Water Footprint in Meat Production: Challenges and Sustainable Solutions
Sangeeta1, Gudia1, Shubham Dudi1, Manisha Choudhary2, Renu Bala3
1- Ph.D. Scholar Department of Livestock Products Technology, LUVAS-Hisar-125004;
2- M.V.Sc. Scholar Department of Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, LUVAS -Hisar -125004
3- M.V.Sc. Scholar Department of Livestock Production Management, LUVAS -Hisar -125004
Abstract
The rapid growth of global meat production has intensified pressure on natural resources, particularly land and freshwater, raising concerns about the environmental sustainability of the meat sector. This article highlights the environmental footprint of the meat value chain, with emphasis on the water footprint as a key indicator of freshwater use. It discusses the major contributors to the water footprint, including feed production, outlines commonly used assessment approaches, and summarizes practical strategies to improve resource-use efficiency. Sustainable feed production, efficient livestock management, and responsible consumption practices are essential for reducing the environmental footprint of meat production and promoting sustainable food systems.
Keywords: Meat production; Environmental footprint; Water footprint
Introduction
Rapid population growth and increasing per capita meat consumption have substantially increased global meat production, intensifying the demand for land, water, and energy while elevating environmental pressures (Gerber et al., 2013). Livestock production is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and air, water, and soil pollution, with beef production exhibiting one of the highest environmental footprints because of its low feed conversion efficiency and high resource requirements. Livestock systems occupy nearly 30% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface, highlighting their significant ecological impact (Steinfeld et al., 2006).
Environmental impacts occur throughout the meat supply chain, from livestock farming and slaughtering to processing, retail, and consumer handling. Farming contributes mainly through manure management and feed production, whereas slaughterhouses and processing facilities consume substantial amounts of energy and water while generating wastewater and solid waste. Additional impacts arise from transportation, refrigeration, storage, and household cooking (de Vries & de Boer, 2010). Although meat is an important source of high-quality nutrients and remains integral to many cultural and dietary practices, the sector faces the challenge of meeting growing consumer demand while minimizing environmental impacts. Improving production efficiency, reducing food loss and waste, and adopting environmental performance indicators are key strategies for enhancing the sustainability of the global meat supply chain (FAO, 2019).Biocapacity is the capacity of ecosystems to generate renewable biological resources and assimilate wastes, particularly carbon emissions, through ecological assets such as cropland, grazing land, forests, fishing grounds, and built-up land (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996; Global Footprint Network, 2023). Both biocapacity and the Ecological Footprint are expressed in global hectares (gha), providing a standardized measure to compare the availability of ecological resources with human demand (Borucke et al., 2013). A region experiences a biocapacity (ecological) deficit when its Ecological Footprint exceeds the regenerative capacity of its ecosystems. Such deficits are met through resource imports, overexploitation of natural capital, or increased carbon emissions. In contrast, when biocapacity exceeds the Ecological Footprint, the region has a biocapacity reserve, indicating a sustainable balance between resource availability and consumption (Global Footprint Network, 2023).
Environmental Footprint of the Meat Supply Chain
The meat supply chain has significant environmental impacts, with livestock production being the primary source of global greenhouse gas emissions, water use, acidification, and eutrophication (Gerber et al., 2013). Meat processing also consumes substantial energy and water and generates wastewater and solid waste, highlighting the need for resource-efficient technologies and sustainable production practices (Aiking & de Boer, 2020; FAO, 2019). Environmental footprint indicators assess the sustainability of meat production by quantifying resource use and environmental impacts. These include the ecological footprint (EF), water footprint (WF), carbon footprint (CF), and biodiversity footprint (BF), with the water footprint serving as a key indicator of freshwater use and pollution in livestock production (Hoekstra et al., 2015).
WATER FOOTPRINT
The water footprint (WF) is a comprehensive indicator that quantifies the total volume of freshwater used and polluted throughout the life cycle of a product, process, or service (Hoekstra et al., 2011). Unlike the ecological or carbon footprint, the WF specifically evaluates water consumption and pollution across the entire production chain and identifies the geographical location of water use (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2008). The WF comprises three components: green water, representing rainwater stored in the soil and used by plants; blue water, referring to surface and groundwater consumed during production; and grey water, which represents the volume of freshwater required to dilute pollutants to meet established water quality standards (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2008; Hoekstra et al., 2011). To ensure consistency and comparability among studies, the Global Water Footprint Standard provides standardized methodologies for assessing the green, blue, and grey water footprints of products, production systems, businesses, and nations, as well as evaluating their sustainability (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
WATER FOOTPRINT IN MEAT CHAIN
Meat production has a considerably higher water footprint (WF) than most plant-based foods, primarily because livestock production depends heavily on feed cultivation rather than direct water consumption by animals (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013). Feed production accounts for more than 97% of the total water footprint of livestock systems, making it the dominant source of freshwater use (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012). Approximately 37% of global cereal production is utilized as livestock feed, further increasing pressure on freshwater resources as global meat demand continues to rise (FAO, 2019).
The water footprint of meat includes both direct water use for animal rearing and indirect water use associated with feed production, with the latter representing the largest share (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). Water requirements vary according to climate, crop type, irrigation practices, and feed composition, while production systems relying on irrigated concentrate feeds generally exhibit higher water footprints than grazing systems (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013). The water footprint is categorized into green water, derived from rainfall stored in the soil; blue water, obtained from surface and groundwater used for irrigation; and grey water, representing the volume of freshwater required to dilute agricultural pollutants such as fertilizers and pesticides to acceptable water quality standards (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2008; Hoekstra et al., 2011). Therefore, improving feed production efficiency, optimizing irrigation practices, and adopting sustainable water management strategies are essential for reducing the environmental footprint of meat production (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012).
METHODOLOGY
Two main approaches have been developed and applied to determine the WF of livestock production: The first is the volumetric approach developed by the WFN (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The second has been developed by the LCA community and is described in the ISO standards (ISO 14046) (Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010).
THE VOLUMETRIC APPROACH
The volumetric WF-assessment approach developed within the WFN is defined as the total volume of freshwater that is used directly and indirectly over the whole supply chain of a product (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The WF can be presented as one aggregate number, but it is a multidimensional indicator of water use, showing water-consumption volumes by sources and polluted volumes by type of pollution as a function of space and time (Vanham et al., 2019). The WF is composed of three components, namely, green, blue and grey WF. Green WF refers to the consumptive use of rainwater, blue WF refers to the consumption of surface and ground waters (e.g. lakes, streams, groundwater, glaciers and snow) and grey WF refers to the volume of fresh water required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on existing ambient water-quality standards (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The WF of an animal corresponds to the sum of indirect water used for feed production and the direct water use related to drinking water and service water consumed during production steps (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012).
THE LCA METHOD
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a standardized tool used to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product throughout its life cycle, from production to disposal (Hoekstra, 2015). In water footprint assessment, LCA considers both midpoint impacts (e.g., water scarcity) and endpoint impacts (e.g., effects on human health and ecosystems) (Legesse et al., 2017). It incorporates the Water Stress Index (WSI), which relates water consumption to local water availability. The WSI ranges from 0 (low water stress) to 1 (high water stress), allowing water use in water-scarce regions to be assigned a greater environmental impact than the same amount used in water-abundant areas (Ridoutt & Pfister, 2010). Unlike the Water Footprint Network (WFN) approach, which distinguishes green, blue, and grey water, the LCA approach primarily focuses on blue water use and evaluates water consumption based on local water scarcity, making it suitable for location-specific environmental assessments (Hoekstra, 2015).
Opportunities to Reduce the Water Footprint in the Meat Supply Chain
The water footprint (WF) of livestock production can be minimized through improvements in feed production, feed-use efficiency, livestock management, and consumer dietary choices. Since feed production contributes nearly 98% of the total WF of animal products (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012), improving irrigation efficiency, adopting drought-tolerant crop varieties, conservation tillage, and efficient soil-water management can substantially reduce water consumption. The use of crop residues and agro-industrial by-products as livestock feed also lowers the WF of feed production (Ibidhi et al., 2020).
Improving feed conversion ratio (FCR) through balanced nutrition, high-quality feed ingredients, genetic improvement, and efficient production systems reduces the amount of water required per unit of meat produced (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013). Similarly, efficient drinking-water management, improved animal health, and the selection of water-efficient livestock species further contribute to water conservation (Doreau et al., 2012). At the consumer level, reducing the intake of high-water-footprint meats, particularly beef, and increasing consumption of plant-based protein sources can substantially decrease dietary water demand and improve the sustainability of food systems (Vanham et al., 2019). Notably, the water footprint per calorie of beef is approximately 20 times higher than that of cereals and starchy crops, while plant protein sources generally require considerably less water than animal-derived proteins.
Conclusion
The increasing global demand for meat has intensified pressure on natural resources, particularly land and freshwater, making environmental sustainability a major challenge for the livestock sector. Among environmental indicators, the water footprint provides a comprehensive measure of water use throughout the meat value chain and highlights feed production as the primary contributor. Improving feed and water-use efficiency, adopting sustainable production practices, and promoting responsible consumption can significantly reduce the environmental footprint of meat production while supporting long-term food security and sustainable resource management.
REFERENCE
Aiking, H., & de Boer, J. (2020). The next protein transition. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 105, 515-522.
Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., et al. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-533.
de Vries, M., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2010). Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science, 128(1-3), 1-11.
Doreau, M., Corson, M. S., & Wiedemann, S. G. (2012). Water use by livestock: A global perspective for a regional issue? Animal Frontiers, 2(2), 9-16.
FAO. (2019). The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2013). The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resources and Industry, 1, 25-36.
Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. FAO, Rome.
Global Footprint Network. (2023). National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2023 Edition: Technical Documentation. Global Footprint Network.
Hoekstra, A. Y. (2015). The water footprint: The relation between human consumption and water use. In The Water We Eat: Combining Virtual Water and Water Footprints (pp. 35-48). Springer.
Hoekstra, A. Y., & Chapagain, A. K. (2007). Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 35-48.
Hoekstra, A. Y., & Chapagain, A. K. (2008). Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources. Blackwell Publishing.
Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., & Mekonnen, M. M. (2011). The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan.
Ibidhi, R., & Salem, H. B. (2020). Water footprint of livestock products and production systems: A review. Animal Production Science, 60(11), 1369-1380.
Legesse, G., Ominski, K. H., Beauchemin, K. A., Pfister, S., Martel, M., McGeough, E. J., … & McAllister, T. A. (2017). Board-invited review: Quantifying water use in ruminant production. Journal of Animal Science, 95(5), 2001-2018.
Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems, 15(3), 401-415.
Ridoutt, B. G., & Pfister, S. (2010). A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 113-120.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Vanham, D., Medarac, H., Schyns, J. F., Hogeboom, R. J., & Magagna, D. (2019). The consumptive water footprint of the European Union energy sector. Environmental research letters, 14(10), 104016.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers.
