consumption, have to be analysed to evaluate the financial sustainability of these
measures. Since the lack of acceptance from consumers or farmers could be a
potential barrier to the implementation of improvement strategies, the acceptance of
these technologies also has to be investigated. Finally, the analysis of social effects
would complete the sustainability evaluation of these measures.
References
1. IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to
the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, 2013.
2. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, Haan C, Livestock’s long shadow -
environmental issues and options, FAO, Rome, 2006.
3. DAFF, A profile of the South African dairy market value chain 2014, Department of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2015.
4. Harding G, Courtney C, Russo V, When geography matters. A location-adjusted blue water
footprint of commercial beef in South Africa, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, Vol. 151,
pp. 494–508.
5. Notten P, Mason-Jones K, Life cycle assessment of milk production in the Western Cape,
2011.
6. The World Bank, World development report 2008—overview, Washington D.C., USA, 2007.
7. Scharfy D, Boccali N, Stucki M, Clean technologies in agriculture—how to prioritise
measures?, Sustainability, 2017, Vol. 9, No. 8, p. 1303.
8. Wettstein S, Muir K, Scharfy D, Stucki, M, The environmental mitigation potential of
photovoltaic-powered irrigation in the production of South African maize, Manuscript
submitted for publication, 2017.
9. Eymann L, Stucki M, Schwab S, Wettstein S, Environmental impact of South African milk: A
comparison of Ayrshire and Holstein breeds, in 10th International conference on Life Cycle
Assessment of Food, University College Dublin, Ireland, 2016, pp. 99–105.
10. IDF, A common carbon footprint approach for the dairy sector. The IDF guide to standard life
cycle assessment methodology, International Dairy Federation, 2015.
11. Ecoinvent Centre, ecoinvent data v3.3, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zürich, 2016.
12. Hischier R, Weidema B, Althaus H, Bauer C, Frischknecht R, Doka G, Dones R, Hellweg S,
Humbert S, Jungbluth N, Köllner T, Loerinck Y, Margni M, Nemecek T, Implementation of
life cycle impact assessment methods, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf,
CH, 2010.
13. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M.A.J, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R, ReCiPe
2008—A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category
indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition. Report I: Characterisation, NL,
2013.
14. Rosenbaum R.K, Bachmann T.M, Gold L.S. Huijbregts M.A.J, Jolliet O, Juraske R,
Koehler A, Larsen H.F, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone T.E, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van
de Meent D, Hauschild M.Z, USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended
characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle assessment,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2008, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 532–546.
15. Frischknecht R, Büsser Knöpfel S, Swiss Eco-Factors 2013 according to the Ecological
Scarcity Method. Methodological fundamentals and their application in Switzerland, Federal
Office for the Environment, Berne, 2013.
16. IPCC, IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories—Chapter 4 Agriculture, 2006.
124
R. Keller et al.
measures. Since the lack of acceptance from consumers or farmers could be a
potential barrier to the implementation of improvement strategies, the acceptance of
these technologies also has to be investigated. Finally, the analysis of social effects
would complete the sustainability evaluation of these measures.
References
1. IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to
the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, 2013.
2. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, Haan C, Livestock’s long shadow -
environmental issues and options, FAO, Rome, 2006.
3. DAFF, A profile of the South African dairy market value chain 2014, Department of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2015.
4. Harding G, Courtney C, Russo V, When geography matters. A location-adjusted blue water
footprint of commercial beef in South Africa, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, Vol. 151,
pp. 494–508.
5. Notten P, Mason-Jones K, Life cycle assessment of milk production in the Western Cape,
2011.
6. The World Bank, World development report 2008—overview, Washington D.C., USA, 2007.
7. Scharfy D, Boccali N, Stucki M, Clean technologies in agriculture—how to prioritise
measures?, Sustainability, 2017, Vol. 9, No. 8, p. 1303.
8. Wettstein S, Muir K, Scharfy D, Stucki, M, The environmental mitigation potential of
photovoltaic-powered irrigation in the production of South African maize, Manuscript
submitted for publication, 2017.
9. Eymann L, Stucki M, Schwab S, Wettstein S, Environmental impact of South African milk: A
comparison of Ayrshire and Holstein breeds, in 10th International conference on Life Cycle
Assessment of Food, University College Dublin, Ireland, 2016, pp. 99–105.
10. IDF, A common carbon footprint approach for the dairy sector. The IDF guide to standard life
cycle assessment methodology, International Dairy Federation, 2015.
11. Ecoinvent Centre, ecoinvent data v3.3, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zürich, 2016.
12. Hischier R, Weidema B, Althaus H, Bauer C, Frischknecht R, Doka G, Dones R, Hellweg S,
Humbert S, Jungbluth N, Köllner T, Loerinck Y, Margni M, Nemecek T, Implementation of
life cycle impact assessment methods, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf,
CH, 2010.
13. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M.A.J, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R, ReCiPe
2008—A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category
indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition. Report I: Characterisation, NL,
2013.
14. Rosenbaum R.K, Bachmann T.M, Gold L.S. Huijbregts M.A.J, Jolliet O, Juraske R,
Koehler A, Larsen H.F, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone T.E, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van
de Meent D, Hauschild M.Z, USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended
characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle assessment,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2008, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 532–546.
15. Frischknecht R, Büsser Knöpfel S, Swiss Eco-Factors 2013 according to the Ecological
Scarcity Method. Methodological fundamentals and their application in Switzerland, Federal
Office for the Environment, Berne, 2013.
16. IPCC, IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories—Chapter 4 Agriculture, 2006.
124
R. Keller et al.