Calculating the Exact Water Footprint of Animal, Plant Products

Many times more water is needed for the production of meat and other animal products, such as eggs and dairy produce, than for the production of plant products. The University of Twente in the Netherlands has for the first time calculated the exact water footprint of both animal and plant products per kilo, per calorie and per protein. Among the results of the calculations are that beef uses up twenty times more water per calorie than grain or potatoes. In combination with the growing world population, this is putting pressure on the earth's freshwater resources: only three percent of all the water on earth is fresh, and only a small proportion of this is available for human use.

The Twente Water Centre, the University of Twente's centre of expertise in the area of water systems and governance, has developed a specialism in the calculation of the water footprint of products and production methods. Many companies make use of this expertise, out of cost considerations and because they are increasingly confronted with water shortages. For the first time, it has now been calculated how much fresh water is needed for the production of all common protein products. For a kilo of beef, for example, 15,000 litres are needed. Pork uses up 6,000 litres of water per kilo and chicken 4,300 litres. Four thousand litres of water are needed for a kilo of pulses, while a kilo of soya beans uses up 'just' 2,100 litres. Per gram of protein, meat has a water footprint that is 1.5 to 6 times larger than that for pulses. There are also great differences between animal and plant products when the water use per calorie is calculated. Beef, for example, scores on average twenty times higher than grain or potatoes.

The key distinguishing factor between the various types of meat is the type and amount of feed that is needed to allow the animal to grow. For example, a cow has to eat much more to put on a kilo of flesh than a chicken or a pig does. According to Arjen Hoekstra, professor of Water Engineering & Management at the University of Twente, "what is known as feed conversion efficiency partly determines the water footprint. After all, all animal feed is produced with the use of water. Irrigation is therefore needed in large parts of the world because there is too little rainfall in general or in particular periods."

The location where the livestock is raised also determines the water footprint. Livestock that grazes outdoors uses up rainwater that is naturally present in grass, while livestock in industrialized animal production is given more feed, which originates from fields that sometimes have to be irrigated. The researchers from the University of Twente have therefore also taken into account the type of feed and its origin, which is sometimes in areas with a water shortage. The water demands of livestock breeding in the western world can therefore contribute to water shortages elsewhere. For example, a number of rivers in China are drying up before they reach the sea, partly because of the irrigation of agricultural land where animal feed is grown.

"The figures say a lot about the often hidden consequences of our everyday consumption pattern for the natural world," said Johan van de Gronden, director of the WWF in the Netherlands. "We already knew that a low-meat diet is not only healthier, but also better for nature and the climate. Now we can also see that unbridled meat consumption contributes to water shortages in other parts of the world. We don't need to become vegetarians en masse to give nature a helping hand. Just one meat-free day per week already makes a world of difference."

Comments

Tue, Feb 8, 2011 Mark Michigan

More people who want to dictate to us what we should eat. Why do these people want to force us to eat their way?

Fri, Feb 4, 2011 Chris Perry UK

The word "exact" in the title of this piece is intriguing. Have the authors seen any calculation of error bars or ranges?
According to one fairly careful study, Spain's exports of blue water vary by a factor of 50 over a ten year period ( Novo et al, Are virtual water “flows” in Spanish grain trade consistent with relative water scarcity?)


Fri, Feb 4, 2011 JustMe USA

Thanks for the added info, but you must realize that any of this style info is just for comparison use only. No one can determine an 'Exact" footprint for anything since it is only as good as the testing environment and controls.
Anyone involved in agriculture or even home gardening/livestock raising knows that one year in the same area, using the same techniques you can have very different results, determined by factors completely out of "your" control. Again thanks for the info, but remember when countries around the world, and even the UN, health organization said everyone needed more availability and access to protein sources such as chicken, fish, beef, pork, and others that were then introduced in areas and cultures that didn't have them before. Remember to watch out for "Exact" answers, because they are "Never Exact"! Take it all with a grain of salt, but wait we can over do that too!

Wed, Feb 2, 2011 bladerunner http://wateraflamedblogspot.com

The Water Footprint Network has recently issued a huge report with detailled footprint per country for a large spectrum of crop or farming products.

-----------------------------------------------------------------Check your http://w DOT ateraflamed.blogspot.com with Water Aflamed application.
http://itunes.apple.com/app/water-aflamed-water-footprint/i DOT d408976536?mt=8

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above