## 4 Results and Discussion
### Mitigation Strategies for Dry Lentils: A Challenge and Opportunities
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Value**} & **Unit** \\ \hline SI & 0 & 10 & 50 & 100 & [mm] \\ Water supply (WS) & 0 & 100 & 500 & 1000 & [m\({}^{3}\)/ha] \\ Y\({}_{\text{g}}\) & 854.7 & 880.6 & 984.2 & 1113.7 & [kg/ha] \\ WS/Y\({}_{\text{g}}\) & 0.00 & 0.11 & 0.51 & 0.90 & [m\({}^{3}\)/kg] \\  & & _Mid-point environmental impact categories (IC\({}_{j}\))_ & & \\ Land use & \(1205\pm 239\) & \(1141\pm 211\) & \(1009\pm 165\) & 877 \(\pm\) 123 & [Pt/kg] \\ Climate change & \(1.07\pm 0.21\) & \(1.02\pm 0.19\) & \(0.90\pm 0.15\) & 0.79 \(\pm\) 0.12 & [kg CO\({}_{\text{2e}}\)/kg] \\ Ecotoxicity, & \(63\pm 13\) & \(60\pm 11\) & \(53\pm 9\) & \(46\pm 7\) & [CTU\({}_{\text{e}}\)/kg] \\ freshwater & & & & & \\ Particulate matter & \((6.5\pm 1.4)\times 10^{-8}\) & \((6.1\pm 1.2)\times 10^{-8}\) & \((5.4\pm 1.0)\times 10^{-8}\) & [4.7 \(\pm\) 0.7] \(\times 10^{-8}\) & [disease inc./kg] \\ Water use & \((3.4\pm 0.7)\times 10^{-2}\) & \(11.2\pm 2.1\) & \(49\pm 8\) & \(86\pm 12\) & [m\({}^{3}\) depriv./kg] \\  & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{_Normalized and weighted environmental impact categories (IC\({}_{NWj}\))_} \\ Land use & \(117\pm 23\) & \(111\pm 20\) & \(98\pm 16\) & \(85\pm 12\) & [uPt/kg] \\ Climate change & \(30\pm 6\) & \(28\pm 5\) & \(25\pm 4\) & \(22\pm 3\) & [uPt/kg] \\ Ecotoxicity, & \(21\pm 4\) & \(20\pm 4\) & \(18\pm 3\) & \(16\pm 2\) & [uPt/kg] \\ freshwater & & & & & \\ Particulate matter & \(10\pm 2\) & \(9\pm 2\) & \(8\pm 1\) & \(7\pm 1\) & [uPt/kg] \\ Water use & \(0.26\pm 0.05\) & \(83\pm 15\) & \(365\pm 60\) & \(635\pm 89\) & [uPt/kg] \\ PEF & \(208\pm 41\) & \(280\pm 51\) & \(540\pm 88\) & \(787\pm 110\) & [uPt/kg] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Effects of various supplemental irrigation (SI) levels, as well as water supply per hectare, on the average Moroccan lentil grain yield (Y\({}_{\text{g}}\)), as estimated via Equation (1), as well as the main mid-point (IC\({}_{\text{j}}\)) and normalized and weighted (IC\({}_{\text{NWj}}\)) environmental impact categories, and PEF scores at the farm gate. from 731 \(\pm\) 113 to 264 \(\pm\) 45 \(\upmu\)Pt/kg, underscoring the substantial impact of water use on the overall sustainability of bean cultivation [43]. In conclusion, our study provides valuable insights into the environmental impact of malting lentils. While the malting process itself contributes a relatively small portion (<6%) to the overall environmental footprint, the agricultural phase remains the dominant driver. By prioritizing genetic improvement, efficient water management, and sustainable agricultural practices, such as reduced tillage, it is possible to enhance lentil production while minimizing its ecological impact. Additionally, the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar power, can help to reduce the carbon footprint of the malting process. The lentil network model presented in the Supplementary Materials can be adapted to assess the environmental impact of malted lentil production in different regions and under varying climatic conditions. This tool can be used to inform decision-making and identify strategies to minimize the environmental footprint of lentil-based products. The results of this study can inform the development of more sustainable lentil production practices and contribute to a more environmentally friendly food system.