Grey Water Footprint Indicator of Water Pollution in the Production of Organic Vs

Grey Water Footprint Indicator of Water Pollution in the Production of Organic vs. Conventional Cotton in 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

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

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

4 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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 Head of Sustainable Business Executive Director C&A Foundation Development Water Footprint Network

5 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Executive Summary

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

6 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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.

7 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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.

8 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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. Method and data

3.1. Grey water footprint

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;

9 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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. The grey water footprint of a farm

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. The grey water footprint per unit of crop

The grey component in the water footprint of growing a crop can be computed per tonne of crop product 3 (WFproc,grey, m /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).

10 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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. Grey water footprint expert panel guidelines

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. Handling of organic pesticides

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.

11 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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. Nitrogen and phosphorous leaching from compost

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‐runoff fractions of phosphorous and pesticides

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

12 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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 Pesticides

Min and Max αmin αmax αmin αmax Leaching‐ Runoff‐Fraction 0.0001 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‐ 0.03 0.01 Runoff‐Fraction

The GWF of Phase I was recalculated using these values, which will lead to higher values for both chemicals of concern.

3.2.4. Ambient water quality standards and natural background concentrations

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

13 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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. Recalculation of GWF of Phase I

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. Values used for leaching‐runoff fractions

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. Values used for maximum allowable concentrations

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

14 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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 Referenced Nutrients Concentration Guideline (µg/l) Phosphorus ultra‐oligotrophic <4 CCME oligotrophic 4‐10 mesotrophic 10‐20 meso‐eutrophic 20‐35 eutrophic 35‐100 hyper‐eutrophic >100

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. Values used for natural background concentration

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. Farms sampled

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.

15 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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)

16 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Method and data

3.5. Analysis of farming practices

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.

17 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Results

4. Results

4.1. Conventional farming systems

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.

18 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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. Organic farming systems

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.

19 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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. Comparison between conventional and organic farming systems

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. Total Average Average Farming Surface Total GWF production yield GWF system area (acre) (m3/year) (t/year) (t/acre) (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

20 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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 Conventional

No. of the Organic GWF Fertilizer of No. of the Conventional Pesticide of farm (m3/t) concern farm GWF (m3/t) concern Compost 398 733,696 (Phosphorous) 91 7,554,105 Endosulphan

21 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Results

Farming System

Organic Conventional

No. of the Organic GWF Fertilizer of No. of the Conventional Pesticide of farm (m3/t) concern farm GWF (m3/t) concern Compost 423 386,817 (Phosphorous) 507 6,805,500 Endosulphan

Compost 330 366,848 (Phosphorous) 316 5,557,825 Endosulphan

Compost 360 249,012 (Phosphorous) 227 4,640,114 Endosulphan

Compost 397 244,467 (Phosphorous) 508 4,537,000 Endosulphan

Compost 414 199,130 (Phosphorous) 465 4,537,000 Endosulphan

Compost 358 178,251 (Phosphorous) 99 4,158,917 Endosulphan

Compost 207 176,087 (Phosphorous) 460 2,903,680 Endosulphan

Compost 155 176,087 (Phosphorous) 108 2,800,000 Cypermetrine

Compost 189 176,087 (Phosphorous) 94 2,474,727 Endosulphan

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

22 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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.

23 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

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.

24 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Annex I – Expert Panel

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]

The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Dr Dawson Julian [email protected] Scotland UK

Prof Hoekstra Arjen University of Twente, Netherlands [email protected]

Prof Huijbregts Mark Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands [email protected]

Indian Institute of Technology at Roorkee

Dr Joshi Himanshu [email protected] (U.P.), India

Faculty for Agricultural and Environmental bernd.lennartz@uni‐ Dr Bernd Lennartz

Sciences Rostock University, Germany rostock.de French National Institute of Agricultural

Dr Moussa Roger [email protected] Research, France

Sustainable Business Development, C&A, Renard Alain bi20@retail‐sc.com Brussels

Dr Singh Ranvir Massey University, New Zealand [email protected]

Prof Styczen Merete KU‐Life, Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected]

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Aaldrik Tiktak [email protected] Agency, Netherlands

Prof Zessner Matthias Vienna University of Technology, Austria [email protected]

25 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Annex II – Quality standards and natural background concentrations used

Table 9: Quality standards and natural background concentrations used for grey water footprint calculations. Maximum Natural allowable Chemical Standard concentration concentration (µg/l) (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

26 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Maximum Natural allowable Chemical Standard concentration concentration (µg/l) (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

27 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Annex III – Conventional and organic fertilizers and pesticides used by farmers for cotton cultivation in India, for the two samples analysed

Table 10: Summary of fertilizers and its composition for conventional farming. (Zarate et al., 2011) fertilizers name ingredient name % source

Diammonium 1 Nitrogen 4.14 % phosphate (DAP) personal communication with CC Phosphorus 20%

personal communication with 2 Urea Nitrogen 10.81% CC

(Single) Super personal communication with 3 Phosphorus 8% phosphate CC

Farm Yard 4 Nitrogen 0.5% Manure

Phosphorus 0.25 % http://www.vanashree.in/fym.htm

Potassium 0.04%

personal communication with 5 Potash Potassium 14.94 % CC

6 Ash Phosphorous 0.44 % http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/w oodash.html Potassium 10%

http://www.klickitatcounty.org/S 7 Compost Nitrogen 1% olidWaste/fileshtml/organics/com postCalc.htm http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$dep Phosphorous 0.9% artment/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng4466

8 MIX(18:18:18) Nitrogen 4.14%

personal communication with Phosphorus 7.74 % CC

Potassium 14.94 %

9 MIX(19:19:19) Nitrogen 4.37 % personal communication with CC Phosphorus 8.17 %

28 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

fertilizers name ingredient name % source

Potassium 15.77 %

10 MIX(10:26:26) Nitrogen 2.3%

personal communication with Phosphorus 11.18 % CC

Potassium 21.58 %

11 MIX(20:20:0) Nitrogen 4.6% personal communication with CC Phosphorus 8.6%

12 MIX Nitrogen 3.85 %

Phosphorus 7.92 %

Potassium 3.14 %

13 AgroMax Ferrous 2.5%

personal communication with Molybednum 8% CC

Zinc 3%

http://www.tradezz.com/buy_262 14 BioVita Phosphorous 0.44 % 6907_dk-Biovita-Fertilizer.htm

15 Castor Fertilizer Nitrogen 4%

http://www.castoroil.in/reference/ Phosphorous 1% glossary/castor_cake.html

Potassium 1%

16 pond soil

17 Gypsum Calcium

29 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Table 11: Summary of pesticides and its composition for conventional farming. (Zarate et al., 2011)

pesticides name ingredient name % source

1 Acephate Acephate 77.3% personal communication with CC

Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate 0.5%

2 Admire Imidachloprid 17.8% personal communication with CC

Pyrrolidone 1% DimethylSulphoxide 38.4% 3 Asataf Acephate 77.3% personal communication with CC

Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate 0.5%

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/wood 4 Ash Phosphorous 0.4% ash.html Potassium 10% 5 Avont Indoxacarb 14.5% personal communication with CC Distilled Methyl Soyate 57.5% Polyethoxyled 6% 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% personal communication with CC Carbohydrates 5% 10 Confidor Imidachloprid 17.8% personal communication with CC Pyrrolidone 1% Dimethyl Sulphoxide 38.4% 11 Confidor+BT Imidachloprid 17.8% personal communication with CC Zyme Pyrrolidone 1% Dimethyl Sulphoxide 0% 12 Cypermethrin Cypermethrin(e) 25% personal communication with CC Creslox-1 4.5% Creslox-2 4.5% 13 Cypermethrine Cypermethrine 25% personal communication with CC Creslox-1 4.5% Creslox-2 4.5% 14 Ektara(Aktara) Thiomethoxam(Thiamethoxam) 25% personal communication with CC Adjuvants 50%

30 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

pesticides name ingredient name % source

15 Emidor Imidachloprid 17.8% personal communication with CC Pyrrolidone 1% DimethylSulphoxide 38.4% 16 Endosulphon Endosulphon 39% personal communication with CC Epichlorohydrin 2% Aronex 48% 17 Fenvalrate Fenvalerate 0.5% personal communication with CC Solvent(Xylene) 2% Silicak 4% 18 Hildan Endosulphon 39% personal communication with CC Epichlorohydrin 2% Aronex 48% 18 Hostathion Trizaophos 40% personal communication with CC Polyoxy Glycol 7% Emulsifiers 3% 20 Karate lambda-cyhalothrin 2.5% personal communication with CC Adjuvants 25.0% 21 Lucin Powder Acephate 77.3% personal communication with CC Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate 0.5% 22 M 45 Mancozeb 75% personal communication with CC Surfactant 25% 23 Metasytox Oxydemeton methyl 25% personal communication with CC Emulsifiers 75% 24 Miracle N-Tricontanol 0.1% 25 Mix(19:19:19) Nitrogen 19% personal communication with CC Phosphorous 19% Potash 19% 26 Monocel Monochrotophos 36% personal communication with CC Cyclohexanam 64% 27 Monochrotopho Monochrotophos 36% personal communication with CC s Cyclohexanam 64% 28 Nuvacron Monochrotophos 36% personal communication with CC Cyclohexanam 64% 29 Pegasus Difenthiuron 50% personal communication with CC Adjuvants 50% 30 Polo Difenthiuron 50% personal communication with CC

31 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

pesticides name ingredient name % source

Adjuvants 50% 31 Pride Acetamiprid 20% personal communication with CC Related compounds 80% 32 Quinalphos Quinalphos 25% personal communication with CC Other ingredients 75% 33 Ranger Picloram 16.8% personal communication with CC 2,4 D Amine Salt 34.6% 34 Rogor Dimethoate 35.5% personal communication with CC Xylene 30% Cyclohexanam 15% 35 shakti25 Cypermethrine 25% personal communication with CC Creslox-1 4.5% Creslox-2 4.5% 36 Spark Deltamethrin 1% personal communication with CC Triazophos 35.0% 37 Starking Acephate 77.3% personal communication with CC Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate 0.5% Fine Silica 22.2% 38 Starkthene Acephate 77.3% personal communication with CC Sodium dioctyl sulpho succinate 0.5% Fine Silica 22.2% 39 Sulphur Mancozeb 75% personal communication with CC Surfactant 25% 40 Tata Mida Monochrotophos 36% personal communication with CC Cyclohexanam 64% 41 Thiodon Endosulphon 39% personal communication with CC Epichlorohydrin 2% Aronex 48% 42 Tracer Spinosad 45% personal communication with CC Propylene Glycol 45% http://www.wolframalpha.com/entitie 43 Trizaophos Trizaophos s/chemicals/triazophos/ma/ne/cf/ 44 Urea 2% Nitrogen 47%

32 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Table 12: Summary of fertilizers and its composition for organic farming. (Zarate et al., 2011)

fertilizers name ingredient name % source

1 Ash Phosphorous 1% http://www.hort.purdue.e du/ext/woodash.html Potassium 10% 2 Bio Fertilizer Nitrogen 15% http://www.google.com/# hl=zh- Phosphorous 5.2% CN&rlz=1R2AMSA_enC N424&q=Bio+Fertilizer+ Nitrogen&oq=Bio+Fertili zer+Nitrogen&aq=f&aqi= &aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl Potassium 5.3% =15866l17114l1l7l7l0l6l0 l0l187l187l0.1&bav=on.2 ,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=6c59c 6313942c5ad&biw=1259 &bih=595 3 Buttermilk Calcium 4 Castor Cake Nitrogen 6.4% http://www.castoroil.in/re Phosphorous 0.8% ference/glossary/castor_c ake.html Potassium 1% 5 Castor DOC Nitrogen 5.5% http://www.agriculturesou Phosphorous 1.9% rce.com/p-castor-doc- 645181.html Potassium 1.1% http://www.klickitatcount y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm 6 Compost Nitrogen 1% l/organics/compostCalc.ht m http://www1.agric.gov.ab. Phosphorous 0.9% ca/$department/deptdocs. nsf/all/eng4466 http://www.klickitatcount y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm 7 CowUrine+Ash Nitrogen 3% l/organics/compostCalc.ht m 8 Farm Yard Manure Nitrogen 0.5% http://www.vanashree.in/f Phosphorous 0.3% ym.htm Potassium 0% http://www.klickitatcount y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm 9 Green fodder compost Nitrogen 3.4% l/organics/compostCalc.ht m http://www1.agric.gov.ab. Phosphorous 0.9% ca/$department/deptdocs. nsf/all/eng4466 10 Gypsum Calcium

33 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

fertilizers name ingredient name % source

http://www.klickitatcount y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm 11 Jivamrit Nitrogen 3% l/organics/compostCalc.ht m 12 Karanj Cake Nitrogen 4% http://www.natureneem.c Phosphorous 0.9% om/index_fichiers/Karanj a_oil.htm Potassium 1.3% http://www.klickitatcount y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm 13 Matka Khad Nitrogen 3% l/organics/compostCalc.ht m 14 Neem cake Nitrogen 5% http://www.ozonebiotech. Phosphorous 1% com/neemcake.html Potassium 1.5% 15 Neem Fertilizer Nitrogen 5% http://www.ozonebiotech. Phosphorous 1% com/neemcake.html Potassium 1.5% 16 Organic Fertilizer Nitrogen 7% http://www.dummies.com /how- 17 Rock Phosphate Phosphorous 18% to/content/fertilizing- your-organic-garden.html

http://www.klickitatcount y.org/SolidWaste/fileshtm 18 Vermi Compost Nitrogen 1% l/organics/compostCalc.ht m http://www1.agric.gov.ab. Phosphorous 0.9% ca/$department/deptdocs. nsf/all/eng4466

34 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Table 13: Summary of pesticides used for organic farming. (Zarate et al., 2011)

Name of pesticide Active ingredient Description Source

1 Akda Ark swallow-wort Bio pesticide. 2 Akhada Ark http://www.costi 3 Amrit Sanjeevani Bio pesticide. ngagreenfuture.c om/blog/?p=86 4 Ash Phosphate and Potash 5 Bajra Ata Millet flour Plant. 6 Bel Ark http://projects.icb 7 Besharam Ark Plant. se.com/biology- 339

Water soluble (Foliar / http://www.esupp Fertigation / Drip liersindia.com/pr 8 Bio Potash purposes) and athista- Granulated (for soil industries-ltd- applications) forms. /bio-potash- pr613665-sFP- swf.html

Phosphate, Potassium, 9 Biophos http://www.garde Sulphur and Calcium news.co.nz/bioph os.html Another name is Methazole. It is http://pubchem.n an herbicide in the family of cbi.nlm.nih.gov/s 10 Bioxone C H Cl N O herbicides known as 9 6 2 2 3 ummary/summar oxadiazolones. y.cgi?cid=4690

http://www.india Growth hormones, Bio pesticide. It is toxin free eco- mart.com/iial/che 11 Biozyne Trace elements, friendly bio-degradable product mical- Minerals and Vitamins. fertilizers.html 12 Biveri Basin 13 Boron Boron http://en.wikipedi Buttermilks the liquid left behind 14 Buttermilk a.org/wiki/Butter after churning butter out of cream. milk http://www.farmr Chili peppers (Capsicum spp.) can adio.org/english/r 15 Chili be used to make a spray or dust to adio-scripts/34- control pests. 11script_en.asp 16 Coconut water Plant 17 Cow Urine Bio pesticide http://awakeningj Bio pesticide. Liquid pesticide to agriti.org/econo 18 Dashaparni Ark control different pest attack mic_developmen t.asp Datura is a genus of nine species of vespertine flowering plants http://en.wikipedi 19 Dhatura Datura belonging to the family a.org/wiki/Datura Solanaceae.

35 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Name of pesticide Active ingredient Description Source

http://www.3step Garlic is actually called an Allium, ads.com/83524/g 20 Garlic a bulb type plant that smells, don’t arlic-organic- harm the environment pesticide/

21 Green Planet Bio pesticide Bio pesticide. The commercial helicoverpa NPV is a highly selective biopesticide that infects HNPV(Helicoverpa http://www2.dpi. only H. armigera and H. punctigera 22 nucleopolyhedrovir qld.gov.au/fieldcr larvae. NPV is harmless to us ) ops/17696.html humans, wildlife and beneficial insects.

23 Jad Ka Pani http://en.wikipedi It is a traditional unrefined non- 24 Jaggery a.org/wiki/Jagger centrifugal whole cane sugar y

Oil of Pongamia piñata http://biofertilizer 25 Karanj Oil seeds sandpesticides.co m/neem- oil/neem-oil.html 26 Mahakal 27 Makta 28 Medhafoll 29 Megafoll 30 Neem Ark Plant http://www.livest Neem oil is a vegetable oil pressed rong.com/article/ Oil of Azadirachta 31 Neem Oil from the fruits and seeds of the 74231-karanja- indica seeds neem oil-compared- neem-oil 32 Oat ka pani BBeleric myrobalan, Black pepper, Panchamrit is an Ayurvedic http://www.goma Asafetida,Ghee, Rock medicine prescribed for treating taseva.org/natura 33 Panchamrit salt, Carum ajowan, constipation, gas, indigestion and l-pure-cow- Potassium carbonate, ulcers. It’s also kills the hazardous products/digestiv Castor oil, Black salt, effects of pesticides and fertilizers. e-aid/ and Cow urine 34 Pushkar http://www.lijun Some of Jatropha oil are toxic to oilacnepimple.co 35 Ratan jyot insects and mollusca , and can be m/lijun01/jatroph used as a natural crop pesticide. aE.htm http://en.wikipedi 36 Shrub Ark Plant. a.org/wiki/Shrub

36 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Name of pesticide Active ingredient Description Source

http://tgs.freshpat ents.com/Organic -Pesticide- bx1.php Slurry is the best food for worms. http://jyoti- They will eat slurry and convert it kothari.hubpages. 37 Slurry Nutrients and Water into wormy compost, the best of all com/hub/How- manures. To-Get-Your- Fruit-Trees-To- Produce-Edible- Fruit---Without- Harsh-Chemicals http://www.ehow Tobacco pesticide is particularly .com/how_22273 38 Tobacco Water Nicotine effective on soft creatures, such as 16_use-organic- slugs and aphids. pesticide- tobacco.html http://www.aliba ba.com/product- It is a Biofungicide, PHOSPHATE Spores and conidia of free/116878878/ Biofertilizer and also produces 39 Trichoderma Mycoparasitic fungi TRICHODERM plant growth promoting A_Organic_Biof substances. ungicide_Bioferti lizer.html 40 Tulsi Ark Holy Basil Plant. A collection of VERMI WASH is the liquid excretory products and fertilizer collected after the passage http://www.natio excess secretions of of water through a column of nalpesticides.co 41 Vermi Wash earthworms along with worm culture. It is very useful as a m/Vermi_wash.h micronutrients from soil foliar spray. tm organic molecules. In grey: no information was found

37 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Annex IV – Grey water footprint for the 240 conventional farms 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 Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Pesticide or fertilizer of Total application ID Farm Village application (Acre) (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) concern rate (t/acre)

Yogeshbhai 91 Piprali 6 0.20 1.2 9,064,926 1,510,821 7,554,105 Endosulphan 0.0005 Bhanabhai Sureya

507 Laxman Bhuriya Chinkavani 1 0.10 0.1 680,550 680,550 6,805,500 Endosulphan 0.0002

Kadwabhai 316 Surei 3 0.20 0.6 3,334,695 1,111,565 5,557,825 Endosulphan 0.0003 Manjibhai Nadoliya

Lalit Shivram 227 Astriya 4 0.44 1.76 8,166,600 2,041,650 4,640,114 Endosulphan 0.0006 Rathod

508 Jeetendra Patel Garvakhedi 2 0.15 0.3 1,361,100 680,550 4,537,000 Endosulphan 0.0002

Hirabhai Motibhai 465 Morthala 2 0.20 0.4 1,814,800 907,400 4,537,000 Endosulphan 0.0003 Makwana

Hemabhai Nagjibhai 99 Piprali 5 0.30 1.5 6,238,375 1,247,675 4,158,917 Endosulphan 0.0004 Sakhriya

Karsanbhai 460 Morthala 2 0.25 0.5 1,451,840 725,920 2,903,680 Endosulphan 0.0002 Bharatbhai Digama

38 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Narsingh Rama 108 Mahudipada 1 0.10 0.1 280,000 280,000 2,800,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 Muniya

Waghabhai 94 Piprali 4 0.28 1.1 2,722,200 680,550 2,474,727 Endosulphan 0.0002 Merabhai Sakhariya

Ramera Madiya 109 Mahudipada 2 0.40 0.8 1,680,000 840,000 2,100,000 Cypermetrine 0.0002 Damar

Madhabhai 499 Tajpar 3 0.66 1.98 4,083,300 1,361,100 2,062,273 Endosulphan 0.0004 Kanabhai Makwana

Dinesh Rameshwar 265 Bandera 5 0.20 1 1,750,000 350,000 1,750,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 Patidar

Arjibhai Diammonium phosphate / 319 Bansirambhai Surei 3 0.33 0.99 1,704,913 568,304 1,722,134 0.4357 MIX / Compost Nadoliya

Chaganbhai 469 Jadhavbhai Mokasara 2 0.70 1.4 2,268,500 1,134,250 1,620,357 Endosulphan 0.0003 Bhesaliya

Rameshbhai 308 Jairambhai Tajpar 3 0.66 1.98 3,062,475 1,020,825 1,546,705 Endosulphan 0.0003 Makwana

39 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Vihabhai Ajabhai 436 Tajpar 3 0.66 1.98 2,926,365 975,455 1,477,962 Endosulphan 0.0003 Dabhi

Subhash Dalsingh 132 Mohankot 2 0.40 0.8 980,000 490,000 1,225,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 Muniya

Dhirubhai 470 Chaganbhai Mokasara 3 1.00 3 3,360,000 1,120,000 1,120,000 Cypermetrine 0.0002 Wachhani

Bharat Govind 201 Belam 7 0.44 3.08 3,430,000 490,000 1,113,636 Cypermetrine 0.0001 Lacheta

Shukabhai Diammonium phosphate / 431 Sarsna 2 0.10 0.2 218,609 109,304 1,093,043 0.0838 Manjibhai Parmar Compost

Somabhai Ajabhai 498 Tajpar 2 1.50 3 3,266,640 1,633,320 1,088,880 Endosulphan 0.0005 Dabhi

Manjibhai 446 Than 8 0.61 4.88 5,081,440 635,180 1,041,279 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 Khamjibhai Jadhav

Dharabhai 307 Tajpar 2 1.00 2 2,041,650 1,020,825 1,020,825 Endosulphan 0.0003 Ambabhai Dabhi

Masrubhai 318 Surei 3 0.40 1.2 1,088,880 362,960 907,400 Endosulphan 0.0001 Ramabhai Nadoliya

40 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Devabhai 317 Dhudabhai Surei 10 1.60 16 14,518,400 1,451,840 907,400 Endosulphan 0.0004 Bambhwa

Surabhai Sinabhai 89 Piprali 5 0.32 1.6 1,361,100 272,220 850,688 Endosulphan 0.0001 Kokiya

Bakabhai 111 Chothabhai Surei 7 0.61 4.27 3,175,900 453,700 743,770 Endosulphan 0.0001 Bambhwa

161 Padam Balaji Sohale Loundi 3 0.40 1.2 850,688 283,563 708,906 Endosulphan 0.0001

49 Shankar Lala Tad Lalarundi 1.5 0.08 0.12 83,184 55,456 693,200 Cyclohexanam 0.0006

Ramjibhai Diammonium phosphate / 377 Kidiyanagar 5 0.80 4 2,673,913 534,783 668,478 0.4100 Sureshbhai Kediya MIX

Ramesh Hemaji 200 Belam 8 0.50 4 2,576,000 322,000 644,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 Parmar

147 Walji Galiya Khadiya Chavriya 4 0.28 1.12 672,000 168,000 600,000 Cypermetrine 0.0000

Lalabhai Waghabhai 459 Morthala 4 0.95 3.8 2,177,760 544,440 573,095 Endosulphan 0.0002 Makwana

Nandkishore 404 Mandori 5 1.00 5 2,835,625 567,125 567,125 Endosulphan 0.0002 Balkrishna Parihar

41 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Viharilal Babulal Diammonium phosphate / 264 Bandera 10 0.10 1 554,348 55,435 554,348 0.0425 Patidar Compost

Bhagabhai 466 Morthala 1 1.10 1.1 544,440 544,440 494,945 Endosulphan 0.0002 Sidhabhai Makwana

Samadbhai 388 Palsava‐ 3 0.83 2.49 1,095,691 365,230 440,037 MIX / Castor / Compost 0.2800 Babubhai Chowhan

Ramesh Govind 158 Loundi 2.5 0.80 2 850,688 340,275 425,344 Endosulphan 0.0001 Meena

39 Amra Galiya Ninama Ambapada 6 0.40 2.4 998,208 166,368 415,920 Cyclohexanam 0.0017

Ravji Dayabhai Diammonium phosphate / 256 Sarsna 2 0.35 0.7 286,957 143,478 409,938 0.1100 Solanki Compost

Karsanbhai Diammonium phosphate / 339 Bhanabhai Umiya 22 0.18 4 1,578,261 71,739 394,565 0.0550 Compost Makwana

Karsanbhai 315 Surei 4 0.90 3.6 1,361,100 340,275 378,083 Endosulphan 0.0001 Samatbhai Mewada

Dinesh Shivlal 237 Nandra 15 1.00 15 5,670,000 378,000 378,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 Patidar

Shivlal Babulal 253 Somakhedi 5 0.40 2 748,200 149,640 374,100 TriAzophos 0.0003 Patidar

42 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

193 Lokesh Gajaraj Patel Jagatpura 15 0.66 9.9 3,607,875 240,525 364,432 Difenthiuron 0.0002

Premchand Kaluram 405 Mandori 12 0.86 10.32 3,591,360 299,280 348,000 TriAzophos 0.0002 Parihar

53 Kalu Thaliya Ninama Lalarundi 1.5 0.16 0.24 83,184 55,456 346,600 Cyclohexanam 0.0006

Jeetendra Thawarji 41 Ambapada 1 0.12 0.12 41,592 41,592 346,600 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Gomad

Mahendra Narayan 258 Nandra 10 0.80 8 2,672,500 267,250 334,063 Difenthiuron 0.0003 Patidar

Vallabhbhai 490 Pipliya(Dhora) 1 1.00 1 294,905 294,905 294,905 Endosulphan 0.0001 Fattebhai Makwana

Narsubhai 455 Gangaram Than 2.5 0.80 2 544,440 217,776 272,220 Endosulphan 0.0001 Makwana

Santosh Ganpat 208 Belam 8 0.75 6 1,596,160 199,520 266,027 TriAzophos 0.0002 Parihar

Narayan Shobharam 235 Somakhedi 4 0.43 1.72 445,866 111,467 259,225 Acephate 0.0011 Patidar

194 Ronit Bharat Patel Jagatpura 8 0.50 4 1,026,240 128,280 256,560 Difenthiuron 0.0002

43 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Madiya Noorji 121 Mahudipada 1 0.10 0.1 24,955 24,955 249,552 Cyclohexanam 0.0000 Damar

Bhagwan Punaji 204 Belam 4 1.30 5.2 1,264,957 316,239 243,261 TriAzophos 0.0008 Parihar

Kamlesh Mohan 254 Somakhedi 6 0.50 3 718,272 119,712 239,424 TriAzophos 0.0002 Patidar

Kanjibhai Diammonium phosphate / 338 Mahadevbhai Umiya 3 0.27 0.81 185,283 61,761 228,744 0.0474 Compost Makwana

Devshabhai Diammonium phosphate / 497 Tajpar 6 0.50 3 684,783 114,130 228,261 0.0875 Nanjibhai Dabhi Compost

Bhurabhai Diammonium phosphate / 458 Bhikhabhai Morthala 2 0.25 0.5 110,870 55,435 221,739 0.0425 Compost Makwana

Ramlal Phulchand 260 Nandra 10 1.00 10 2,138,000 213,800 213,800 Difenthiuron 0.0002 Patidar

Bababhai Jogabhai 331 Bhotakiya 6 0.60 3.6 768,522 128,087 213,478 MIX / Castor / Compost 0.0982 Makwana

210 Vikas Bharat Pawar Belam 5 0.50 2.5 527,819 105,564 211,128 Difenthiuron 0.0002

44 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Diammonium phosphate / 166 Jagnnath Natthu Pol Bagpal 3 0.33 0.99 207,000 69,000 209,091 0.0529 Compost

Prabhubhai Diammonium phosphate / 450 Than 4 0.50 2 397,826 99,457 198,913 0.0763 Motibhai Makwana Compost

127 Ukar Surji Singad Jampada 2 0.20 0.4 78,261 39,130 195,652 Diammonium phosphate 0.0300

Veerjibhai Ladabhai 71 Sarsna 4 0.20 0.8 156,522 39,130 195,652 Diammonium phosphate 0.0300 Sapra

Khimabhai 101 Bhotakiya 8 1.13 9 1,751,501 218,938 194,611 Fluchloralin 0.0000 Pachabhai Rajpur

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

Ramesh Bhawariya 195 Jagatpura 7 0.80 5.6 1,047,620 149,660 187,075 Difenthiuron 0.0002 Meher

Gyanabhai Ladabhai 241 Sarsna 6 0.25 1.5 273,913 45,652 182,609 Diammonium phosphate 0.0350 Sapra

Sambu Rubji Diammonium phosphate / 129 Mohankot 1 0.20 0.2 36,522 36,522 182,609 0.0280 Muniya Super Phosphate

Rajendra Thakurlal 236 Nandra 5 0.80 4 725,000 145,000 181,250 Carbendazim 0.0003 Patidar

45 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

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

Kaluram Sitaram 261 Nandra 10 0.75 7.5 1,336,250 133,625 178,167 Difenthiuron 0.0001 Patidar

506 Rapa Guman Bhigad Got 1 0.28 0.28 49,494 49,494 176,766 Cyclohexanam 0.0005

Veljibhai Amarsibhai 478 Mokasara 1.5 2.00 3 525,000 350,000 175,000 Cypermetrine 0.0001 Rajpara

Diammonium phosphate / 34 Devji Vadda Ninama Lalarundi 1 0.12 0.12 20,661 20,661 172,174 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard 0.0158 Manure

Ashok Sriram Diammonium phosphate / 411 Mandori 2 0.60 1.2 202,174 101,087 168,478 0.0775 Parihar Compost

Manju Babulal 171 Bagpal 6 0.66 3.96 649,320 108,220 163,970 Acephate 0.0011 Kotwal

Diammonium phosphate / Mangu Amara 59 Satrundi 1 0.20 0.2 32,257 32,257 161,283 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard 0.0247 Devda Manure

Prakash Shankarlal Diammonium phosphate / 196 Jagatpura 4 0.88 3.52 563,478 140,870 160,079 0.1080 Yadav Compost

46 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Diammonium phosphate / 126 Sadiya Lula Hatela Mohankot 1 0.28 0.28 44,348 44,348 158,385 0.0340 Super Phosphate

Devisingh Nagla 131 Mohankot 6 0.20 1.2 186,332 31,055 155,277 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 Muniya

Ganesh Ambaram Diammonium phosphate / 223 Astriya 4 0.36 1.44 221,739 55,435 153,986 0.0425 Patidar Compost

Ramchandra Dina 86 Chinkavani 1 0.15 0.15 22,182 22,182 147,883 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 Bhuriya

Kantilal Vaktaji 144 Chavriya 2 0.28 0.56 79,857 39,928 142,601 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Muniya

Hirabhai Ratanbhai Diammonium phosphate / 359 Umiya 2 0.30 0.6 84,783 42,391 141,304 0.0325 Makwana Compost

Subhash Mishrilal 181 Astriya 6 0.46 2.76 384,840 64,140 139,435 Difenthiuron 0.0001 Patidar

Haresingh Somla 136 Chinkavani 7 0.60 4.2 582,288 83,184 138,640 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Meda

Dilip Shankar 40 Ambapada 4 0.20 0.8 110,912 27,728 138,640 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 Muniya

Omprakash 259 Nandra 8 1.25 10 1,368,320 171,040 136,832 Difenthiuron 0.0002 Dhannalal Patidar

47 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Rupsingh Nathu 122 Jampada 2.5 0.20 0.5 66,547 26,619 133,094 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 Bhuriya

Diammonium phosphate / Rupsingh Raichand 112 Mahudipada 1 0.20 0.2 26,413 26,413 132,065 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard 0.0203 Arad Manure

Babariya Gulji 68 Chinkavani 1 0.20 0.2 26,082 26,082 130,408 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 Bhuriya

Gangaram Mohan Diammonium phosphate / 197 Jagatpura 4 1.10 4.4 563,478 140,870 128,063 0.1080 Parihar Compost

Babanu Guman 501 Got 2 0.32 0.64 79,857 39,928 124,776 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 Bhigad

Sanabhai Sukhabhai Diammonium phosphate / 462 Morthala 6 0.35 2.1 254,348 42,391 121,118 0.0325 Sapra Compost

Prafulben Diammonium phosphate / 453 Harishbhai Than 7 0.62 4.34 511,761 73,109 117,917 0.0561 Compost Dodhiwala

Ratanbhai Diammonium phosphate / 361 Bhurabhai Umiya 10 0.50 5 570,652 57,065 114,130 0.0438 Compost Makwana

48 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Motilal Sakharam 212 Astriya 4 0.60 2.4 267,168 66,792 111,320 Distilled Methyl Soyate 0.0002 Patel

Nathu Hukiya 120 Mahudipada 2 0.40 0.8 88,730 44,365 110,912 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 Damar

Rajendra Dhannalal 263 Bandera 2 0.35 0.7 77,638 38,819 110,912 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Patidar

Radhesham Diammonium phosphate / 245 Somakhedi 10 0.65 6.5 717,391 71,739 110,368 0.0550 Mangilal Patidar Compost

Amramli Guman Diammonium phosphate / 503 Got 1 0.32 0.32 34,239 34,239 106,997 0.0263 Gharel Farm Yard Manure

Bhagwan 266 Bandera 4 0.25 1 103,891 25,973 103,891 Acephate 0.0003 Rameshwar Patidar

502 Adada Bhada Meda Got 1 0.40 0.4 41,072 41,072 102,680 Cyclohexanam 0.0003

Ganesh Nemichand Diammonium phosphate / 420 Bhudri 3 0.56 1.68 167,165 55,722 99,503 0.0427 Patidar Compost

Jaipalbhai Babubhai 392 Palsava‐ 7 0.50 3.5 346,957 49,565 99,130 Castor / Compost 0.0380 Jogiya

Diammonium phosphate / 116 Wala Nanaji Parmar Chinkavani 1 0.20 0.2 19,565 19,565 97,826 0.0150 Farm Yard Manure

49 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Ganesh Nathu 28 Jampada 2 0.30 0.6 57,674 28,837 96,124 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 Bhuriya

Sagrambhai 65 Mevasa 5 0.30 1.5 143,478 28,696 95,652 Diammonium phosphate 0.0220 Chondabhai Rathod

505 Somu Bada Madiya Got 2 0.52 1.04 99,128 49,564 95,315 Cyclohexanam 0.0003

Gyanchand Babulal Diammonium phosphate / 252 Somakhedi 5 0.60 3 277,174 55,435 92,391 0.0425 Parihar Compost

Merubhai Dalabhai 390 Palsava‐ 5 0.40 2 182,609 36,522 91,304 Castor / Compost 0.0280 Rathod

Gobarbhai 440 Bhamrasla 3 0.53 1.59 144,075 48,025 90,613 Cyclohexanam 0.0005 Popatbhai Bharwad

Ambaram Mansingh 110 Mahudipada 2 0.30 0.6 54,110 27,055 90,183 Acephate 0.0003 Dindore

Jiyabhai Bhanabhai Diammonium phosphate / 336 Umiya 5 0.80 4 358,696 71,739 89,674 0.0550 Gami Compost

Manohar Diammonium phosphate / 186 Astriya 2 0.40 0.8 71,739 35,870 89,674 0.0275 Amirchand Patidar Compost

Rajendra Raghunath Diammonium phosphate / 217 Bagpal 8 0.38 3 267,652 33,457 89,217 0.0257 Kag Compost

50 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Bhutakbhai Diammonium phosphate / 80 Shikharpur 40 0.30 12 1,043,478 26,087 86,957 0.0313 Ramjibhai Patel Compost

Kishorebhai Diammonium phosphate / 81 Shikharpur 2 0.15 0.3 26,087 13,043 86,957 0.0325 Murlibhai Patel Compost

Ganesh Dhannalal 240 Bandera 8 1.00 8 684,160 85,520 85,520 Difenthiuron 0.0001 Patidar

Samdalabhai Diammonium phosphate / 301 Bhimasar 2 1.00 2 169,565 84,783 84,783 0.0650 Dalabhai Bayad Compost

Ambabhai Diammonium phosphate / 347 Padampar 4 0.50 2 169,565 42,391 84,783 0.0325 Mahadeva Ravriya Compost

504 Makna Badiya Meda Got 2 0.48 0.96 79,857 39,928 83,184 Cyclohexanam 0.0011

Nagarbhai Diammonium phosphate / 452 Pitambarbhai Than 2 1.00 2 163,043 81,522 81,522 0.0625 Compost Makwana

Parbatbhai Diammonium phosphate / 244 Mokasara 4.5 0.66 2.97 239,478 53,217 80,632 0.0408 Vaghsibhai Rajpara Super Phosphate / Compost

Jaimalbhai Dalabhai Diammonium phosphate / 298 Bhimasar 3 0.90 2.7 215,217 71,739 79,710 0.0550 Parmar Compost

51 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Sabhlabhai 8 Mevasa 5 0.80 4 313,043 62,609 78,261 Diammonium phosphate 0.0480 Bhurabhai Rathod

143 Ravji Dhanji Khadiya Chavriya 3 0.32 0.96 73,202 24,401 76,252 Cyclohexanam 0.0002

Diammonium phosphate / 38 Puriya Hira Ninama Ambapada 1 0.28 0.28 21,196 21,196 75,699 0.0163 Farm Yard Manure

Ramabhai 442 Bhamrasla 4 1.00 4 300,000 75,000 75,000 Diammonium phosphate 0.0575 Popatbhai

Ranchod Gangaram Diammonium phosphate / 57 Satrundi 2 0.48 0.96 71,739 35,870 74,728 0.0275 Anjana Farm Yard Manure

Mohan Bhawliya Diammonium phosphate / 198 Jagatpura 5 0.80 4 294,783 58,957 73,696 0.0452 Goad Compost

Samatbhai 391 Palsava‐ 4 0.50 2 146,087 36,522 73,043 Castor / Compost 0.0280 Savvabhai Gagani

Mohanbhai Diammonium phosphate / 426 Sarsna 1 0.60 0.6 42,391 42,391 70,652 0.0325 Jaisinghbhai Parmar Compost

Ladabhai Gangabhai 389 Palsava‐ 5 0.40 2 140,870 28,174 70,435 Compost 0.0216 Dhasali

Previnbhai Diammonium phosphate / 353 Padampar 4 0.45 1.8 125,217 31,304 69,565 0.0240 Parbatbhai Patel Compost

52 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

50 Govardhan Ninama Ambapada 4 0.40 1.6 110,912 27,728 69,320 Cyclohexanam 0.0003

Hariom Hiralal Diammonium phosphate / 170 Bagpal 2 0.70 1.4 95,217 47,609 68,012 0.0365 Jaiswal Super Phosphate / Compost

Gulabben labhubhai Diammonium phosphate / 96 Piprali 2 0.60 1.2 79,696 39,848 66,413 0.0306 Rangpara MIX / Compost

Ashokbhai Jevabhai Diammonium phosphate / 393 Bhotakiya 2 1.00 2 130,435 65,217 65,217 0.0770 Mali Compost

Ratnabhai Devdasji Diammonium phosphate / 76 Shikharpur 10 0.20 2 130,435 13,043 65,217 0.0213 Patel Compost

Ranchhod Narsinh Diammonium phosphate / 78 Shikharpur 10 0.20 2 130,435 13,043 65,217 0.0213 Patel Compost

Ganeshbhai 376 Kidiyanagar 2 0.40 0.8 52,174 26,087 65,217 Diammonium phosphate 0.0200 Babubhai Kediya

35 Nanuram Parangi Lalarundi 1 0.20 0.2 13,043 13,043 65,217 Diammonium phosphate 0.0100

Jagdish Mangal 422 Bhudri 6 0.66 3.96 250,435 41,739 63,241 Diammonium phosphate 0.0320 Pawar

Diammonium phosphate / 58 Amar Punjaji Devda Satrundi 2 0.40 0.8 50,543 25,272 63,179 0.0194 Farm Yard Manure

53 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Kamal Bhivra 421 Bhudri 2 0.50 1 62,609 31,304 62,609 Diammonium phosphate 0.0240 Patidar

Chhotu Natthu Diammonium phosphate / 251 Somakhedi 5 0.80 4 247,826 49,565 61,957 0.0380 Pathan Compost

Rajesh Harinarayan Diammonium phosphate / 159 Loundi 5 0.60 3 184,796 36,959 61,599 0.0283 More MIX / Compost

Madhurbhai 443 Bhamrasla 8 0.86 6.88 415,565 51,946 60,402 Acephate 0.0005 Popatbhai Dodiya

Ramesh Dalsing 133 Mohankot 4 0.48 1.92 115,348 28,837 60,077 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 Muniya

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

Sadashiv Shankar Diammonium phosphate / 209 Belam 6 1.00 6 333,248 55,541 55,541 0.0426 Parihar Farm Yard Manure / Mix

Harjiubhai Diammonium phosphate / 352 Padampar 2 1.00 2 110,870 55,435 55,435 0.0425 Gopalbhai Minar Compost

Haribhai Diammonium phosphate / 387 Palsava‐ 5 0.80 4 221,739 44,348 55,435 0.0340 Bhuvanbhai Rathod Compost

54 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Khetabhai Velabhai Diammonium phosphate / 349 Padampar 6 0.83 4.98 270,783 45,130 54,374 0.0346 Dubariya Compost

Diammonium phosphate / 62 Kalu Gavji Dindor Satrundi 1 0.32 0.32 17,283 17,283 54,008 Super Phosphate / Farm Yard 0.0133 Manure

Jokaerbhai Ajabhai Diammonium phosphate / 299 Bhimasar 5 0.80 4 215,217 43,043 53,804 0.0330 Parmar Compost

Ganesh Ramlal 239 Bandera 2 0.85 1.7 91,304 45,652 53,708 Diammonium phosphate 0.0350 Patidar

Kanabhai Bijalbhai 64 Mevasa 8 0.70 5.6 299,462 37,433 53,475 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Rathod

Harjibhai 475 Dharamsibhai Mokasara 6 0.83 4.98 266,189 44,365 53,452 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Rajapara

Laljibhai Karsanbhai 480 Pipliya(Dhora) 4 0.98 3.92 207,782 51,946 53,006 Acephate 0.0005 Makwana

Ramaji Bhuvan Diammonium phosphate / 61 Satrundi 1 0.40 0.4 21,196 21,196 52,989 0.0163 Maida Farm Yard Manure

Laxmanbhai Diammonium phosphate / 302 Bhimasar 3 1.16 3.48 182,739 60,913 52,511 0.0467 Bhimabhai Bayad Compost

55 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Rameshkumar 230 Loundi 3 0.50 1.5 78,261 26,087 52,174 Diammonium phosphate 0.0200 Bhalaji More

Anasingh Nathu 29 Jampada 1.5 0.30 0.45 23,292 15,528 51,759 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 Bhuriya

Manjibhai Diammonium phosphate / 337 Umiya 2 0.60 1.2 61,304 30,652 51,087 0.0235 Bhanabhai Gami Compost

Veshyarambhai 488 Pipliya(Dhora) 3 0.77 2.31 117,391 39,130 50,819 Diammonium phosphate 0.0300 Amrabhai Parmar

Gendala Ganpat Diammonium phosphate / 2 Garvakhedi 3 0.40 1.2 60,457 20,152 50,380 0.0155 Patel Farm Yard Manure

Mohan Ganesh 412 Mandori 15 0.83 12.45 623,880 41,592 50,111 Cyclohexanam 0.0004 Patidar

Becharbhai Diammonium phosphate / 241 Gobarbhai Mokasara 0.5 1.20 0.6 30,000 60,000 50,000 0.0460 Compost Wachhani

Krishna Santosh 410 Mandori 2 0.80 1.6 78,261 39,130 48,913 Diammonium phosphate 0.0300 Patel

Tilokchand 418 Bhudri 4 0.88 3.52 169,565 42,391 48,172 Acephate 0.0325 Revaramji Parihar

56 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Lolsingh Dalla Diammonium phosphate / 130 Mohankot 1 0.50 0.5 23,478 23,478 46,957 0.0180 Damer Super Phosphate

37 Lulla Gamod Ambapada 4 0.48 1.92 88,730 22,182 46,213 Cyclohexanam 0.0002

Ratanbhai Diammonium phosphate / 297 Bhimasar 3 0.93 2.79 127,174 42,391 45,582 0.0325 Khimabhai Parmar Compost

Bhushanbhai 95 Piprali 4 0.25 1 44,870 11,217 44,870 MIX 0.0086 Narsibhai Rangpara

113 Besaya Lula Dindor Chinkavani 2 0.40 0.8 35,492 17,746 44,365 Cyclohexanam 0.0004

Ramjibhai Diammonium phosphate / 322 Dudhabhai Bhotakiya 5 1.00 5 218,478 43,696 43,696 0.0335 Castor / Compost Makwana

Devayatbhai 12 Karmalbhai Mevasa 4 0.75 3 130,435 32,609 43,478 Diammonium phosphate 0.0250 Khambhla

Diammonium phosphate / 221 Pradip Jagdish Kag Bagpal 1 0.60 0.6 26,087 26,087 43,478 0.0200 Compost

509 Malla Badhiya Meda Garvakhedi 2 0.15 0.3 13,043 6,522 43,478 Farm Yard Manure 0.0050

Harishbhai Diammonium phosphate / 348 Padampar 3 0.83 2.49 108,000 36,000 43,373 0.0276 Parbatbhai Minar Compost

57 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Bhikhabhai 454 Than 6 1.00 6 257,131 42,855 42,855 Acephate 0.0004 Motibhai Makwana

Rameshbhai 485 Pipliya(Dhora) 5 0.60 3 127,549 25,510 42,516 Cyclohexanam 0.0003 Amrabhai Galsar

Jasabhai Pachabhai Diammonium phosphate / 323 Bhotakiya 6 1.00 6 254,348 42,391 42,391 0.0325 Kodi Compost

Vijay Bhagirath 231 Loundi 3 0.50 1.5 62,609 20,870 41,739 Diammonium phosphate 0.0160 Savle

Buariya Galiya 138 Chavriya 2 0.32 0.64 26,619 13,309 41,592 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 Khadiya

Rambhai Ajabhai Diammonium phosphate / 380 Kidiyanagar 5 0.60 3 123,913 24,783 41,304 0.0190 Rathod Compost

Lagrabhai 439 Bhamrasla 6 0.53 3.18 129,913 21,652 40,853 Diammonium phosphate 0.0166 Revajibhai Talwania

Dayabhai Rangabhai 381 Kidiyanagar 5 0.60 3 117,391 23,478 39,130 Compost 0.0180 Rathod

Vijaybhai Rahabhai 441 Bhamrasla 4 0.90 3.6 138,783 34,696 38,551 Diammonium phosphate 0.0266 Bharwad

Gendalal Gangaram Diammonium phosphate / 167 Bagpal 7 0.80 5.6 213,890 30,556 38,195 0.0234 Mansore Compost

58 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Mahesh Ambaram 213 Astriya 4 0.36 1.44 54,347 13,587 37,741 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 Patidar

Hariram Narayan 157 Loundi 5 0.70 3.5 130,435 26,087 37,267 Diammonium phosphate 0.0200 More

Dayabhai Amrabhai Diammonium phosphate / 350 Padampar 2 0.75 1.5 54,783 27,391 36,522 0.0210 Parmar Compost

Bhalsurbhai 63 Mevasa 7 0.69 4.8 169,565 24,224 35,326 Diammonium phosphate 0.0186 Savsibhai Rathod

Laljibhai Somabhai 428 Sarsna 6 0.50 3 105,366 17,561 35,122 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 Sapra

Babubhai Umarbhai 486 Pipliya(Dhora) 3 0.93 2.79 90,000 30,000 32,258 Diammonium phosphate 0.0230 Pathan

Ratanbhai Shinbhai Diammonium phosphate / 379 Kidiyanagar 5 0.80 4 123,913 24,783 30,978 0.0190 Kediya Compost

Veerjibhai 479 Mehranbhai Pipliya(Dhora) 2 0.85 1.7 51,946 25,973 30,556 Acephate 0.0003 Makwana

27 Ambu Badda Damar Jampada 3 0.30 0.9 24,457 8,152 27,174 Farm Yard Manure 0.0063

Diammonium phosphate / 145 Balu Galiya Khadiya Chavriya 4 0.48 1.92 52,174 13,043 27,174 0.0100 Farm Yard Manure

59 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Baddev Dalabhai Diammonium phosphate / 300 Bhimasar 5 0.90 4.5 114,130 22,826 25,362 0.0175 Parmar Compost

5 Kalu Nanda Tipoliya Garvakhedi 4 0.40 1.6 38,819 9,705 24,262 Cyclohexanam 0.0002

Jitendra Ganesh 406 Bhudri 10 0.95 9.5 216,440 21,644 22,783 Acephate 0.0002 Parihar

Bahadursingh Super Phosphate / Farm Yard 69 Satrundi 2 0.60 1.2 26,739 13,370 22,283 0.0103 Anjana Manuare

Ishwar Surajmal 419 Bhudri 8 1.00 8 141,967 17,746 17,746 Cyclohexanam 0.0002 Nayak

10 Kashiram Patel Garvakhedi 2 0.40 0.8 13,864 6,932 17,330 Cyclohexanam 0.0005

Maljibhai Revabhai Diammonium phosphate / 77 Shikharpur 15 0.53 7.95 136,957 9,130 17,227 0.0145 Patel Compost

Baldevbhai Diammonium phosphate / 375 Kidiyanagar 5 1.20 6 84,783 16,957 14,130 0.0130 Banabhai Kediya Compost

Pravinbhai Diammonium phosphate / 82 Shikharpur 2 1.00 2 26,087 13,043 13,043 0.1000 Murlibhai Patel Compost

Javerbhai Ravjibhai 438 Bhamrasla 6 0.83 4.98 39,928 6,655 8,018 Cyclohexanam 0.0001 Dodiya

60 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Parbatbhai 280 Juna Katariya 35 0.06 1.995 12,069 345 6,050 Compost 0.0270 Govardhan Patel

Ranjitsinh 304 Wandhiya 40 0.01 0.4 2,299 57 5,747 Compost 0.0045 Gumansinh jadeja

Samatbhai Ranchod 278 Juna Katariya 5 0.16 0.8 2,299 460 2,874 Compost 0.0360 Koli

277 Parbat Jetha Patel Juna Katariya 9 0.13 1.17 2,586 287 2,210 Compost 0.0225

Balabhai Murjibhai 92 Wandhiya 9 0.08 0.72 1,149 128 1,596 Compost 0.0100 Devda

Dharamji Khimji 289 Narayansari 23 0.10 2.3 3,516 153 1,529 Compost 0.0120 Patel

Munjibhai 394 Wandhiya 8 0.23 1.8 2,586 323 1,437 Compost 0.0253 Narayanbhai Patel

510 Kishan Devji Patel Juna Katariya 5 0.10 0.5 575 115 1,149 Compost 0.0090

Veerjibhai 291 Wandhiya 4 0.40 1.6 1,724 431 1,078 Compost 0.0338 Kesarbhai Patel

Kanjibhai Gangjibhai 365 Narayansari 72 0.12 8.64 8,276 115 958 Compost 0.0090 Patel

61 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Jairambhai 290 Narayansari 18 0.11 1.98 1,723 96 870 Compost 0.0075 Pannabhai Patel

Gokul Mohanbhai 400 Narayansari 15 0.16 2.4 1,916 128 798 Compost 0.0100 Patel

276 Jeevan Devji Patel Juna Katariya 10 0.12 1.2 893 89 744 Compost 0.0070

Dharamji 292 Wandhiya 5 0.40 2 1,437 287 718 Compost 0.0225 Becharbhai Patel

Ratabhai Ramji 274 Narayansari 8 0.20 1.6 1,149 144 718 Compost 0.0113 Patel

Kanjibhai Haribhai 395 Wandhiya 10 0.40 4 2,586 259 647 Compost 0.0203 Patel

Ranchodbhai 399 Narayansari 9 0.18 1.62 1,034 115 639 Compost 0.0090 Mohanbhai Patel

150 Lokendra Jani Garvakhedi 7 0.20 1.4 435 62 311 Urea 0.005

Kanhabhai 386 Bhotakiya 3 1.00 3 690 230 230 Compost 0.0180 Vithabhai Mali

367 Ramji Velabhai Patel Juna Katariya 10 0.32 3.2 690 69 216 Compost 0.0054

62 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Annex V – Grey water footprint for the 240 organic farms 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 Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Murjibhai Mebhaya Compost (phosphorous) 398 Shikharpur 15 0.12 1.8 1,320,652 88,043 733,696 7.500 Patel Nandkishore Kaluji Compost (phosphorous) 423 Bhudri 4 0.25 1 386,817 96,704 386,817 7.507 Patidar Pannabhai Hirjibhai Compost (phosphorous) 330 Narayansari 15 0.06 0.9 330,163 22,011 366,848 1.875 Patel Gajabhai Sugabhai Compost (phosphorous) 360 Bhotakiya 3 0.33 0.99 246,522 82,174 249,012 7.000 Rajpur Compost (phosphorous) 397 Manjbhai Deva Patel Shikharpur 12 0.08 0.96 234,689 19,557 244,467 1.666 Vijusingh Narsingh Compost (phosphorous) 414 Bhudri 2 0.3 0.6 119,478 59,739 199,130 5.001 Nayak Samatbhai Compost (phosphorous) 358 Umiya 4 0.35 1.4 249,552 62,388 178,251 5.251 Shavabhai Makwana Manohar Khushalji Compost (phosphorous) 207 Belam 6 0.5 3 528,261 88,043 176,087 7.500 Solanki Jeetendra Shankar Compost (phosphorous) 155 Loundi 2.5 1 2.5 440,217 176,087 176,087 15.000 Chowhan Natthu Rajaram Compost (phosphorous) 189 Jagatpura 5 0.5 2.5 440,217 88,043 176,087 7.500 Yadav Sunderbhai Farm Yard Manure 468 Morthala 3 0.23 0.69 105,652 35,217 153,119 0.027 Mohanbhai Digama Mohanbhai Compost (phosphorous) 437 Bhamrasla 4 0.75 3 443,478 110,870 147,826 5.040 Khimabhai Jolapara

63 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Compost (phosphorous) 151 Laxman Gotuji More Loundi 2 0.6 1.2 176,087 88,043 146,739 7.500 Rajendra Mangilal Compost (phosphorous) 232 Loundi 2 0.4 0.8 117,391 58,696 146,739 5.000 Chowhan Compost (phosphorous) 320 Vipul Jevabhai Mali Bhotakiya 3 0.16 0.48 70,435 23,478 146,739 2.000 Compost (phosphorous) 211 Harilal Kaluji Jaiswal Bagpal 5 0.7 3.5 498,913 99,783 142,547 8.500 Kushabhai Compost (phosphorous) 427 Sarsna 6 0.42 2.52 352,174 58,696 139,752 5.000 Becharbhai Solanki Ranchodbhai Compost (phosphorous) 396 Shikharpur 9 0.22 1.98 264,130 29,348 133,399 2.500 Narsobhai Patel Babulal Govind Compost (phosphorous) 214 Bagpal 5 0.6 3 381,522 76,304 127,174 6.500 Kotwal Gajanan Shobharav Compost (phosphorous) 224 Astriya 10 0.7 7 880,435 88,043 125,776 7.500 Patidar Usha Gananan Compost (phosphorous) 225 Astriya 5 0.7 3.5 440,217 88,043 125,776 7.500 Patidar Uttam Subhash Compost (phosphorous) 425 Bhudri 2 0.75 1.5 180,261 90,130 120,174 7.502 Patidar Rajnath Sitaram Compost (phosphorous) 401 Mandori 9 0.5 4.5 540,587 60,065 120,130 5.001 Patidar Dharmesh Sevakram Compost (phosphorous) 408 Mandori 6 0.5 3 356,478 59,413 118,826 5.001 Patidar Becharbhai Compost (phosphorous) 364 Narayansari 8 0.15 1.2 140,870 17,609 117,391 1.500 Akhaibhai Patel Shyam Mahadev Compost (phosphorous) 417 Bhudri 4.5 0.56 2.52 291,952 64,878 115,854 5.005 Patidar Ritesh Phulchand Compost (phosphorous) 272 Somakhedi 6.5 0.32 2.08 238,960 36,763 114,885 2.704 Patidar

64 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Jivtiben Panchabhai Compost (phosphorous) 362 Bhotakiya 4 0.75 3 331,304 82,826 110,435 7.001 Makwana Mahadev Shobharao Compost (phosphorous) 175 Astriya 6 0.83 4.98 534,130 89,022 107,255 7.501 Patidar Veljibhai Bhurabhai Compost (phosphorous) 295 Shikharpur 8 0.175 1.4 146,504 18,313 104,646 1.560 Patel Dharmendra Compost (phosphorous) 269 Nandra 7 0.5 3.5 362,843 51,835 103,670 2.517 Omprakash Dhariya Subhash Gajanan Compost (phosphorous) 424 Bhudri 6 0.87 5.22 540,783 90,130 103,598 7.502 Patidar Prakash Jagnnath Compost (phosphorous) 271 Somakhedi 3 0.66 1.98 201,209 67,070 101,621 5.006 Patidar Dinesh Laxman Compost (phosphorous) 190 Jagatpura 4 0.87 3.48 353,478 88,370 101,574 7.500 Pawar Mohan Ganesh Compost (phosphorous) 402 Mandori 5 0.6 3 302,935 60,587 100,978 5.001 Patidar Compost (phosphorous) 234 Anil Prakash Patidar Somakhedi 5 0.4 2 201,209 40,242 100,604 3.004 Mahadev Bhagwan Compost (phosphorous) 415 Bhudri 8 0.69 5.52 552,313 69,039 100,057 5.008 Parihar Hasmukhbhai Compost (phosphorous) 342 Umiya 3.5 0.43 1.505 147,887 42,253 98,263 3.571 Shavabhai Makwana Girdhari Shobharam Compost (phosphorous) 221 Astriya 15 0.6 9 880,435 58,696 97,826 5.000 Patidar Mansubhai Compost (phosphorous) 296 Dudhabhai Bhimasar 2 0.75 1.5 146,739 73,370 97,826 6.250 Makwana Samatbhai Bagabhai Compost (phosphorous) 373 Kidiyanagar 8 0.5 4 375,652 46,957 93,913 4.000 Rathod

65 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Lilaben Kumbhabhai Compost (phosphorous) 384 Kidiyanagar 9.5 0.5 4.75 446,087 46,957 93,913 4.000 Rathod Devabhai Khedabhai Compost (phosphorous) 341 Umiya 4 0.5 2 181,957 45,489 90,978 3.875 Makwana Surabhai Vastabhai Farm Yard Manure 489 Pipliya(Dhora) 1 0.5 0.5 45,000 45,000 90,000 0.035 Makwana Bankatlal Mangilal Compost (phosphorous) 187 Jagatpura 3 0.66 1.98 177,077 59,026 89,433 5.000 Sen Urmila Mahadev Compost (phosphorous) 180 Astriya 5 1 5 442,663 88,533 88,533 7.500 Patidar Pemabhai Pavanbhai Compost (phosphorous) 303 Bhimasar 2 1 2 176,087 88,043 88,043 7.500 Makwana Ramjibhai Hirabhai Compost (phosphorous) 416 Sarsna 4 0.45 1.8 156,829 39,207 87,127 3.152 Parmar Shivabhai Farm Yard Manure 473 Dharmasibhai Mokasara 3 0.2 0.6 52,216 17,405 87,026 0.013 Rajpura Krishnakant Compost (phosphorous) 409 Mandori 5 0.7 3.5 296,087 59,217 84,596 5.000 Ramsevak Patidar Jeevanbhai Savjibhai Compost (phosphorous) 370 Narayansari 7 0.14 0.98 82,174 11,739 83,851 1.000 Patel Karmasibhai Compost (phosphorous) 105 Mevasa 2 0.9 1.8 146,739 73,370 81,522 3.773 Ravsibhai Rathod Becharbhai Kogabhai Compost (phosphorous) 451 Mevasa 4 0.55 2.2 177,235 44,309 80,561 3.750 Khatala Mohan Bhimaji Compost (phosphorous) 222 Bagpal 3 0.37 1.11 88,043 29,348 79,318 2.500 Humber Compost (phosphorous) 229 Govind Balram More Loundi 4 0.75 3 237,391 59,348 79,130 5.002

66 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Amarsibhai Janabhai Farm Yard Manure 484 Pipliya(Dhora) 1 1 1 79,096 79,096 79,096 0.061 Makwana Vinubhai Somabhai Farm Yard Manure 482 Pipliya(Dhora) 2 0.8 1.6 122,609 61,304 76,630 0.047 Makwana Pawan Murlibhai Compost (phosphorous) 79 Shikharpur 32 0.18 5.76 440,264 13,758 76,435 1.172 Patel Katiben Ramji Compost (phosphorous) 363 Bhotakiya 1.5 0.53 0.795 59,668 39,779 75,054 3.334 Makwana Behtarbhai Compost (phosphorous) 293 Wandhiya 20 0.2 4 293,478 14,674 73,370 1.250 Ranchodbhai Patel Ratanlal Govind Compost (phosphorous) 188 Jagatpura 6 0.66 3.96 290,191 48,365 73,281 4.001 Pawar Raghubhai Compost (phosphorous) 346 Padampar 3 0.83 2.49 176,087 58,696 70,718 5.000 Anantabhai Patel Farm Yard Manure 51 Ukar Baluji Dayima Lalarundi 1 0.24 0.24 16,304 16,304 67,935 0.013 Venubhai Farm Yard Manure 97 Piprali 2 0.25 0.5 33,587 16,793 67,174 0.013 Bacchubhai Rathod Jeevanbhai Farm Yard Manure 461 Morthala 2 0.6 1.2 78,261 39,130 65,217 0.030 Chaganbhai Shaikh Sukhrambhai Compost (phosphorous) 432 Bhamrasla 1 0.9 0.9 58,696 58,696 65,217 5.000 Bhuvanbhai Jolapara Prabhu Savsibhai Compost (phosphorous) 255 Sarsna 1.5 0.47 0.705 44,022 29,348 62,442 2.500 Dholkiya Rakesh Gendalal Compost (phosphorous) 192 Jagatpura 7 0.57 3.99 246,522 35,217 61,785 3.000 Yadav Ranabhai Jogabhai Compost (phosphorous) 327 Palsava‐ 5 0.8 4 246,522 49,304 61,630 4.200 Parmar

67 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Jagabhai Bhuvanbhai Compost (phosphorous) 434 Bhamrasla 5 0.6 3 184,891 36,978 61,630 3.150 Jolapara Bhagwanbhai Farm Yard Manure 456 Than 3.5 0.57 1.995 122,279 34,937 61,293 0.027 Motibhai Makwana Dhudabhai Compost (phosphorous) 436 Bhamrasla 4 0.725 2.9 176,087 44,022 60,720 3.750 Mohanbhai Jolapara Bacchubhai Compost (phosphorous) 335 Umiya 1 0.6 0.6 36,365 36,365 60,609 3.001 Dharamsibhai Patel Prakash Babulal Compost (phosphorous) 203 Belam 6 0.42 2.52 148,146 24,691 58,788 2.001 Parihar Gajaraj Parasram Compost (phosphorous) 152 Loundi 4 0.5 2 117,391 29,348 58,696 2.500 More Compost (phosphorous) 284 Morji Savji Patel Wandhiya 20 0.2 4 234,783 11,739 58,696 1.000 Rajabhai Kanabhai Farm Yard Manure 311 Surei 2 0.5 1 57,065 28,533 57,065 0.022 Kansagara Mukesh Gendalal Compost (phosphorous) 191 Jagatpura 7 0.64 4.48 246,522 35,217 55,027 3.000 Yadav Farm Yard Manure 11 Varsing Velji Singad Satrundi 1 0.3 0.3 16,304 16,304 54,348 0.013 Rajesh Sitaram Farm Yard Manure 247 Bandera 4 0.4 1.6 85,774 21,443 53,609 0.016 Patidar Ramchandra Compost (phosphorous) 403 Mandori 8 0.62 4.96 263,687 32,961 53,163 2.503 balaram Patidar Ambavibhai Compost (phosphorous) 333 Padampar 2 1 2 105,652 52,826 52,826 4.500 Raghubhai Minar Shavabhai Bhurabhai Compost (phosphorous) 357 Umiya 3 0.4 1.2 63,365 21,122 52,805 1.767 Makwana Ajay Ramchandra Compost (phosphorous) 407 Mandori 5 0.6 3 151,826 30,365 50,609 2.501 Patidar

68 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Revaji Bhagwan Farm Yard Manure 275 Nandra 7 0.57 3.99 199,509 28,501 50,002 0.022 Patidar Vishnu Sitaram Farm Yard Manure 262 Bandera 4 0.43 1.72 85,774 21,443 49,869 0.016 Patidar Compost (phosphorous) 219 Shantilal Jituji Patel Bagpal 2 0.9 1.8 89,270 44,635 49,594 3.750 Shivcharan Kaluji Compost (phosphorous) 202 Belam 6 0.5 3 148,146 24,691 49,382 2.001 Parihar Govardhanbhai Compost (phosphorous) 433 Bhamrasla 5 0.6 3 146,739 29,348 48,913 2.500 Morebhai Jediya Bagabhai Compost (phosphorous) 435 Bhamrasla 2 0.9 1.8 88,043 44,022 48,913 3.750 Bhuvanbhai Jolapara Nandu Gangaram Farm Yard Manure 142 Mahudipada 1 0.2 0.2 9,783 9,783 48,913 0.008 Singad Laxmanbhai Farm Yard Manure 467 Morthala 2 0.8 1.6 78,261 39,130 48,913 0.030 Devabhai Savriya Khetabhai Dalabhai Compost (phosphorous) 356 Bhimasar 3 1 3 146,152 48,717 48,717 4.150 Parmar Kanjibhai Karsanbhai Compost (phosphorous) 344 Padampar 5 1 5 241,606 48,321 48,321 3.010 Patel Arjibhai Nanjibhai Compost (phosphorous) 324 Bhotakiya 5 1.1 5.5 264,130 52,826 48,024 4.500 Mali Jesabhai Karsanbhai Compost (phosphorous) 334 Padampar 4 0.75 3 140,870 35,217 46,957 3.000 Patel Bhupalbhai Farm Yard Manure 474 Mokasara 1 0.7 0.7 32,283 32,283 46,118 0.025 Chowksibhai Rajpura Chothabhai Farm Yard Manure 313 Surei 3 0.71 2.13 97,826 32,609 45,928 0.025 Danabhai Bambhwa Dulesingh Mangu Compost (phosphorous) 125 Mohankot 2 0.4 0.8 36,522 18,261 45,652 1.005 Sarel

69 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Piyush Gyanchand Compost (phosphorous) 250 Somakhedi 3 0.53 1.59 72,582 24,194 45,649 1.505 Patidar Harikrishna Babulal Compost (phosphorous) 233 Somakhedi 8 0.5 4 176,087 22,011 44,022 1.875 Patidar Dayabhai Ranabhai Compost (phosphorous) 325 Palsava‐ 5 0.8 4 176,087 35,217 44,022 3.000 Parmar Purabhai Premjibhai Compost (phosphorous) 294 Wandhiya 10 0.2 2 88,043 8,804 44,022 0.750 Patel Dharmendra Compost (phosphorous) 248 Somakhedi 3.5 0.85 2.975 129,460 36,989 43,516 2.506 Harikrishna Patidar Mehrubhai Farm Yard Manure 447 Prabhubhai Than 2 0.3 0.6 26,087 13,043 43,478 0.010 Khandaliya Banabhai Compost (phosphorous) 383 Kidiyanagar 5.3 0.55 2.915 124,435 23,478 42,688 2.000 Kumbhabhai Rathod Ambavibhai Compost (phosphorous) 345 Padampar 3 0.83 2.49 105,652 35,217 42,431 3.000 Mahadev Patel Jitendra Ramlal Farm Yard Manure 257 Nandra 5 0.7 3.5 148,043 29,609 42,298 0.023 Patidar Medhabhai Compost (phosphorous) 329 Mandanbhai Palsava‐ 4 1 4 169,043 42,261 42,261 3.600 Chawda Shaikh Mansukhbhai Farm Yard Manure 457 Piprali 2 0.6 1.2 50,557 25,278 42,130 0.019 Malabhai Argujbhai Merabhai Farm Yard Manure 93 Piprali 2 0.6 1.2 50,217 25,109 41,848 0.019 Savriya Farm Yard Manure 42 Ralu Hurji Muniya Ambapada 1 0.4 0.4 16,304 16,304 40,761 0.013 Farm Yard Manure 66 Ganesh Kuka Garwal Satrundi 2 0.2 0.4 16,304 8,152 40,761 0.007

70 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Farm Yard Manure 140 Bheru Badda Singad Mahudipada 3 0.2 0.6 24,457 8,152 40,761 0.006 Manohar Shankar Compost (phosphorous) 199 Belam 10 0.8 8 326,087 32,609 40,761 2.503 Parihar Tejabhai Punjabhai Farm Yard Manure 463 Morthala 1 0.4 0.4 16,304 16,304 40,761 0.013 Sacvriya Ghughabhai Compost (phosphorous) 104 Mevasa 4 0.9 3.6 146,739 36,685 40,761 3.125 Somabhai Rathod Laxmanbhai Farm Yard Manure 241 Sarsna 6 0.4 2.4 97,826 16,304 40,761 0.013 Lavjibhai Khodabhai Jogabhai Compost (phosphorous) 340 Umiya 2 0.6 1.2 46,957 23,478 39,130 2.000 Makwana Jevabhai Compost (phosphorous) 321 Bhotakiya 2 1.05 2.1 82,174 41,087 39,130 3.500 Dharamsibhai Mali Bhikabhai Lagrabhai Compost (phosphorous) 106 Mevasa 3 1 3 116,217 38,739 38,739 3.300 Rathod Jetendra Rameshwar Farm Yard Manure 273 Nandra 9 0.44 3.96 150,907 16,767 38,108 0.013 Patidar Compost (phosphorous) 134 Anasingh Sarel Mohankot 1 0.48 0.48 18,261 18,261 38,043 1.005 Chaganbhai Farm Yard Manure 306 Khimabhai Morthala 3 0.66 1.98 73,370 24,457 37,055 0.019 Dumadiya Chaganbhai Compost (phosphorous) 102 Mevasa 5 0.8 4 146,739 29,348 36,685 2.500 Samabhai Sabliya Bhalsurbhai Jivlabhai Compost (phosphorous) 103 Mevasa 4 1 4 146,739 36,685 36,685 3.125 Rathod Walsibhai Pragjibhai Farm Yard Manure 444 Than 2 0.25 0.5 17,870 8,935 35,739 0.007 Sonagra

71 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Puranbhai Compost (phosphorous) 343 Padampar 4 1 4 140,870 35,217 35,217 3.000 Anantabhai Patel Mayur Ambaram Farm Yard Manure 267 Bandera 5 0.3 1.5 51,978 10,396 34,652 0.008 Patidar Manubhai Punabhai Farm Yard Manure 487 Pipliya(Dhora) 2 0.5 1 32,609 16,304 32,609 0.013 Makwana Tersingh Ambaram Farm Yard Manure 139 Mahudipada 1 0.2 0.2 6,522 6,522 32,609 0.005 Singad Gyanchand Dashrath Farm Yard Manure 236 Nandra 3 0.57 1.71 54,000 18,000 31,579 0.014 Patidar Sujabhai Dungarbhai Compost (phosphorous) 332 Bhimasar 4 0.95 3.8 117,391 29,348 30,892 2.500 Soda Farm Yard Manure 9 Nangi Moti Singad Mahudipada 2 0.4 0.8 24,457 12,228 30,571 0.009 Akkabhai Farm Yard Manure 90 Bacchubhai Piprali 2 0.4 0.8 24,457 12,228 30,571 0.009 Makwana Gagajibhai Farm Yard Manure 87 Bansirambhai Surei 3 0.8 2.4 73,370 24,457 30,571 0.019 Nandoliya Ramesh Gulabchand Farm Yard Manure 270 Nandra 8 0.75 6 179,896 22,487 29,983 0.017 Patidar Labhubhai Farm Yard Manure 98 Prabhubhai Piprali 2 0.6 1.2 35,543 17,772 29,620 0.014 Rangpara Iratbhai Danabhai Compost (phosphorous) 282 Wandhiya 20 0.25 5 146,739 7,337 29,348 0.625 Patel Danabhai Dudhabhai Compost (phosphorous) 354 Bhimasar 4 1 4 117,391 29,348 29,348 2.500 Parmar

72 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Manubhai Babubhai Compost (phosphorous) 385 Palsava‐ 2 1 2 58,696 29,348 29,348 2.500 Chawda Ranchod Rana Farm Yard Manure 69 Got 3 0.28 0.84 24,457 8,152 29,115 0.006 Bhavriya Meghabhai Compost (phosphorous) 328 Palsava‐ 9.5 1.05 9.975 278,804 29,348 27,950 2.500 Babubhai Makwana Pethabhai Bagabhai Compost (phosphorous) 374 Kidiyanagar 7 0.86 6.02 164,348 23,478 27,300 2.000 Rathod Kanhabhai Compost (phosphorous) 375 Kidiyanagar 7 0.86 6.02 164,348 23,478 27,300 2.000 Samatbhai Rathod Sukhram Narayan Farm Yard Manure 33 Lalarundi 1 0.24 0.24 6,522 6,522 27,174 0.005 Damar Sukhdev Jagannath Farm Yard Manure 268 Bandera 5 0.6 3 81,522 16,304 27,174 0.013 Patidar Devabhai Nihalbhai Farm Yard Manure 483 Pipliya(Dhora) 2 0.95 1.9 48,913 24,457 25,744 0.019 Makwana Rama Nandaji Farm Yard Manure 123 Mohankot 3 0.32 0.96 24,457 8,152 25,476 0.006 Gamad Farm Yard Manure 13 Tersing Velji Singad Satrundi 3 0.32 0.96 24,457 8,152 25,476 0.007 Farm Yard Manure 79 Abubhai Bhavriya Got 2 0.32 0.64 16,304 8,152 25,476 0.006 Kumbhabhai Compost (phosphorous) 382 Kidiyanagar 6 1 6 147,913 24,652 24,652 2.100 Bhimabhai Rathod Waljibhai Sairambhai Farm Yard Manure 471 Mokasara 2 1.1 2.2 54,000 27,000 24,545 0.021 Rajpura Farm Yard Manure 54 Rama Thavra Dayima Lalarundi 4 0.24 0.96 23,478 5,870 24,457 0.005 Farm Yard Manure 117 Ratanji Ninama Ambapada 2 0.48 0.96 23,478 11,739 24,457 0.009

73 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Dinesh Murlibhai Compost (phosphorous) 75 Narayansari 3 0.4 1.2 29,230 9,743 24,359 0.830 Devda Jasubahen Arjibhai Farm Yard Manure 312 Surei 3 1.2 3.6 87,050 29,017 24,180 0.022 Nadoliya Kishorebhai Compost (phosphorous) 355 Bhimasar 2 1.25 2.5 58,696 29,348 23,478 2.500 Khimabhai Makwana Romisingh Gendalal Farm Yard Manure 4 Garvakhedi 2 0.4 0.8 18,130 9,065 22,663 0.057 Ghatiya Raghobhai Motibhai Farm Yard Manure 472 Mokasara 2.5 1.2 3 67,973 27,189 22,658 0.021 Rajpura Farm Yard Manure 23 Amarsingh Sarel Jampada 4 0.32 1.12 25,109 7,174 22,418 0.006 Farm Yard Manure 67 Bhurji Thauji Singad Satrundi 3 0.2 0.6 12,717 4,239 21,196 0.004 Sureshbhai Farm Yard Manure 445 Than 2 0.4 0.8 16,930 8,465 21,163 0.006 Pragjibhai Sonagra Farm Yard Manure 128 Rafel Antony Bhuriya Mohankot 2 0.3 0.45 9,325 6,217 20,722 0.005 Pema Dholsingh Farm Yard Manure 14 Chavriya 4 0.4 1.6 32,609 8,152 20,380 0.006 Khadiya Kodar Harchand Farm Yard Manure 18 Chavriya 2 0.4 0.8 16,304 8,152 20,380 0.006 Khadiya Farm Yard Manure 45 Madima Ninama Ambapada 3 0.4 1.2 24,457 8,152 20,380 0.006 Farm Yard Manure 118 Bander Munia Ambapada 4 0.4 1.6 32,609 8,152 20,380 0.007 Mansing Shambhu Farm Yard Manure 56 Satrundi 1 0.4 0.4 8,152 8,152 20,380 0.006 Katara Farm Yard Manure 119 Mangalsing Singad Satrundi 3 0.4 1.2 24,457 8,152 20,380 0.006

74 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Veersingh Vajja Farm Yard Manure 55 Lalarundi 1 0.4 0.4 8,152 8,152 20,380 0.006 Ninama Ghuma Kanna Farm Yard Manure 83 Got 4 0.4 1.6 32,609 8,152 20,380 0.006 Bhuriya Farm Yard Manure 46 Amdhu Naniya Chinkavani 8 0.4 3 61,141 8,152 20,380 0.006 Harjibhai Shyambhai Farm Yard Manure 492 Tajpar 2 0.8 1.6 32,609 16,304 20,380 0.013 Dumadiya Vinabhai Ghusabhai Farm Yard Manure 88 Surei 2 0.8 1.6 32,609 16,304 20,380 0.013 Nadoliya Govardhanbhai Farm Yard Manure 100 Jeevanbhai Piprali 3 0.53 1.59 32,283 10,761 20,304 0.008 Makwana Dharamsi Farm Yard Manure 430 Dhannabhai Sarsna 3 0.66 1.98 40,109 13,370 20,257 0.010 rangpara Manjibhai Compost (phosphorous) 395 Shikharpur 2 0.3 0.6 11,739 5,870 19,565 0.500 Dharambhai Patel Kalu Mansingh Farm Yard Manure 107 Mahudipada 2 0.4 0.8 15,652 7,826 19,565 0.006 Dindor Ganeshbhai Compost (phosphorous) 281 Wandhiya 25 0.24 6 117,391 4,696 19,565 0.400 Bacchubhai Patel Kanubhai Farm Yard Manure 314 Mashakbhai Surei 4 0.43 1.72 32,609 8,152 18,959 0.006 Nandoliya Farm Yard Manure 6 Laxman Varda Loda Garvakhedi 3 0.48 1.44 27,196 9,065 18,886 0.057 Hirabhai Vatsabhai Farm Yard Manure 481 Pipliya(Dhora) 1 1 1 18,652 18,652 18,652 0.014 Makwana

75 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Mrs Saguna Farm Yard Manure 26 Mohankot 3 0.3 0.9 16,141 5,380 17,935 0.004 Thavariya Farm Yard Manure 74 Dulla Rana Bhavriya Got 3 0.48 1.44 24,457 8,152 16,984 0.006 Bhavashya Ramsingh Farm Yard Manure 3 Garvakhedi 2 0.48 0.96 16,304 8,152 16,984 0.006 Ghatiya Farm Yard Manure 429 Lilabhai Lavjibhai Sarsna 16 0.31 4.96 81,522 5,095 16,436 0.004 Farm Yard Manure 16 Narji Ravji Khadiya Chavriya 3 0.32 0.96 15,652 5,217 16,304 0.004 Khushal Kanara Farm Yard Manure 43 Ambapada 4 0.4 1.5 24,457 6,522 16,304 0.005 Gomad Farm Yard Manure 135 Bapu Ramaji Sarel Jampada 3 0.5 1.25 20,380 8,152 16,304 0.006 Farm Yard Manure 114 Mana Vesta Bhuriya Chinkavani 3 0.4 1 16,304 6,522 16,304 0.005 Chaganbhai Farm Yard Manure 494 Tajpar 2 1 2 32,609 16,304 16,304 0.013 Kadvabhai makwana Ambaram Farm Yard Manure 448 Madhurbhai Than 4 0.6 2.4 39,130 9,783 16,304 0.008 Makwana Medha Dhanna Farm Yard Manure 84 Chinkavani 4 0.4 1.6 26,087 6,522 16,304 0.005 Bhuriya Ramesh Hursingh Farm Yard Manure 115 Chinkavani 4 0.4 1.6 26,087 6,522 16,304 0.005 Bhabar Anusaya Lokendra Farm Yard Manure 1 Garvakhedi 4 0.6 2.4 37,304 9,326 15,543 0.106 Jani Inder Ramsingh Compost (phosphorous) 205 Belam 8 0.8 6.4 96,522 12,065 15,082 1.000 Parihar

76 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Compost (phosphorous) 206 Mamta Inder Parihar Belam 7 0.8 5.6 84,457 12,065 15,082 1.000 Parasottambhai Farm Yard Manure 477 Mokasara 1 1 1 14,739 14,739 14,739 0.011 Shivasibhai Laxman Sojibhai Compost (phosphorous) 283 Wandhiya 20 0.2 4 58,696 2,935 14,674 0.250 Patel Farm Yard Manure 31 Ukar Varda Vasuniya Lalarundi 2 0.4 0.8 11,087 5,543 13,859 0.004 Sevabhai Ranabhai Compost (phosphorous) 326 Palsava‐ 3.5 0.86 3.01 41,087 11,739 13,650 1.000 Parmar Farm Yard Manure 21 Ambaram Sarel Jampada 6 0.6 3.6 48,913 8,152 13,587 0.006 Farm Yard Manure 124 Saliya Magu Sarel Mohankot 2 0.48 0.72 9,783 6,522 13,587 0.005 Lalu Gangaram Farm Yard Manure 141 Mahudipada 5 0.48 2.4 32,609 6,522 13,587 0.005 Singad Farm Yard Manure 22 Sukram Sarel Jampada 2 0.48 0.96 13,043 6,522 13,587 0.005 Payabhai Ukabhai Farm Yard Manure 495 Tajpar 2 1 2 26,804 13,402 13,402 0.010 Dervadiya Saganbhai Farm Yard Manure 464 Morthala 2 0.65 1.3 16,304 8,152 12,542 0.006 Sangrambhai Savriya Sohan Dhanna Farm Yard Manure 85 Chinkavani 3 0.48 1.44 17,609 5,870 12,228 0.005 Bhuriya Dilip Bhanvarlal Farm Yard Manure 149 Garvakhedi 3 0.72 2.16 26,217 8,739 12,138 0.056 Bhilodiya Pappu Khimchander Farm Yard Manure 48 Got 3 0.68 1.7 20,380 8,152 11,988 0.006 Meda Farm Yard Manure 24 Munna Nanar Damar Jampada 4 0.5 2 23,478 5,870 11,739 0.005

77 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Chanabhai Farm Yard Manure 476 Mokasara 8 0.75 6 69,287 8,661 11,548 0.007 Bhikhabhai Rajpura Alabbhai Sadurbhai Farm Yard Manure 309 Tajpar 2 1.1 2.2 24,457 12,228 11,117 0.009 Khorakiya Rameshbhai Farm Yard Manure 493 Tajpar 2 1.1 2.2 24,457 12,228 11,117 0.009 Danatbhai Jadhav Bhanvarlal Farm Yard Manure 148 Shobharam Garvakhedi 4 0.8 3 32,772 8,739 10,924 0.056 Bhilodiya Sureshbhai Farm Yard Manure 449 Than 5 0.6 3 32,609 6,522 10,870 0.005 Nagarbhai Makwana Farm Yard Manure 70 Babanu Nathu Meda Got 4 0.8 3.2 32,609 8,152 10,190 0.006 Farm Yard Manure 19 Kalu Vesta Sarel Jampada 4 0.6 2.25 22,011 5,870 9,783 0.005 Amirbhai Kadwabhai Farm Yard Manure 310 Tajpar 2 1.3 2.6 24,457 12,228 9,406 0.009 Makwana Farm Yard Manure 44 Kathadi ma Ninama Ambapada 4 0.48 1.92 16,304 4,076 8,492 0.003 Farm Yard Manure 32 Malji Narayan Damar Lalarundi 4 0.48 1.92 16,304 4,076 8,492 0.003 Farm Yard Manure 47 Omar Bhuriya Chinkavani 5 0.4 2 16,304 3,261 8,152 0.003 Farm Yard Manure 17 Malji Galiya Khadiya Chavriya 4 0.4 1.7 13,859 3,261 8,152 0.003 Tersingh Amra Farm Yard Manure 15 Chavriya 4 0.48 1.92 13,043 3,261 6,793 0.003 Hatela Dhaharu Dholsingh Farm Yard Manure 137 Chavriya 3 0.48 1.2 8,152 3,261 6,793 0.003 Khadiya

78 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton

Annex

Surface area of Y Production Total ‐ GWF Total ‐ GWF GWF Total ID Farm Village application Fertilizer of concern application (t/acre) per farm (t) (m3/farm) (m3/acre) (m3/t) (Acre) rate (t/acre) Suresh Mangilal Castor Cake 245 Bandera 8 0.44 3.52 13,043 1,630 3,706 0.001 Patidar Compost (phosphorous) 154 Jagannath Yadav Loundi 2 0.6 1.2 3,600 1,800 3,000 0.001 Govardhan Compost (phosphorous) 215 Bagpal 9 0.6 5.4 11,645 1,294 2,157 0.001 Parshuram Tiwari Mahadev Jagdish Castor Cake 246 Bandera 8 0.5 4 8,139 1,017 2,035 0.001 Patidar Ganesh Shankar Compost (phosphorous) 228 Astriya 10 0.7 7 9,783 978 1,398 0.001 Patidar Kadwa Ramaji no info 218 Bagpal 3 0.33 0.99 0 0 0 0.000 Harijan Devrajbhai no info 371 Narayansari 60 0.13 7.8 0 0 0 0.000 Raghubhai Patel Gelabhai no info 372 Narayansari 15 0.03 0.45 0 0 0 0.000 Dharamsibhai Patel Vatsabhai Manubhai no info 285 Juna Katariya 23 0.28 6.44 0 0 0 0.000 Minaj Akhai Karsanbhai no info 286 Juna Katariya 9 0.11 0.99 0 0 0 0.000 Fushi no info 287 Ramji Kanha Ravriya Juna Katariya 30 0.13 3.9 0 0 0 0.000 no info 288 Gela Murli Ravriya Juna Katariya 28 0.14 3.92 0 0 0 0.000 no info 366 Alanda Harkha Patel Juna Katariya 20 0.08 1.6 0 0 0 0.000 Veljibhai Khegdibhai no info 369 Juna Katariya 25 0.08 2 0 0 0 0.000 Patel

79 Grey Water Footprint Organic vs. Conventional Cotton