with
CC
http://www.tradezz.com/buy_262
6907_dk-Biovita-Fertilizer.htm
http://www.castoroil.in/reference/
glossary/castor_cake.html
Calcium
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 29
Annex Table 11: Summary of pesticides and its composition for conventional farming. (Zarate et al., 2011)
1
2
3
4
5
pesticides name
ingredient name
%
source
Acephate
Acephate
77.3%
personal communication with CC
Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate
0.5%
Imidachloprid
17.8%
Pyrrolidone
1%
DimethylSulphoxide
38.4%
Acephate
77.3%
Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate
0.5%
Phosphorous
0.4%
Potassium
10%
Indoxacarb
14.5%
Distilled Methyl Soyate
57.5%
Polyethoxyled
6%
Admire
Asataf
Ash
Avont
personal communication with CC
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/wood
ash.html
personal communication with CC
6
Basalin
Fluchloralin
45%
personal communication with CC
7
Bavistin
Carbendazim
50%
personal communication with CC
Adjuvants
50%
8
Boomflower
Nitrobenzene
20%
9
BT Zyme
Seaweed
5%
Carbohydrates
5%
Imidachloprid
17.8%
Pyrrolidone
1%
Dimethyl Sulphoxide
38.4%
Imidachloprid
17.8%
Pyrrolidone
1%
Dimethyl Sulphoxide
0%
Cypermethrin(e)
25%
Creslox-1
4.5%
Creslox-2
4.5%
Cypermethrine
25%
Creslox-1
4.5%
Creslox-2
4.5%
Thiomethoxam(Thiamethoxam)
25%
Adjuvants
50%
10
11
12
13
14
Confidor
Confidor+BT
Zyme
Cypermethrin
Cypermethrine
Ektara(Aktara)
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
30
Annex 15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
pesticides name
ingredient name
%
source
Emidor
Imidachloprid
17.8%
personal communication with CC
Pyrrolidone
1%
DimethylSulphoxide
38.4%
Endosulphon
39%
Epichlorohydrin
2%
Aronex
48%
Fenvalerate
0.5%
Solvent(Xylene)
2%
Silicak
4%
Endosulphon
39%
Epichlorohydrin
2%
Aronex
48%
Trizaophos
40%
Polyoxy Glycol
7%
Emulsifiers
3%
lambda-cyhalothrin
2.5%
Adjuvants
25.0%
Acephate
77.3%
Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate
0.5%
Mancozeb
75%
Surfactant
25%
Oxydemeton methyl
25%
Emulsifiers
75%
Endosulphon
Fenvalrate
Hildan
Hostathion
Karate
Lucin Powder
M 45
Metasytox
24
Miracle
N-Tricontanol
0.1%
25
Mix(19:19:19)
Nitrogen
19%
Phosphorous
19%
Potash
19%
Monochrotophos
36%
Cyclohexanam
64%
Monochrotopho
s
Monochrotophos
36%
Cyclohexanam
64%
Nuvacron
Monochrotophos
36%
Cyclohexanam
64%
Difenthiuron
50%
Adjuvants
50%
Difenthiuron
50%
26
27
28
29
30
Monocel
Pegasus
Polo
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
31
Annex pesticides name
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Pride
Quinalphos
Ranger
Rogor
shakti25
Spark
Starking
Starkthene
Sulphur
Tata Mida
Thiodon
Tracer
ingredient name
%
Adjuvants
50%
Acetamiprid
20%
Related compounds
80%
Quinalphos
25%
Other ingredients
75%
Picloram
16.8%
2,4 D Amine Salt
34.6%
Dimethoate
35.5%
Xylene
30%
Cyclohexanam
15%
Cypermethrine
25%
Creslox-1
4.5%
Creslox-2
4.5%
Deltamethrin
1%
Triazophos
35.0%
Acephate
77.3%
Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate
0.5%
Fine Silica
22.2%
Acephate
77.3%
Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate
0.5%
Fine Silica
22.2%
Mancozeb
75%
Surfactant
25%
Monochrotophos
36%
Cyclohexanam
64%
Endosulphon
39%
Epichlorohydrin
2%
Aronex
48%
Spinosad
45%
Propylene Glycol
45%
43
Trizaophos
Trizaophos
44
Urea 2%
Nitrogen
source
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
personal communication with CC
http://www.wolframalpha.com/entitie
s/chemicals/triazophos/ma/ne/cf/
47%
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 32
Annex Table 12: Summary of fertilizers and its composition for organic farming. (Zarate et al., 2011)
1
2
fertilizers name
ingredient name
%
source
Ash
Phosphorous
1%
http://www.hort.purdue.e
du/ext/woodash.html
Potassium
10%
Nitrogen
15%
Phosphorous
5.2%
Potassium
5.3%
Bio Fertilizer
3
Buttermilk
Calcium
4
Castor Cake
Nitrogen
6.4%
Phosphorous
0.8%
Potassium
1%
Nitrogen
5.5%
Phosphorous
1.9%
Potassium
1.1%
5
6
Castor DOC
Compost
Nitrogen
1%
Phosphorous
0.9%
7
CowUrine+Ash
Nitrogen
3%
8
Farm Yard Manure
Nitrogen
0.5%
Phosphorous
0.3%
Potassium
0%
9
10
Green fodder compost
Gypsum
Nitrogen
3.4%
Phosphorous
0.9%
http://www.castoroil.in/re
ference/glossary/castor_c
ake.html
http://www.agriculturesou
rce.com/p-castor-doc645181.html
http://www.klickitatcount
y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm
l/organics/compostCalc.ht
m
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.
ca/$department/deptdocs.
nsf/all/eng4466
http://www.klickitatcount
y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm
l/organics/compostCalc.ht
m
http://www.vanashree.in/f
ym.htm
http://www.klickitatcount
y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm
l/organics/compostCalc.ht
m
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.
ca/$department/deptdocs.
nsf/all/eng4466
Calcium
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton http://www.google.com/#
hl=zhCN&rlz=1R2AMSA_enC
N424&q=Bio+Fertilizer+
Nitrogen&oq=Bio+Fertili
zer+Nitrogen&aq=f&aqi=
&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl
=15866l17114l1l7l7l0l6l0
l0l187l187l0.1&bav=on.2
,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=6c59c
6313942c5ad&biw=1259
&bih=595
33
Annex fertilizers name
ingredient name
%
source
http://www.klickitatcount
y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm
l/organics/compostCalc.ht
m
11
Jivamrit
Nitrogen
3%
12
Karanj Cake
Nitrogen
4%
Phosphorous
0.9%
Potassium
1.3%
13
Matka Khad
Nitrogen
3%
14
Neem cake
Nitrogen
5%
Phosphorous
1%
Potassium
1.5%
Nitrogen
5%
Phosphorous
1%
Potassium
1.5%
Nitrogen
7%
15
16
17
18
Neem Fertilizer
Organic Fertilizer
Rock Phosphate
Vermi Compost
Phosphorous
18%
Nitrogen
1%
Phosphorous
0.9%
http://www.natureneem.c
om/index_fichiers/Karanj
a_oil.htm
http://www.klickitatcount
y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm
l/organics/compostCalc.ht
m
http://www.ozonebiotech.
com/neemcake.html
http://www.ozonebiotech.
com/neemcake.html
http://www.dummies.com
/howto/content/fertilizingyour-organic-garden.html
http://www.klickitatcount
y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm
l/organics/compostCalc.ht
m
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.
ca/$department/deptdocs.
nsf/all/eng4466
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 34
Annex Table 13: Summary of pesticides used for organic farming. (Zarate et al., 2011)
Name of pesticide
Active ingredient
Description
1
2
Akda Ark
Akhada Ark
swallow-wort
Bio pesticide.
3
Amrit Sanjeevani
4
5
6
Ash
Bajra Ata
Bel Ark
7
Besharam Ark
Bio pesticide.
Phosphate and Potash
Millet flour
8
Bio Potash
9
Biophos
Phosphate, Potassium,
Sulphur and Calcium
10
http://www.costi
ngagreenfuture.c
om/blog/?p=86
Plant.
Plant.
Water soluble (Foliar /
Fertigation
/
Drip
purposes)
and
Granulated (for soil
applications) forms.
Source
Another name is Methazole. It is
an herbicide in the family of
herbicides
known
as
oxadiazolones.
http://projects.icb
se.com/biology339
http://www.esupp
liersindia.com/pr
athistaindustries-ltd/bio-potashpr613665-sFPswf.html
http://www.garde
news.co.nz/bioph
os.html
http://pubchem.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/s
ummary/summar
y.cgi?cid=4690
Bioxone
C9H6Cl2N2O3
11
Biozyne
Growth hormones,
Trace elements,
Minerals and Vitamins.
12
13
Biveri Basin
Boron
14
Buttermilk
Buttermilks the liquid left behind
after churning butter out of cream.
15
Chili
Chili peppers (Capsicum spp.) can
be used to make a spray or dust to
control pests.
16
17
Coconut water
Cow Urine
Plant
Bio pesticide
Dashaparni Ark
Bio pesticide. Liquid pesticide to
control different pest attack
http://awakeningj
agriti.org/econo
mic_developmen
t.asp
Dhatura
Datura is a genus of nine species of
vespertine flowering plants
belonging to the family
Solanaceae.
http://en.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Datura
18
19
Bio pesticide. It is toxin free ecofriendly bio-degradable product
Boron
Datura
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton http://www.india
mart.com/iial/che
micalfertilizers.html
http://en.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Butter
milk
http://www.farmr
adio.org/english/r
adio-scripts/3411script_en.asp
35
Annex Name of pesticide
20
Garlic
21
Green Planet
22
HNPV(Helicoverpa
nucleopolyhedrovir
us )
23
Jad Ka Pani
24
Jaggery
25
Karanj Oil
26
27
28
29
30
Mahakal
Makta
Medhafoll
Megafoll
Neem Ark
31
Neem Oil
32
Oat ka pani
33
Panchamrit
34
Pushkar
Active ingredient
Description
Source
Garlic is actually called an Allium,
a bulb type plant that smells, don’t
harm the environment
http://www.3step
ads.com/83524/g
arlic-organicpesticide/
Bio pesticide
Bio pesticide. The commercial
helicoverpa NPV is a highly
selective biopesticide that infects
only H. armigera and H. punctigera
larvae. NPV is harmless to
humans, wildlife and beneficial
insects.
It is a traditional unrefined noncentrifugal whole cane sugar
http://en.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Jagger
y
http://biofertilizer
sandpesticides.co
m/neemoil/neem-oil.html
Oil of Pongamia piñata
seeds
Plant
Oil of Azadirachta
indica seeds
Neem oil is a vegetable oil pressed
from the fruits and seeds of the
neem
http://www.livest
rong.com/article/
74231-karanjaoil-comparedneem-oil
BBeleric myrobalan,
Black pepper,
Asafetida,Ghee, Rock
salt, Carum ajowan,
Potassium carbonate,
Castor oil, Black salt,
and Cow urine
Panchamrit is an Ayurvedic
medicine prescribed for treating
constipation, gas, indigestion and
ulcers. It’s also kills the hazardous
effects of pesticides and fertilizers.
http://www.goma
taseva.org/natura
l-pure-cowproducts/digestiv
e-aid/
35
Ratan jyot
Some of Jatropha oil are toxic to
insects and mollusca , and can be
used as a natural crop pesticide.
36
Shrub Ark
Plant.
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton http://www2.dpi.
qld.gov.au/fieldcr
ops/17696.html
http://www.lijun
oilacnepimple.co
m/lijun01/jatroph
aE.htm
http://en.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Shrub
36
Annex Name of pesticide
Active ingredient
Description
37
Slurry
Nutrients and Water
Slurry is the best food for worms.
They will eat slurry and convert it
into wormy compost, the best of all
manures.
38
Tobacco Water
Nicotine
Tobacco pesticide is particularly
effective on soft creatures, such as
slugs and aphids.
39
Trichoderma
Spores and conidia of
Mycoparasitic fungi
40
Tulsi Ark
41
Vermi Wash
Holy Basil
A collection of
excretory products and
excess secretions of
earthworms along with
micronutrients from soil
organic molecules.
It is a Biofungicide, PHOSPHATE
Biofertilizer and also produces
plant growth promoting
substances.
Plant.
VERMI WASH is the liquid
fertilizer collected after the passage
of water through a column of
worm culture. It is very useful as a
foliar spray.
Source
http://tgs.freshpat
ents.com/Organic
-Pesticidebx1.php
http://jyotikothari.hubpages.
com/hub/HowTo-Get-YourFruit-Trees-ToProduce-EdibleFruit---WithoutHarsh-Chemicals
http://www.ehow
.com/how_22273
16_use-organicpesticidetobacco.html
http://www.aliba
ba.com/productfree/116878878/
TRICHODERM
A_Organic_Biof
ungicide_Bioferti
lizer.html
http://www.natio
nalpesticides.co
m/Vermi_wash.h
tm
In grey: no information was found
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 37
Annex AnnexIV–Greywaterfootprintforthe240conventionalfarms
The farms are ordered based on the size of their grey water footprint per tonne of produced cotton (from large to small). Each village is indicated by a unique color. Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) Endosulphan 0.0005 6,805,500
Endosulphan
0.0002 3,334,695 1,111,565 5,557,825
Endosulphan 0.0003 1.76 8,166,600 2,041,650 4,640,114
Endosulphan 0.0006 0.15 0.3 1,361,100 680,550 4,537,000
Endosulphan 0.0002 2 0.20 0.4 1,814,800 907,400 4,537,000
Endosulphan 0.0003 Piprali 5 0.30 1.5 6,238,375 1,247,675 4,158,917
Endosulphan 0.0004 Morthala 2 0.25 0.5 1,451,840 Endosulphan 0.0002 Farm Village 91 Yogeshbhai Bhanabhai Sureya Piprali 6 0.20 1.2 9,064,926 507 Laxman Bhuriya
Chinkavani 1
0.10
0.1
680,550
316 Kadwabhai Manjibhai Nadoliya Surei 3 0.20 0.6 227 Lalit Shivram Rathod Astriya 4 0.44 508 Jeetendra Patel Garvakhedi 2 465 Hirabhai Motibhai Makwana Morthala 99 Hemabhai Nagjibhai Sakhriya 460 Karsanbhai Bharatbhai Digama Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID GWF (m3/t) 1,510,821 7,554,105
680,550
725,920 2,903,680
38
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 280,000 2,800,000
Cypermetrine 0.0001 2,722,200 680,550 2,474,727
Endosulphan 0.0002 0.8 1,680,000 840,000 2,100,000
Cypermetrine 0.0002 0.66 1.98 4,083,300 1,361,100 2,062,273
Endosulphan 0.0004 5 0.20 1 1,750,000 350,000 1,750,000
Cypermetrine 0.0001 Surei 3 0.33 0.99 1,704,913 568,304 1,722,134
Diammonium phosphate / MIX / Compost 0.4357 469 Chaganbhai Jadhavbhai Bhesaliya Mokasara 2 0.70 1.4 2,268,500 1,134,250 1,620,357
Endosulphan 0.0003 308 Rameshbhai Jairambhai Makwana Tajpar 3 0.66 1.98 3,062,475 1,020,825 1,546,705
Endosulphan 0.0003 Farm Village 108 Narsingh Rama Muniya Mahudipada 1 0.10 0.1 280,000 94 Waghabhai Merabhai Sakhariya Piprali 4 0.28 1.1 109 Ramera Madiya Damar Mahudipada 2 0.40 499 Madhabhai Kanabhai Makwana Tajpar 3 265 Dinesh Rameshwar Patidar Bandera 319 Arjibhai Bansirambhai Nadoliya Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 39
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 975,455 1,477,962
Endosulphan 0.0003 490,000 1,225,000
Cypermetrine 0.0001 1,120,000 1,120,000
Cypermetrine 0.0002 1,113,636
Cypermetrine 0.0001 1,093,043
Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0838 Endosulphan 0.0005 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 Endosulphan 0.0003 Endosulphan 0.0001 Farm Village 436 Vihabhai Ajabhai Dabhi Tajpar 3 0.66 1.98 2,926,365 132 Subhash Dalsingh Muniya Mohankot 2 0.40 0.8 980,000 470 Dhirubhai Chaganbhai Wachhani Mokasara 3 1.00 3 3,360,000 201 Bharat Govind Lacheta Belam 7 0.44 3.08 3,430,000 490,000 431 Shukabhai Manjibhai Parmar Sarsna 2 0.10 0.2 218,609 109,304 498 Somabhai Ajabhai Dabhi Tajpar 2 1.50 3 3,266,640 446 Manjibhai Khamjibhai Jadhav Than 8 0.61 4.88 5,081,440 307 Dharabhai Ambabhai Dabhi Tajpar 2 1.00 2 2,041,650 318 Masrubhai Ramabhai Nadoliya Surei 3 0.40 1.2 1,088,880 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 1,633,320 1,088,880
635,180 1,041,279
1,020,825 1,020,825
362,960 907,400 40
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 16 14,518,400 1,451,840 907,400 Endosulphan 0.0004 0.32 1.6 1,361,100 272,220 850,688 Endosulphan 0.0001 7 0.61 4.27 3,175,900 453,700 743,770 Endosulphan 0.0001 Loundi 3 0.40 1.2 850,688 283,563 708,906 Endosulphan 0.0001 Lalarundi 1.5 0.08 0.12 83,184 55,456 693,200 Cyclohexanam 0.0006 5 0.80 4 2,673,913 534,783 668,478 Diammonium phosphate / MIX 0.4100 Belam 8 0.50 4 2,576,000 322,000 644,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 Chavriya 4 0.28 1.12 672,000 168,000 600,000 Cypermetrine 0.0000 Lalabhai Waghabhai Morthala Makwana 4 0.95 3.8 2,177,760 544,440 573,095 Endosulphan 0.0002 5 1.00 5 2,835,625 567,125 567,125 Endosulphan 0.0002 ID Farm Village 317 Devabhai Dhudabhai Bambhwa Surei 10 1.60 89 Surabhai Sinabhai Kokiya Piprali 5 111 Bakabhai Chothabhai Bambhwa Surei 161 Padam Balaji Sohale 49 377 200 Shankar Lala Tad Ramjibhai Kidiyanagar Sureshbhai Kediya Ramesh Hemaji Parmar 147 Walji Galiya Khadiya 459 404 Nandkishore Balkrishna Parihar Mandori Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 41
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 55,435 554,348 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0425 544,440 544,440 494,945 Endosulphan 0.0002 2.49 1,095,691 365,230 440,037 MIX / Castor / Compost 0.2800 0.80 2 850,688 340,275 425,344 Endosulphan 0.0001 6 0.40 2.4 998,208 166,368 415,920 Cyclohexanam 0.0017 Farm Village 264 Viharilal Babulal Patidar Bandera 10 0.10 1 554,348 466 Bhagabhai Morthala Sidhabhai Makwana 1 1.10 1.1 388 Samadbhai Babubhai Chowhan Palsava‐ 3 0.83 158 Ramesh Govind Meena Loundi 2.5 39 Amra Galiya Ninama Ambapada 256 Ravji Dayabhai Solanki Sarsna 2 0.35 0.7 286,957 143,478 409,938 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.1100 339 Karsanbhai Bhanabhai Makwana Umiya 22 0.18 4 1,578,261 71,739 394,565 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0550 315 Karsanbhai Samatbhai Mewada Surei 4 0.90 3.6 1,361,100 340,275 378,083 Endosulphan 0.0001 237 Dinesh Shivlal Patidar Nandra 15 1.00 15 5,670,000 378,000 378,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 253 Shivlal Babulal Patidar Somakhedi 5 0.40 2 748,200 149,640 374,100 TriAzophos 0.0003 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 42
Annex ID Farm Village 193 Lokesh Gajaraj Patel Jagatpura Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 15 0.66 9.9 3,607,875 240,525 364,432 Difenthiuron 0.0002 Mandori 12 0.86 10.32 3,591,360 299,280 348,000 TriAzophos 0.0002 53 Kalu Thaliya Ninama Lalarundi 1.5 0.16 0.24 83,184 55,456 346,600 Cyclohexanam 0.0006 405 Premchand Kaluram Parihar 41 Jeetendra Thawarji Ambapada Gomad 1 0.12 0.12 41,592 41,592 346,600 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 258 Mahendra Narayan Patidar 10 0.80 8 2,672,500 267,250 334,063 Difenthiuron 0.0003 490 Vallabhbhai Pipliya(Dhora)
Fattebhai Makwana 1 1.00 1 294,905 294,905 294,905 Endosulphan 0.0001 Nandra 455 Narsubhai Gangaram Makwana Than 2.5 0.80 2 544,440 217,776 272,220 Endosulphan 0.0001 208 Santosh Ganpat Parihar Belam 8 0.75 6 1,596,160 199,520 266,027 TriAzophos 0.0002 4 0.43 1.72 445,866 111,467 259,225 Acephate 0.0011 8 0.50 4 1,026,240 128,280 256,560 Difenthiuron 0.0002 235 Narayan Shobharam Somakhedi Patidar 194 Ronit Bharat Patel Jagatpura Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 43
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 24,955 249,552 Cyclohexanam 0.0000 1,264,957 316,239 243,261 TriAzophos 0.0008 3 718,272 119,712 239,424 TriAzophos 0.0002 0.27 0.81 185,283 61,761 228,744 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0474 6 0.50 3 684,783 114,130 228,261 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0875 Morthala 2 0.25 0.5 110,870 55,435 221,739 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0425 Ramlal Phulchand Patidar Nandra 10 1.00 10 2,138,000 213,800 213,800 Difenthiuron 0.0002 Bababhai Jogabhai Makwana Bhotakiya 6 0.60 3.6 768,522 128,087 213,478 MIX / Castor / Compost 0.0982 Belam 5 0.50 2.5 527,819 105,564 211,128 Difenthiuron 0.0002 Farm Village 121 Madiya Noorji Damar Mahudipada 1 0.10 0.1 24,955 204 Bhagwan Punaji Parihar Belam 4 1.30 5.2 254 Kamlesh Mohan Patidar Somakhedi 6 0.50 338 Kanjibhai Mahadevbhai Makwana Umiya 3 497 Devshabhai Nanjibhai Dabhi Tajpar 458 Bhurabhai Bhikhabhai Makwana 260 331 210 Vikas Bharat Pawar Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 44
Annex ID Farm 166 Jagnnath Natthu Pol Village Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) Bagpal 3 0.33 0.99 207,000 69,000 209,091 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0529 450 Prabhubhai Motibhai Makwana Than 4 0.50 2 397,826 99,457 198,913 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0763 127 Ukar Surji Singad Jampada 2 0.20 0.4 78,261 39,130 195,652 Diammonium phosphate 0.0300 71 Veerjibhai Ladabhai Sapra Sarsna 4 0.20 0.8 156,522 39,130 195,652 Diammonium phosphate 0.0300 101 Khimabhai Pachabhai Rajpur Bhotakiya 8 1.13 9 1,751,501 218,938 194,611 Fluchloralin 0.0000 36 Avla Danna Ninama Lalarundi 1.5 0.20 0.3 58,229 38,819 194,096 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 146 Sakru Sakku Dindor Chavriya 1 0.20 0.2 37,710 37,710 188,550 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 195 Ramesh Bhawariya Meher Jagatpura 7 0.80 5.6 1,047,620 149,660 187,075 Difenthiuron 0.0002 241 Gyanabhai Ladabhai Sapra Sarsna 6 0.25 1.5 273,913 45,652 182,609 Diammonium phosphate 0.0350 129 Sambu Rubji Muniya Mohankot 1 0.20 0.2 36,522 36,522 182,609 Diammonium phosphate / Super Phosphate 0.0280 236 Rajendra Thakurlal Patidar Nandra 5 0.80 4 725,000 145,000 181,250 Carbendazim 0.0003 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 45
Annex ID Farm Village Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 52 Nanuram Fatta Med Lalarundi 1 0.20 0.2 36,046 36,046 180,232 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 413 Ram Jagdish Patidar Mandori 5 0.90 4.5 801,750 160,350 178,167 Difenthiuron 0.0003 Nandra 10 0.75 7.5 1,336,250 133,625 178,167 Difenthiuron 0.0001 Got 1 0.28 0.28 49,494 49,494 176,766 Cyclohexanam 0.0005 1.5 2.00 3 525,000 350,000 175,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 261 Kaluram Sitaram Patidar 506 Rapa Guman Bhigad 478 Veljibhai Amarsibhai Mokasara Rajpara 34 Devji Vadda Ninama Lalarundi 1 0.12 0.12 20,661 20,661 Diammonium phosphate / 172,174 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0158 411 Ashok Sriram Parihar Mandori 2 0.60 1.2 202,174 101,087 168,478 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0775 171 Manju Babulal Kotwal Bagpal 6 0.66 3.96 649,320 108,220 163,970 Acephate 0.0011 59 Mangu Amara Devda Satrundi 1 0.20 0.2 32,257 32,257 Diammonium phosphate / 161,283 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 196 Prakash Shankarlal Yadav Jagatpura 4 0.88 3.52 563,478 140,870 160,079 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0247 0.1080 46
Annex ID Farm 126 Sadiya Lula Hatela Village Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) Mohankot 1 0.28 0.28 44,348 44,348 158,385 Diammonium phosphate / Super Phosphate 0.0340 131 Devisingh Nagla Muniya Mohankot 6 0.20 1.2 186,332 31,055 155,277 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 223 Ganesh Ambaram Patidar Astriya 4 0.36 1.44 221,739 55,435 153,986 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0425 86 Ramchandra Dina Bhuriya Chinkavani 1 0.15 0.15 22,182 22,182 147,883 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 144 Kantilal Vaktaji Muniya Chavriya 2 0.28 0.56 79,857 39,928 142,601 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 359 Hirabhai Ratanbhai Makwana Umiya 2 0.30 0.6 84,783 42,391 141,304 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0325 181 Subhash Mishrilal Patidar Astriya 6 0.46 2.76 384,840 64,140 139,435 Difenthiuron 0.0001 136 Haresingh Somla Meda Chinkavani 7 0.60 4.2 582,288 83,184 138,640 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 40 Dilip Shankar Muniya Ambapada 4 0.20 0.8 110,912 27,728 138,640 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 259 Omprakash Dhannalal Patidar Nandra 8 1.25 10 1,368,320 171,040 136,832 Difenthiuron 0.0002 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 47
Annex ID Farm Village 122 Rupsingh Nathu Bhuriya Jampada Rupsingh Raichand 112 Mahudipada Arad Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) 2.5 0.20 66,547 GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 26,619 133,094 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 0.0203 1 0.20 0.2 26,413 26,413 Diammonium phosphate / 132,065 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 68 Babariya Gulji Bhuriya Chinkavani 1 0.20 0.2 26,082 26,082 130,408 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 197 Gangaram Mohan Parihar Jagatpura 4 1.10 4.4 563,478 140,870 128,063 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.1080 501 Babanu Guman Bhigad Got 2 0.32 0.64 79,857 39,928 124,776 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 6 0.35 2.1 254,348 42,391 121,118 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0325 462 Sanabhai Sukhabhai Morthala Sapra 453 Prafulben Harishbhai Dodhiwala Than 7 0.62 4.34 511,761 73,109 117,917 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0561 361 Ratanbhai Bhurabhai Makwana Umiya 10 0.50 5 570,652 57,065 114,130 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0438 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 0.5 Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 48
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 66,792 111,320 Distilled Methyl Soyate 0.0002 88,730 44,365 110,912 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 0.7 77,638 38,819 110,912 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 0.65 6.5 717,391 71,739 110,368 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0550 1 0.32 0.32 34,239 34,239 106,997 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0263 Bandera 4 0.25 1 103,891 25,973 103,891 Acephate 0.0003 Got 1 0.40 0.4 41,072 41,072 102,680 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 Farm Village 212 Motilal Sakharam Patel Astriya 4 0.60 2.4 267,168 120 Nathu Hukiya Damar Mahudipada 2 0.40 0.8 263 Rajendra Dhannalal Patidar Bandera 2 0.35 245 Radhesham Mangilal Patidar Somakhedi 10 503 Amramli Guman Gharel Got 266 Bhagwan Rameshwar Patidar 502 Adada Bhada Meda 420 Ganesh Nemichand Patidar Bhudri 3 0.56 1.68 167,165 55,722 99,503 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0427 392 Jaipalbhai Babubhai Jogiya Palsava‐ 7 0.50 3.5 346,957 49,565 99,130 Castor / Compost 0.0380 1 0.20 0.2 19,565 19,565 97,826 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0150 116 Wala Nanaji Parmar Chinkavani Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 49
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 28,837 96,124 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 143,478 28,696 95,652 Diammonium phosphate 0.0220 1.04 99,128 49,564 95,315 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 Farm Village 28 Ganesh Nathu Bhuriya Jampada 2 0.30 0.6 57,674 65 Sagrambhai Chondabhai Rathod Mevasa 5 0.30 1.5 Got 2 0.52 505 Somu Bada Madiya 252 Gyanchand Babulal Somakhedi Parihar 5 0.60 3 277,174 55,435 92,391 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0425 390 Merubhai Dalabhai Rathod 5 0.40 2 182,609 36,522 91,304 Castor / Compost 0.0280 440 Gobarbhai Bhamrasla Popatbhai Bharwad 3 0.53 1.59 144,075 48,025 90,613 Cyclohexanam 0.0005 110 Ambaram Mansingh Mahudipada Dindore 2 0.30 0.6 54,110 27,055 90,183 Acephate 0.0003 336 Jiyabhai Bhanabhai Gami Umiya 5 0.80 4 358,696 71,739 89,674 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0550 186 Manohar Amirchand Patidar Astriya 2 0.40 0.8 71,739 35,870 89,674 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0275 217 Rajendra Raghunath Kag Bagpal 8 0.38 3 267,652 33,457 89,217 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0257 Palsava‐ Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 50
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 26,087 86,957 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0313 26,087 13,043 86,957 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0325 8 684,160 85,520 85,520 Difenthiuron 0.0001 1.00 2 169,565 84,783 84,783 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0650 4 0.50 2 169,565 42,391 84,783 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0325 Got 2 0.48 0.96 79,857 39,928 83,184 Cyclohexanam 0.0011 Farm Village 80 Bhutakbhai Ramjibhai Patel Shikharpur 40 0.30 12 1,043,478 81 Kishorebhai Murlibhai Patel Shikharpur 2 0.15 0.3 240 Ganesh Dhannalal Patidar Bandera 8 1.00 301 Samdalabhai Dalabhai Bayad Bhimasar 2 347 Ambabhai Mahadeva Ravriya Padampar 504 Makna Badiya Meda 452 Nagarbhai Pitambarbhai Makwana Than 2 1.00 2 163,043 81,522 81,522 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0625 244 Parbatbhai Vaghsibhai Rajpara Mokasara 4.5 0.66 2.97 239,478 53,217 80,632 Diammonium phosphate / Super Phosphate / Compost
0.0408 298 Jaimalbhai Dalabhai Bhimasar Parmar 3 0.90 2.7 215,217 71,739 79,710 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0550 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 51
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 62,609 78,261 Diammonium phosphate 0.0480 73,202 24,401 76,252 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 0.28 21,196 21,196 75,699 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0163 Farm Village 8 Sabhlabhai Bhurabhai Rathod Mevasa 5 0.80 4 313,043 Chavriya 3 0.32 0.96 1 0.28 143 Ravji Dhanji Khadiya 38 Puriya Hira Ninama Ambapada 442 Ramabhai Popatbhai Bhamrasla 4 1.00 4 300,000 75,000 75,000 Diammonium phosphate 0.0575 57 Ranchod Gangaram Anjana Satrundi 2 0.48 0.96 71,739 35,870 74,728 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0275 198 Mohan Bhawliya Goad Jagatpura 5 0.80 4 294,783 58,957 73,696 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0452 391 Samatbhai Savvabhai Gagani Palsava‐ 4 0.50 2 146,087 36,522 73,043 Castor / Compost 0.0280 426 Mohanbhai Jaisinghbhai Parmar Sarsna 1 0.60 0.6 42,391 42,391 70,652 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0325 389 Ladabhai Gangabhai Dhasali Palsava‐ 5 0.40 2 140,870 28,174 70,435 Compost 0.0216 353 Previnbhai Parbatbhai Patel Padampar 4 0.45 1.8 125,217 31,304 69,565 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0240 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 52
Annex ID Farm Village 50 Govardhan Ninama Ambapada Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 4 0.40 1.6 110,912 27,728 69,320 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 170 Hariom Hiralal Jaiswal Bagpal 2 0.70 1.4 95,217 47,609 68,012 Diammonium phosphate / Super Phosphate / Compost
0.0365 96 Gulabben labhubhai Rangpara Piprali 2 0.60 1.2 79,696 39,848 66,413 Diammonium phosphate / MIX / Compost 0.0306 393 Ashokbhai Jevabhai Bhotakiya Mali 2 1.00 2 130,435 65,217 65,217 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0770 76 Ratnabhai Devdasji Shikharpur Patel 10 0.20 2 130,435 13,043 65,217 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0213 78 Ranchhod Narsinh Shikharpur Patel 10 0.20 2 130,435 13,043 65,217 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0213 376 Ganeshbhai Babubhai Kediya Kidiyanagar 2 0.40 0.8 52,174 26,087 65,217 Diammonium phosphate 0.0200 35 Nanuram Parangi Lalarundi 1 0.20 0.2 13,043 13,043 65,217 Diammonium phosphate 0.0100 422 Jagdish Mangal Pawar Bhudri 6 0.66 3.96 250,435 41,739 63,241 Diammonium phosphate 0.0320 Satrundi 2 0.40 0.8 50,543 25,272 63,179 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0194 58 Amar Punjaji Devda Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 53
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 31,304 62,609 Diammonium phosphate 0.0240 247,826 49,565 61,957 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0380 3 184,796 36,959 61,599 Diammonium phosphate / MIX / Compost 0.0283 0.86 6.88 415,565 51,946 60,402 Acephate 0.0005 4 0.48 1.92 115,348 28,837 60,077 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 25 Badda Naniya Athila Jampada 2 0.45 0.9 53,238 26,619 59,153 Cyclohexanam 0.0011 7 Pirjibhai Randhaliya Mevasa 5 1.12 5.6 326,087 65,217 58,230 Diammonium phosphate 0.0500 209 Sadashiv Shankar Parihar Belam 6 1.00 6 333,248 55,541 55,541 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure / Mix 0.0426 352 Harjiubhai Gopalbhai Minar Padampar 2 1.00 2 110,870 55,435 55,435 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0425 387 Haribhai Bhuvanbhai Rathod Palsava‐ 5 0.80 4 221,739 44,348 55,435 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0340 Farm Village 421 Kamal Bhivra Patidar Bhudri 2 0.50 1 62,609 251 Chhotu Natthu Pathan Somakhedi 5 0.80 4 159 Rajesh Harinarayan More Loundi 5 0.60 443 Madhurbhai Popatbhai Dodiya Bhamrasla 8 133 Ramesh Dalsing Muniya Mohankot Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 54
Annex ID 349 Farm Village Khetabhai Velabhai Padampar Dubariya Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) 6 0.83 270,783 GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 45,130 54,374 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0346 62 Kalu Gavji Dindor Satrundi 1 0.32 0.32 17,283 17,283 Diammonium phosphate / 54,008 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 299 Jokaerbhai Ajabhai Parmar Bhimasar 5 0.80 4 215,217 43,043 53,804 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0330 239 Ganesh Ramlal Patidar Bandera 2 0.85 1.7 91,304 45,652 53,708 Diammonium phosphate 0.0350 64 Kanabhai Bijalbhai Rathod Mevasa 8 0.70 5.6 299,462 37,433 53,475 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 475 Harjibhai Dharamsibhai Rajapara Mokasara 6 0.83 4.98 266,189 44,365 53,452 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 4 0.98 3.92 207,782 51,946 53,006 Acephate 0.0005 480 Laljibhai Karsanbhai Pipliya(Dhora)
Makwana 0.0133 61 Ramaji Bhuvan Maida Satrundi 1 0.40 0.4 21,196 21,196 52,989 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0163 302 Laxmanbhai Bhimabhai Bayad Bhimasar 3 1.16 3.48 182,739 60,913 52,511 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0467 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 4.98 Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 55
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 26,087 52,174 Diammonium phosphate 0.0200 23,292 15,528 51,759 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 1.2 61,304 30,652 51,087 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0235 0.77 2.31 117,391 39,130 50,819 Diammonium phosphate 0.0300 3 0.40 1.2 60,457 20,152 50,380 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0155 Mandori 15 0.83 12.45 623,880 41,592 50,111 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Becharbhai Gobarbhai Wachhani Mokasara 0.5 1.20 0.6 30,000 60,000 50,000 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0460 410 Krishna Santosh Patel Mandori 2 0.80 1.6 78,261 39,130 48,913 Diammonium phosphate 0.0300 418 Tilokchand Revaramji Parihar Bhudri 4 0.88 3.52 169,565 42,391 48,172 Acephate 0.0325 Farm Village 230 Rameshkumar Bhalaji More Loundi 3 0.50 1.5 78,261 29 Anasingh Nathu Bhuriya Jampada 1.5 0.30 0.45 337 Manjibhai Bhanabhai Gami Umiya 2 0.60 488 Veshyarambhai Pipliya(Dhora)
Amrabhai Parmar 3 2 Gendala Ganpat Patel Garvakhedi 412 Mohan Ganesh Patidar 241 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 56
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 23,478 46,957 Diammonium phosphate / Super Phosphate 0.0180 88,730
22,182
46,213
Cyclohexanam
0.0002 2.79 127,174 42,391 45,582 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0325 0.25 1 44,870 11,217 44,870 MIX 0.0086 2 0.40 0.8 35,492 17,746 44,365 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Farm Village 130 Lolsingh Dalla Damer Mohankot 1 0.50 0.5 23,478 37 Lulla Gamod
Ambapada 4
0.48
1.92
297 Ratanbhai Khimabhai Parmar Bhimasar 3 0.93 95 Bhushanbhai Narsibhai Rangpara Piprali 4 113 Besaya Lula Dindor Chinkavani 322 Ramjibhai Dudhabhai Makwana Bhotakiya 5 1.00 5 218,478 43,696 43,696 Diammonium phosphate / Castor / Compost 0.0335 12 Devayatbhai Karmalbhai Khambhla Mevasa 4 0.75 3 130,435 32,609 43,478 Diammonium phosphate 0.0250 Bagpal 1 0.60 0.6 26,087 26,087 43,478 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0200 2 0.15 0.3 13,043 6,522 43,478 Farm Yard Manure 0.0050 3 0.83 2.49 108,000 36,000 43,373 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0276 221 Pradip Jagdish Kag 509 Malla Badhiya Meda Garvakhedi 348 Harishbhai Parbatbhai Minar Padampar Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 57
Annex ID Farm Village 454 Bhikhabhai Motibhai Makwana Than 485 323 Rameshbhai Pipliya(Dhora)
Amrabhai Galsar Jasabhai Pachabhai Bhotakiya Kodi Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 6 1.00 6 257,131 42,855 42,855 Acephate 0.0004 5 0.60 3 127,549 25,510 42,516 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 6 1.00 6 254,348 42,391 42,391 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0325 231 Vijay Bhagirath Savle Loundi 3 0.50 1.5 62,609 20,870 41,739 Diammonium phosphate 0.0160 138 Buariya Galiya Khadiya Chavriya 2 0.32 0.64 26,619 13,309 41,592 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 380 Rambhai Ajabhai Rathod Kidiyanagar 5 0.60 3 123,913 24,783 41,304 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0190 439 Lagrabhai Bhamrasla Revajibhai Talwania 6 0.53 3.18 129,913 21,652 40,853 Diammonium phosphate 0.0166 381 Dayabhai Rangabhai Kidiyanagar Rathod 5 0.60 3 117,391 23,478 39,130 Compost 0.0180 441 Vijaybhai Rahabhai Bhamrasla Bharwad 4 0.90 3.6 138,783 34,696 38,551 Diammonium phosphate 0.0266 167 Gendalal Gangaram Mansore 7 0.80 5.6 213,890 30,556 38,195 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0234 Bagpal Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 58
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 13,587 37,741 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 130,435 26,087 37,267 Diammonium phosphate 0.0200 1.5 54,783 27,391 36,522 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0210 Farm Village 213 Mahesh Ambaram Patidar Astriya 4 0.36 1.44 54,347 157 Hariram Narayan More Loundi 5 0.70 3.5 2 0.75 350 Dayabhai Amrabhai Padampar Parmar 63 Bhalsurbhai Savsibhai Rathod Mevasa 7 0.69 4.8 169,565 24,224 35,326 Diammonium phosphate 0.0186 428 Laljibhai Somabhai Sapra Sarsna 6 0.50 3 105,366 17,561 35,122 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 486 Babubhai Umarbhai Pipliya(Dhora)
Pathan 3 0.93 2.79 90,000 30,000 32,258 Diammonium phosphate 0.0230 379 Ratanbhai Shinbhai Kidiyanagar Kediya 5 0.80 4 123,913 24,783 30,978 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0190 2 0.85 1.7 51,946 25,973 30,556 Acephate 0.0003 479 Veerjibhai Mehranbhai Makwana Pipliya(Dhora)
27 Ambu Badda Damar Jampada 3 0.30 0.9 24,457 8,152 27,174 Farm Yard Manure 0.0063 145 Balu Galiya Khadiya Chavriya 4 0.48 1.92 52,174 13,043 27,174 Diammonium phosphate / Farm Yard Manure 0.0100 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) ID 59
Annex ID Farm Village 300 Baddev Dalabhai Parmar Bhimasar 5 Kalu Nanda Tipoliya Garvakhedi Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 5 0.90 4.5 114,130 22,826 25,362 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0175 4 0.40 1.6 38,819 9,705 24,262 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 406 Jitendra Ganesh Parihar Bhudri 10 0.95 9.5 216,440 21,644 22,783 Acephate 0.0002 69 Bahadursingh Anjana Satrundi 2 0.60 1.2 26,739 13,370 22,283 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard Manuare 0.0103 419 Ishwar Surajmal Nayak Bhudri 8 1.00 8 141,967 17,746 17,746 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 10 Kashiram Patel Garvakhedi 2 0.40 0.8 13,864 6,932 17,330 Cyclohexanam 0.0005 Maljibhai Revabhai Shikharpur Patel 15 0.53 7.95 136,957 9,130 17,227 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0145 77 375 Baldevbhai Banabhai Kediya Kidiyanagar 5 1.20 6 84,783 16,957 14,130 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.0130 82 Pravinbhai Murlibhai Patel Shikharpur 2 1.00 2 26,087 13,043 13,043 Diammonium phosphate / Compost 0.1000 Javerbhai Ravjibhai Bhamrasla Dodiya 6 0.83 4.98 39,928 6,655 8,018 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 438 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 60
Annex ID Farm Village Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 280 Parbatbhai Juna Katariya Govardhan Patel 35 0.06 1.995 12,069 345 6,050 Compost 0.0270 304 Ranjitsinh Gumansinh jadeja 40 0.01 0.4 2,299 57 5,747 Compost 0.0045 Samatbhai Ranchod Juna Katariya Koli 5 0.16 0.8 2,299 460 2,874 Compost 0.0360 277 Parbat Jetha Patel Juna Katariya 9 0.13 1.17 2,586 287 2,210 Compost 0.0225 9 0.08 0.72 1,149 128 1,596 Compost 0.0100 278 92 Wandhiya Balabhai Murjibhai Wandhiya Devda 289 Dharamji Khimji Patel Narayansari 23 0.10 2.3 3,516 153 1,529 Compost 0.0120 394 Munjibhai Narayanbhai Patel Wandhiya 8 0.23 1.8 2,586 323 1,437 Compost 0.0253 510 Kishan Devji Patel Juna Katariya 5 0.10 0.5 575 115 1,149 Compost 0.0090 4 0.40 1.6 1,724 431 1,078 Compost 0.0338 72 0.12 8.64 8,276 115 958 Compost 0.0090 291 365 Veerjibhai Kesarbhai Patel Wandhiya Kanjibhai Gangjibhai Narayansari Patel Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) 61
Annex Surface area of Y Production application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Pesticide or fertilizer of concern Total application rate (t/acre) 96 870 Compost 0.0075 1,916 128 798 Compost 0.0100 1.2 893 89 744 Compost 0.0070 ID Farm Village 290 Jairambhai Pannabhai Patel Narayansari 18 0.11 1.98 1,723 Gokul Mohanbhai Narayansari Patel 15 0.16 2.4 276 Jeevan Devji Patel Juna Katariya 10 0.12 400 292 Dharamji Becharbhai Patel Wandhiya 5 0.40 2 1,437 287 718 Compost 0.0225 274 Ratabhai Ramji Patel Narayansari 8 0.20 1.6 1,149 144 718 Compost 0.0113 395 Kanjibhai Haribhai Patel Wandhiya 10 0.40 4 2,586 259 647 Compost 0.0203 399 Ranchodbhai Narayansari Mohanbhai Patel 9 0.18 1.62 1,034 115 639 Compost 0.0090 150 Lokendra Jani Garvakhedi 7 0.20 1.4 435 62 311 Urea 0.005 386 Kanhabhai Vithabhai Mali Bhotakiya 3 1.00 3 690 230 230 Compost 0.0180 10 0.32 3.2 690 69 216 Compost 0.0054 367 Ramji Velabhai Patel Juna Katariya Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 62
Annex AnnexV–Greywaterfootprintforthe240organicfarms
The farms are ordered based on the size of their grey water footprint per tonne of produced cotton (from large to small). Each village is indicated by a unique color. ID Farm Murjibhai Mebhaya Patel Nandkishore Kaluji 423 Patidar Pannabhai Hirjibhai 330 Patel Gajabhai Sugabhai 360 Rajpur 398 397 Manjbhai Deva Patel 414 358 207 155 189 468 437 Vijusingh Narsingh Nayak Samatbhai Shavabhai Makwana Manohar Khushalji Solanki Jeetendra Shankar Chowhan Natthu Rajaram Yadav Sunderbhai Mohanbhai Digama Mohanbhai Khimabhai Jolapara Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Shikharpur 15 0.12 1.8 1,320,652 88,043 733,696
Bhudri 4 0.25 1 386,817 96,704 386,817
Narayansari 15 0.06 0.9 330,163 22,011 366,848
Bhotakiya 3 0.33 0.99 246,522 82,174 249,012
Shikharpur 12 0.08 0.96 234,689 19,557 244,467
Bhudri 2 0.3 0.6 119,478 59,739 199,130
Umiya 4 0.35 1.4 249,552 62,388 178,251
Belam 6 0.5 3 528,261 88,043 176,087
Loundi 2.5 1 2.5 440,217 176,087 176,087
Jagatpura 5 0.5 2.5 440,217 88,043 176,087
Morthala 3 0.23 0.69 105,652 35,217 153,119
Bhamrasla 4 0.75 3 443,478 110,870 147,826
Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 7.500 7.507 1.875 7.000 1.666 5.001 5.251 7.500 15.000 7.500 0.027 5.040 63
Annex ID Farm 151 Laxman Gotuji More Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Production per farm (t) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Loundi 2 0.6 1.2 176,087 88,043 146,739
Loundi 2 0.4 0.8 117,391 58,696 146,739
320 Vipul Jevabhai Mali Bhotakiya 3 0.16 0.48 70,435 23,478 146,739
211 Harilal Kaluji Jaiswal Bagpal 5 0.7 3.5 498,913 99,783 142,547
Sarsna 6 0.42 2.52 352,174 58,696 139,752
Shikharpur 9 0.22 1.98 264,130 29,348 133,399
Bagpal 5 0.6 3 381,522 76,304 127,174
Astriya 10 0.7 7 880,435 88,043 125,776
Astriya 5 0.7 3.5 440,217 88,043 125,776
Bhudri 2 0.75 1.5 180,261 90,130 120,174
Mandori 9 0.5 4.5 540,587 60,065 120,130
Mandori 6 0.5 3 356,478 59,413 118,826
Narayansari 8 0.15 1.2 140,870 17,609 117,391
Bhudri 4.5 0.56 2.52 291,952 64,878 115,854
Somakhedi 6.5 0.32 2.08 238,960 36,763 114,885
232 427 396 214 224 225 425 401 408 364 417 272 Rajendra Mangilal Chowhan Kushabhai Becharbhai Solanki Ranchodbhai Narsobhai Patel Babulal Govind Kotwal Gajanan Shobharav Patidar Usha Gananan Patidar Uttam Subhash Patidar Rajnath Sitaram Patidar Dharmesh Sevakram Patidar Becharbhai Akhaibhai Patel Shyam Mahadev Patidar Ritesh Phulchand Patidar Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 7.500 5.000 2.000 8.500 5.000 2.500 6.500 7.500 7.500 7.502 5.001 5.001 1.500 5.005 2.704 64
Annex ID 362 175 295 269 424 271 190 402 Farm Jivtiben Panchabhai Makwana Mahadev Shobharao Patidar Veljibhai Bhurabhai Patel Dharmendra Omprakash Dhariya Subhash Gajanan Patidar Prakash Jagnnath Patidar Dinesh Laxman Pawar Mohan Ganesh Patidar 234 Anil Prakash Patidar 415 342 221 296 373 Mahadev Bhagwan Parihar Hasmukhbhai Shavabhai Makwana Girdhari Shobharam Patidar Mansubhai Dudhabhai Makwana Samatbhai Bagabhai Rathod Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Bhotakiya 4 0.75 3 331,304 82,826 110,435
Astriya 6 0.83 4.98 534,130 89,022 107,255
Shikharpur 8 0.175 1.4 146,504 18,313 104,646
Nandra 7 0.5 3.5 362,843 51,835 103,670
Bhudri 6 0.87 5.22 540,783 90,130 103,598
Somakhedi 3 0.66 1.98 201,209 67,070 101,621
Jagatpura 4 0.87 3.48 353,478 88,370 101,574
Mandori 5 0.6 3 302,935 60,587 100,978
Somakhedi 5 0.4 2 201,209 40,242 100,604
Bhudri 8 0.69 5.52 552,313 69,039 100,057
Umiya 3.5 0.43 1.505 147,887 42,253 98,263 Astriya 15 0.6 9 880,435 58,696 97,826 Bhimasar 2 0.75 1.5 146,739 73,370 97,826 Kidiyanagar 8 0.5 4 375,652 46,957 93,913 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 7.001 7.501 1.560 2.517 7.502 5.006 7.500 5.001 3.004 5.008 3.571 5.000 6.250 4.000 65
Annex ID 384 341 489 187 180 303 416 473 409 370 105 451 222 Farm Village Lilaben Kumbhabhai Kidiyanagar Rathod Devabhai Khedabhai Umiya Makwana Surabhai Vastabhai Pipliya(Dhora) Makwana Bankatlal Mangilal Jagatpura Sen Urmila Mahadev Astriya Patidar Pemabhai Pavanbhai Bhimasar Makwana Ramjibhai Hirabhai Sarsna Parmar Shivabhai Dharmasibhai Mokasara Rajpura Krishnakant Mandori Ramsevak Patidar Jeevanbhai Savjibhai Narayansari Patel Karmasibhai Mevasa Ravsibhai Rathod Becharbhai Kogabhai Mevasa Khatala Mohan Bhimaji Bagpal Humber 229 Govind Balram More Loundi Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) 9.5 0.5 4.75 446,087 46,957 93,913 4 0.5 2 181,957 45,489 90,978 1 0.5 0.5 45,000 45,000 90,000 3 0.66 1.98 177,077 59,026 89,433 5 1 5 442,663 88,533 88,533 2 1 2 176,087 88,043 88,043 4 0.45 1.8 156,829 39,207 87,127 3 0.2 0.6 52,216 17,405 87,026 5 0.7 3.5 296,087 59,217 84,596 7 0.14 0.98 82,174 11,739 83,851 2 0.9 1.8 146,739 73,370 81,522 4 0.55 2.2 177,235 44,309 80,561 3 0.37 1.11 88,043 29,348 79,318 4 0.75 3 237,391 59,348 79,130 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 4.000 3.875 0.035 5.000 7.500 7.500 3.152 0.013 5.000 1.000 3.773 3.750 2.500 5.002 66
Annex ID 484 482 79 363 293 188 346 Farm Amarsibhai Janabhai Pipliya(Dhora) Makwana Vinubhai Somabhai Pipliya(Dhora) Makwana Pawan Murlibhai Shikharpur Patel Katiben Ramji Bhotakiya Makwana Behtarbhai Wandhiya Ranchodbhai Patel Ratanlal Govind Jagatpura Pawar Raghubhai Padampar Anantabhai Patel 51 Ukar Baluji Dayima 97 461 432 255 192 327 Village Venubhai Bacchubhai Rathod Jeevanbhai Chaganbhai Shaikh Sukhrambhai Bhuvanbhai Jolapara Prabhu Savsibhai Dholkiya Rakesh Gendalal Yadav Ranabhai Jogabhai Parmar Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) 1 1 1 79,096 79,096 79,096 2 0.8 1.6 122,609 61,304 76,630 32 0.18 5.76 440,264 13,758 76,435 1.5 0.53 0.795 59,668 39,779 75,054 20 0.2 4 293,478 14,674 73,370 6 0.66 3.96 290,191 48,365 73,281 3 0.83 2.49 176,087 58,696 70,718 Lalarundi 1 0.24 0.24 16,304 16,304 67,935 Piprali 2 0.25 0.5 33,587 16,793 67,174 Morthala 2 0.6 1.2 78,261 39,130 65,217 Bhamrasla 1 0.9 0.9 58,696 58,696 65,217 Sarsna 1.5 0.47 0.705 44,022 29,348 62,442 Jagatpura 7 0.57 3.99 246,522 35,217 61,785 Palsava‐ 5 0.8 4 246,522 49,304 61,630 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 0.061 0.047 1.172 3.334 1.250 4.001 5.000 0.013 0.013 0.030 5.000 2.500 3.000 4.200 67
Annex ID 434 456 436 335 203 152 284 311 191 Farm Jagabhai Bhuvanbhai Jolapara Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Makwana Dhudabhai Mohanbhai Jolapara Bacchubhai Dharamsibhai Patel Prakash Babulal Parihar Gajaraj Parasram More Morji Savji Patel Rajabhai Kanabhai Kansagara Mukesh Gendalal Yadav 11 Varsing Velji Singad 247 403 333 357 407 Rajesh Sitaram Patidar Ramchandra balaram Patidar Ambavibhai Raghubhai Minar Shavabhai Bhurabhai Makwana Ajay Ramchandra Patidar Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Bhamrasla 5 0.6 3 184,891 36,978 61,630 Than 3.5 0.57 1.995 122,279 34,937 61,293 Bhamrasla 4 0.725 2.9 176,087 44,022 60,720 Umiya 1 0.6 0.6 36,365 36,365 60,609 Belam 6 0.42 2.52 148,146 24,691 58,788 Loundi 4 0.5 2 117,391 29,348 58,696 Wandhiya 20 0.2 4 234,783 11,739 58,696 Surei 2 0.5 1 57,065 28,533 57,065 Jagatpura 7 0.64 4.48 246,522 35,217 55,027 Satrundi 1 0.3 0.3 16,304 16,304 54,348 Bandera 4 0.4 1.6 85,774 21,443 53,609 Mandori 8 0.62 4.96 263,687 32,961 53,163 Padampar 2 1 2 105,652 52,826 52,826 Umiya 3 0.4 1.2 63,365 21,122 52,805 Mandori 5 0.6 3 151,826 30,365 50,609 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 3.150 0.027 3.750 3.001 2.001 2.500 1.000 0.022 3.000 0.013 0.016 2.503 4.500 1.767 2.501 68
Annex ID 275 262 Farm Revaji Bhagwan Patidar Vishnu Sitaram Patidar 219 Shantilal Jituji Patel 202 433 435 142 467 356 344 324 334 474 313 125 Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Nandra 7 0.57 3.99 199,509 28,501 50,002 Bandera 4 0.43 1.72 85,774 21,443 49,869 Bagpal 2 0.9 1.8 89,270 44,635 49,594 6 0.5 3 148,146 24,691 49,382 5 0.6 3 146,739 29,348 48,913 2 0.9 1.8 88,043 44,022 48,913 1 0.2 0.2 9,783 9,783 48,913 2 0.8 1.6 78,261 39,130 48,913 3 1 3 146,152 48,717 48,717 5 1 5 241,606 48,321 48,321 5 1.1 5.5 264,130 52,826 48,024 4 0.75 3 140,870 35,217 46,957 1 0.7 0.7 32,283 32,283 46,118 3 0.71 2.13 97,826 32,609 45,928 2 0.4 0.8 36,522 18,261 45,652 Shivcharan Kaluji Belam Parihar Govardhanbhai Bhamrasla Morebhai Jediya Bagabhai Bhamrasla Bhuvanbhai Jolapara Nandu Gangaram Mahudipada Singad Laxmanbhai Morthala Devabhai Savriya Khetabhai Dalabhai Bhimasar Parmar Kanjibhai Karsanbhai Padampar Patel Arjibhai Nanjibhai Bhotakiya Mali Jesabhai Karsanbhai Padampar Patel Bhupalbhai Mokasara Chowksibhai Rajpura Chothabhai Surei Danabhai Bambhwa Dulesingh Mangu Mohankot Sarel Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 0.022 0.016 3.750 2.001 2.500 3.750 0.008 0.030 4.150 3.010 4.500 3.000 0.025 0.025 1.005 69
Annex ID 250 233 325 294 248 447 383 345 257 329 457 93 42 Farm Piyush Gyanchand Patidar Harikrishna Babulal Patidar Dayabhai Ranabhai Parmar Purabhai Premjibhai Patel Dharmendra Harikrishna Patidar Mehrubhai Prabhubhai Khandaliya Banabhai Kumbhabhai Rathod Ambavibhai Mahadev Patel Jitendra Ramlal Patidar Medhabhai Mandanbhai Chawda Shaikh Mansukhbhai Malabhai Argujbhai Merabhai Savriya Ralu Hurji Muniya 66 Ganesh Kuka Garwal Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Somakhedi 3 0.53 1.59 72,582 24,194 45,649 Somakhedi 8 0.5 4 176,087 22,011 44,022 Palsava‐ 5 0.8 4 176,087 35,217 44,022 Wandhiya 10 0.2 2 88,043 8,804 44,022 Somakhedi 3.5 0.85 2.975 129,460 36,989 43,516 Than 2 0.3 0.6 26,087 13,043 43,478 Kidiyanagar 5.3 0.55 2.915 124,435 23,478 42,688 Padampar 3 0.83 2.49 105,652 35,217 42,431 Nandra 5 0.7 3.5 148,043 29,609 42,298 Palsava‐ 4 1 4 169,043 42,261 42,261 Piprali 2 0.6 1.2 50,557 25,278 42,130 Piprali 2 0.6 1.2 50,217 25,109 41,848 Ambapada 1 0.4 0.4 16,304 16,304 40,761 Satrundi 2 0.2 0.4 16,304 8,152 40,761 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Total application rate (t/acre) 1.505 1.875 3.000 0.750 2.506 0.010 2.000 3.000 0.023 3.600 0.019 0.019 0.013 0.007 70
Annex ID Farm 140 Bheru Badda Singad 199 463 104 241 340 321 106 273 134 Manohar Shankar Parihar Tejabhai Punjabhai Sacvriya Ghughabhai Somabhai Rathod Laxmanbhai Lavjibhai Khodabhai Jogabhai Makwana Jevabhai Dharamsibhai Mali Bhikabhai Lagrabhai Rathod Jetendra Rameshwar Patidar Anasingh Sarel Chaganbhai Khimabhai Dumadiya Chaganbhai 102 Samabhai Sabliya Bhalsurbhai Jivlabhai 103 Rathod Walsibhai Pragjibhai 444 Sonagra 306 Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Mahudipada 3 0.2 0.6 24,457 8,152 40,761 Belam 10 0.8 8 326,087 32,609 40,761 Morthala 1 0.4 0.4 16,304 16,304 40,761 Mevasa 4 0.9 3.6 146,739 36,685 40,761 Sarsna 6 0.4 2.4 97,826 16,304 40,761 Umiya 2 0.6 1.2 46,957 23,478 39,130 Bhotakiya 2 1.05 2.1 82,174 41,087 39,130 Mevasa 3 1 3 116,217 38,739 38,739 Nandra 9 0.44 3.96 150,907 16,767 38,108 Mohankot 1 0.48 0.48 18,261 18,261 38,043 Morthala 3 0.66 1.98 73,370 24,457 37,055 Mevasa 5 0.8 4 146,739 29,348 36,685 Mevasa 4 1 4 146,739 36,685 36,685 Than 2 0.25 0.5 17,870 8,935 35,739 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Total application rate (t/acre) 0.006 2.503 0.013 3.125 0.013 2.000 3.500 3.300 0.013 1.005 0.019 2.500 3.125 0.007 71
Annex ID 343 267 487 139 236 332 9 90 87 270 98 282 354 Farm Village Puranbhai Padampar Anantabhai Patel Mayur Ambaram Bandera Patidar Manubhai Punabhai Pipliya(Dhora) Makwana Tersingh Ambaram Mahudipada Singad Gyanchand Dashrath Nandra Patidar Sujabhai Dungarbhai Bhimasar Soda Nangi Moti Singad Akkabhai Bacchubhai Makwana Gagajibhai Bansirambhai Nandoliya Ramesh Gulabchand Patidar Labhubhai Prabhubhai Rangpara Iratbhai Danabhai Patel Danabhai Dudhabhai Parmar Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) 4 1 4 140,870 35,217 35,217 5 0.3 1.5 51,978 10,396 34,652 2 0.5 1 32,609 16,304 32,609 1 0.2 0.2 6,522 6,522 32,609 3 0.57 1.71 54,000 18,000 31,579 4 0.95 3.8 117,391 29,348 30,892 Mahudipada 2 0.4 0.8 24,457 12,228 30,571 Piprali 2 0.4 0.8 24,457 12,228 30,571 Surei 3 0.8 2.4 73,370 24,457 30,571 Nandra 8 0.75 6 179,896 22,487 29,983 Piprali 2 0.6 1.2 35,543 17,772 29,620 Wandhiya 20 0.25 5 146,739 7,337 29,348 Bhimasar 4 1 4 117,391 29,348 29,348 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 3.000 0.008 0.013 0.005 0.014 2.500 0.009 0.009 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.625 2.500 72
Annex ID 385 69 328 374 375 33 268 483 123 Farm Manubhai Babubhai Palsava‐ Chawda Ranchod Rana Got Bhavriya Meghabhai Palsava‐ Babubhai Makwana Pethabhai Bagabhai Kidiyanagar Rathod Kanhabhai Kidiyanagar Samatbhai Rathod Sukhram Narayan Lalarundi Damar Sukhdev Jagannath Bandera Patidar Devabhai Nihalbhai Pipliya(Dhora) Makwana Rama Nandaji Mohankot Gamad 13 Tersing Velji Singad 79 Village Abubhai Bhavriya Ratanji Ninama Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) 2 58,696 29,348 29,348 3 0.28 0.84 24,457 8,152 29,115 9.5 1.05 9.975 278,804 29,348 27,950 7 0.86 6.02 164,348 23,478 27,300 7 0.86 6.02 164,348 23,478 27,300 1 0.24 0.24 6,522 6,522 27,174 5 0.6 3 81,522 16,304 27,174 2 0.95 1.9 48,913 24,457 25,744 3 0.32 0.96 24,457 8,152 25,476 Satrundi 3 0.32 0.96 24,457 8,152 25,476 Got 2 0.32 0.64 16,304 8,152 25,476 6 1 6 147,913 24,652 24,652 2 1.1 2.2 54,000 27,000 24,545 Lalarundi 4 0.24 0.96 23,478 5,870 24,457 Ambapada 2 0.48 0.96 23,478 11,739 24,457 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) 1 Kumbhabhai Kidiyanagar Bhimabhai Rathod Waljibhai Sairambhai 471 Mokasara Rajpura 117 Production per farm (t) 2 382 54 Rama Thavra Dayima Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Total application rate (t/acre) 2.500 0.006 2.500 2.000 2.000 0.005 0.013 0.019 0.006 0.007 0.006 2.100 0.021 0.005 0.009 73
Annex ID 75 312 355 4 472 23 Farm Dinesh Murlibhai Narayansari Devda Jasubahen Arjibhai Surei Nadoliya Kishorebhai Bhimasar Khimabhai Makwana Romisingh Gendalal Garvakhedi Ghatiya Raghobhai Motibhai Mokasara Rajpura Amarsingh Sarel 67 Bhurji Thauji Singad 445 Sureshbhai Pragjibhai Sonagra 128 Rafel Antony Bhuriya 14 18 Village Pema Dholsingh Khadiya Kodar Harchand Khadiya Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Production per farm (t) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) 3 0.4 1.2 29,230 9,743 24,359 3 1.2 3.6 87,050 29,017 24,180 2 1.25 2.5 58,696 29,348 23,478 2 0.4 0.8 18,130 9,065 22,663 2.5 1.2 3 67,973 27,189 22,658 Jampada 4 0.32 1.12 25,109 7,174 22,418 Satrundi 3 0.2 0.6 12,717 4,239 21,196 Than 2 0.4 0.8 16,930 8,465 21,163 Mohankot 2 0.3 0.45 9,325 6,217 20,722 Chavriya 4 0.4 1.6 32,609 8,152 20,380 Chavriya 2 0.4 0.8 16,304 8,152 20,380 45 Madima Ninama Ambapada 3 0.4 1.2 24,457 8,152 20,380 118 Bander Munia Ambapada 4 0.4 1.6 32,609 8,152 20,380 56 Mansing Shambhu Katara Satrundi 1 0.4 0.4 8,152 8,152 20,380 119 Mangalsing Singad Satrundi 3 0.4 1.2 24,457 8,152 20,380 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Total application rate (t/acre) 0.830 0.022 2.500 0.057 0.021 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 74
Annex ID 55 83 46 492 88 100 430 395 107 281 314 6 481 Farm Veersingh Vajja Ninama Ghuma Kanna Bhuriya Amdhu Naniya Village Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) 1 0.4 0.4 8,152 8,152 20,380 Got 4 0.4 1.6 32,609 8,152 20,380 Chinkavani 8 0.4 3 61,141 8,152 20,380 2 0.8 1.6 32,609 16,304 20,380 2 0.8 1.6 32,609 16,304 20,380 3 0.53 1.59 32,283 10,761 20,304 3 0.66 1.98 40,109 13,370 20,257 2 0.3 0.6 11,739 5,870 19,565 2 0.4 0.8 15,652 7,826 19,565 25 0.24 6 117,391 4,696 19,565 4 0.43 1.72 32,609 8,152 18,959 3 0.48 1.44 27,196 9,065 18,886 1 1 1 18,652 18,652 18,652 Garvakhedi Hirabhai Vatsabhai Pipliya(Dhora) Makwana Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Production per farm (t) Lalarundi Harjibhai Shyambhai Tajpar Dumadiya Vinabhai Ghusabhai Surei Nadoliya Govardhanbhai Jeevanbhai Piprali Makwana Dharamsi Dhannabhai Sarsna rangpara Manjibhai Shikharpur Dharambhai Patel Kalu Mansingh Mahudipada Dindor Ganeshbhai Wandhiya Bacchubhai Patel Kanubhai Mashakbhai Surei Nandoliya Laxman Varda Loda Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Fertilizer of concern Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Total application rate (t/acre) 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.013 0.008 0.010 0.500 0.006 0.400 0.006 0.057 0.014 75
Annex Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Production per farm (t) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) 0.3 0.9 16,141 5,380 17,935 3 0.48 1.44 24,457 8,152 16,984 ID Farm Village 26 Mrs Saguna Thavariya Mohankot 3 Got 74 Dulla Rana Bhavriya 3 Bhavashya Ramsingh Ghatiya Garvakhedi 2 0.48 0.96 16,304 8,152 16,984 429 Lilabhai Lavjibhai Sarsna 16 0.31 4.96 81,522 5,095 16,436 16 Narji Ravji Khadiya Chavriya 3 0.32 0.96 15,652 5,217 16,304 43 Khushal Kanara Gomad Ambapada 4 0.4 1.5 24,457 6,522 16,304 135 Bapu Ramaji Sarel Jampada 3 0.5 1.25 20,380 8,152 16,304 114 Mana Vesta Bhuriya Chinkavani 3 0.4 1 16,304 6,522 16,304 Tajpar 2 1 2 32,609 16,304 16,304 Than 4 0.6 2.4 39,130 9,783 16,304 Chinkavani 4 0.4 1.6 26,087 6,522 16,304 Chinkavani 4 0.4 1.6 26,087 6,522 16,304 Garvakhedi 4 0.6 2.4 37,304 9,326 15,543 Belam 8 0.8 6.4 96,522 12,065 15,082 494 448 84 115 1 205 Chaganbhai Kadvabhai makwana Ambaram Madhurbhai Makwana Medha Dhanna Bhuriya Ramesh Hursingh Bhabar Anusaya Lokendra Jani Inder Ramsingh Parihar Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Fertilizer of concern Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Total application rate (t/acre) 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.013 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.106 1.000 76
Annex ID Farm 206 Mamta Inder Parihar 477 283 Parasottambhai Shivasibhai Laxman Sojibhai Patel 31 Ukar Varda Vasuniya Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Production per farm (t) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Belam 7 0.8 5.6 84,457 12,065 15,082 Mokasara 1 1 1 14,739 14,739 14,739 Wandhiya 20 0.2 4 58,696 2,935 14,674 Lalarundi 2 0.4 0.8 11,087 5,543 13,859 326 Sevabhai Ranabhai Parmar Palsava‐ 3.5 0.86 3.01 41,087 11,739 13,650 21 Ambaram Sarel Jampada 6 0.6 3.6 48,913 8,152 13,587 Mohankot 2 0.48 0.72 9,783 6,522 13,587 124 Saliya Magu Sarel 141 Lalu Gangaram Singad Mahudipada 5 0.48 2.4 32,609 6,522 13,587 22 Sukram Sarel Jampada 2 0.48 0.96 13,043 6,522 13,587 Tajpar 2 1 2 26,804 13,402 13,402 Morthala 2 0.65 1.3 16,304 8,152 12,542 Chinkavani 3 0.48 1.44 17,609 5,870 12,228 Garvakhedi 3 0.72 2.16 26,217 8,739 12,138 Got 3 0.68 1.7 20,380 8,152 11,988 Jampada 4 0.5 2 23,478 5,870 11,739 495 464 85 149 48 Payabhai Ukabhai Dervadiya Saganbhai Sangrambhai Savriya Sohan Dhanna Bhuriya Dilip Bhanvarlal Bhilodiya Pappu Khimchander Meda 24 Munna Nanar Damar Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Fertilizer of concern Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Compost (phosphorous)
Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Total application rate (t/acre) 1.000 0.011 0.250 0.004 1.000 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.006 0.005 0.056 0.006 0.005 77
Annex ID 476 309 493 148 449 Farm Chanabhai Bhikhabhai Rajpura Alabbhai Sadurbhai Khorakiya Rameshbhai Danatbhai Jadhav Bhanvarlal Shobharam Bhilodiya Sureshbhai Nagarbhai Makwana 70 Babanu Nathu Meda Village Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Production per farm (t) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) Mokasara 8 0.75 6 69,287 8,661 11,548 Tajpar 2 1.1 2.2 24,457 12,228 11,117 Tajpar 2 1.1 2.2 24,457 12,228 11,117 Garvakhedi 4 0.8 3 32,772 8,739 10,924 Than 5 0.6 3 32,609 6,522 10,870 Got 4 0.8 3.2 32,609 8,152 10,190 19 Kalu Vesta Sarel Jampada 4 0.6 2.25 22,011 5,870 9,783 310 Amirbhai Kadwabhai Makwana Tajpar 2 1.3 2.6 24,457 12,228 9,406 44 Kathadi ma Ninama Ambapada 4 0.48 1.92 16,304 4,076 8,492 32 Malji Narayan Damar Lalarundi 4 0.48 1.92 16,304 4,076 8,492 Chinkavani 5 0.4 2 16,304 3,261 8,152 Chavriya 4 0.4 1.7 13,859 3,261 8,152 Chavriya 4 0.48 1.92 13,043 3,261 6,793 Chavriya 3 0.48 1.2 8,152 3,261 6,793 47 Omar Bhuriya 17 Malji Galiya Khadiya Tersingh Amra Hatela Dhaharu Dholsingh 137 Khadiya 15 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton Fertilizer of concern Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Farm Yard Manure Total application rate (t/acre) 0.007 0.009 0.009 0.056 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.009 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 78
Annex Surface area of Y application (t/acre)
(Acre) Production per farm (t) Total ‐ GWF (m3/farm) Total ‐ GWF (m3/acre) GWF (m3/t) 0.44 3.52 13,043 1,630 3,706 2 0.6 1.2 3,600 1,800 3,000 9 0.6 5.4 11,645 1,294 2,157 8 0.5 4 8,139 1,017 2,035 10 0.7 7 9,783 978 1,398 3 0.33 0.99 0 0 0 60 0.13 7.8 0 0 0 15 0.03 0.45 0 0 0 23 0.28 6.44 0 0 0 9 0.11 0.99 0 0 0 287 Ramji Kanha Ravriya Juna Katariya 30 0.13 3.9 0 0 0 288 Juna Katariya 28 0.14 3.92 0 0 0 366 Alanda Harkha Patel Juna Katariya 20 0.08 1.6 0 0 0 Veljibhai Khegdibhai Juna Katariya Patel 25 0.08 2 0 0 0 ID Farm Village 245 Suresh Mangilal Patidar Bandera 8 154 Jagannath Yadav Loundi 215 246 228 218 371 372 285 286 369 Govardhan Bagpal Parshuram Tiwari Mahadev Jagdish Bandera Patidar Ganesh Shankar Astriya Patidar Kadwa Ramaji Bagpal Harijan Devrajbhai Narayansari Raghubhai Patel Gelabhai Narayansari Dharamsibhai Patel Vatsabhai Manubhai Juna Katariya Minaj Akhai Karsanbhai Juna Katariya Fushi Gela Murli Ravriya Fertilizer of concern Castor Cake Compost (phosphorous)
Compost (phosphorous)
Castor Cake Compost (phosphorous)
no info no info no info no info no info no info no info no info no info Total application rate (t/acre) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton 79