Tim Hess receives research funding from the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), UK government departments and commercial businesses. Part of this work was funded by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.
The UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), UK government departments, and private businesses have all given Adrian Williams money to do research. Part of this work was funded by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and DEFRA. He is Scientific Committee member Foundation Earth.
Almost everything we eat has consumed water somewhere in the process of being made and processed. But beef is credited with one of the biggest water footprints.
With our calculations and those of other beef-producing countries, we found that this was more than 15,000 liters per kilogram of beef.
But this number doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about how much water is used to make the beef on your plate or how it affects the environment. When you look more closely, you can see that where and how the beef is raised has a big impact on its water footprint.
Food production accounts for 70% of freshwater withdrawn from the environment. Water shortages in the western US and other places are caused in part by the need to use a lot of water to grow beef.
It’s also important to look at how much water is used to grow the food we eat because climate change could make droughts last longer and be worse.
So, how “thirsty” is beef? First, we have to differentiate between water from two sources. When we talk about water we usually think of rivers, lakes, reservoirs and groundwater aquifers.
This is what hydrologists call blue water. Blue water used to grow food depletes these water sources, leaving less for homes, businesses, and keeping the environment healthy.
Green water on the other hand is rainfall that plants consume. In some places, the plants that cows eat, like grass for grazing, hay or silage, and cereals, are mostly watered by rain. This green water makes up a big part of the huge amounts of water that beef is said to use.
We don’t count the use of green water as an effect of livestock production because it can’t be used for anything else (unless you put down a tarp and catch some of it). Instead, we should focus on the blue water that is used. A serving of beef requires a lot less blue water than the 15,000 liters that were given above.
Beef has an exceptionally high water footprint compared to other foods. In fact, it takes around 1,800 gallons of water to produce just one pound of beef in the United States This massive water usage stems largely from the huge amounts of feed and forage cattle consume over their lifetimes Let’s take a closer look at why it takes so much water to get beef from farm to fork.
The Majority of Beef’s Water Footprint Comes From Virtual Water in Feed
By far, the largest component of beef’s water footprint is the huge volume of virtual water consumed by cattle through their feed, in this case both forage and grain. Virtual water refers to the water used to grow crops that are then fed to animals.
Over 98% of the water footprint of beef comes from the virtual water required to produce cattle feed. Only about 1.1% of beef’s water footprint is from the actual drinking water cattle consume. This reveals how the vast majority of water used for beef production is “hidden” in feed crops not what cattle directly drink.
Large Volumes of Irrigated Crops Go Towards Feeding Cattle
Much of the grain used for cattle feed comes from irrigated crops, especially corn. In fact, around 25% of total irrigated acreage in the U.S. is used to grow corn. Since cattle can eat over 1,000 pounds of grain-based feed while in feedlots, huge amounts of irrigated water are used to produce their feed.
Irrigated agriculture puts major strain on water supplies, especially in arid regions like the American West that experience frequent droughts. So the large share of irrigated crops going to feed cattle places additional burdens on already stressed water resources.
Pasture-Raised Cattle Rely Mainly on Rainwater
The feed source affects whether the blue or green water footprint is higher for beef. Blue water refers to surface and groundwater while green water comes from rain.
Pasture-raised cattle that eat a grass-based diet have a higher green water footprint. That’s because the grass cattle graze relies predominantly on rainwater rather than irrigation.
In comparison, cattle at conventional feedlots have a higher blue water footprint due to the vast amounts of irrigated crops like corn that go into their grain-heavy feed.
It Takes Time for Cattle to Gain Weight on Grass
Beef cattle raised entirely on pasture take around 24-28 months to reach market weight. That’s because it takes longer for them to gain sufficient weight on a diet of grass compared to grain.
Since cattle eat grass over a longer period, more green water goes into their forage. But as long as rainfall is sufficient, this rain-based water footprint generally doesn’t place the same stresses on water systems as irrigated feed crops.
Transporting and Processing Beef Uses More Water
In addition to the water consumed through feed, transporting beef from farm to processor to point of sale also carries a water footprint. Fuel production uses significant water, so the further beef travels, the larger volumes of water go into fueling transportation.
Processing beef into cuts and other products also requires water for operations, cleaning equipment, packaging, and more. So there are many steps along the supply chain that add to the water footprint beyond just raising cattle.
Americans Eat More Beef than Other Countries
American beef consumption is nearly three times higher than the global average. Since the average American eats around 181 pounds of beef per year, our national dietary preferences result in an exceptionally high demand for beef.
Producing beef to meet this high level of demand takes vast amounts of feed and forage, which in turn requires huge volumes of water. Our collective tastes for beef drive increased water use across the U.S. compared to other nations.
Beef’s Water Footprint Can Be Reduced Through Sustainable Production
The good news is there are ways to decrease the water footprint of beef, even if we don’t reduce our consumption. Choosing grass-fed beef over conventional helps shift reliance from overdrawn surface and groundwater to rainwater. Buying beef from local pasture-based farms also decreases the water used in transportation.
Additionally, adopting regenerative grazing practices can actually improve soil health and water retention on grasslands. While beef will always have a higher water footprint than plant-based foods, improved production methods can lead to a less water-intensive product.
What’s the beef with blue water?
In the feed processing industry, blue water is used to water grass and other feed crops. It is also used on farms for drinking water, cleaning, and to rinse abattoirs. Small amounts are used in other things, such as veterinary products, but these are trivial in comparison.
The amount of blue water it takes to get the meat on your plate depends on the animal’s diet and the system that produced it. For the UK, we estimated a national average of 67 litres per kilogram of carcass.
This is relatively low, because most beef consumed in the UK is fed on rain-fed grass and crops. Production systems in the US, on the other hand, that rely on irrigated feed may consume almost 2,000 litres per kg. This is blue water that has been diverted from rivers and aquifers.
In addition to raising the animal, 700 litres to 1,000 litres of water is used per animal in the abattoir for washing and hygiene.
Not all of the carcass makes beef – some of it may make dog food and there’s also inedible hide and bone – so the total water consumption has to be allocated among all the products. Producing a serving (375g) of English topside consumes 33 litres of blue water, 96% of which goes towards feeding and raising the animal.
The consequences of using water to produce food depend on where the water has come from and how much is available. In the UK, most beef production is concentrated in south-west England, Cheshire, north-west England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland – all wetter parts of the British Isles.
But most of the water cattle drink, and the water used to process their meat, comes from the public water supply where it competes with other demands. As of spring 2023, water restrictions are in place in parts of south-west England due to prolonged dry weather.
Understanding the ‘water footprint’ of beef
FAQ
Why does beef need so much water to produce?
Does it take more water to produce pork or beef?
Why do cows take so much water?
Why does it take so much water to produce food?
How much water does a pound of beef take?
Shock is reasonable after discovering that the global average water footprint – or the total amount of water needed – to produce one pound of beef is 1,800 gallons of water; one pound of pork takes 718 gallons of water. As a comparison, the water footprint of soybeans is 206 gallons; corn is 108 gallons.
Does beef use water?
As a result, one must be cautious about generalizing water footprints for beef or any other product on a national scale. However, there are examples of innovative systems that integrate beef and crop production in the southern High Plains to more efficiently use water.
Does beef have a large water footprint?
Beef has a large water footprint and the system in which cattle are produced can make a substantial difference in the size of the footprint. While pasture-raised beef can be more sustainable, many assume that its water footprint is always smaller than that of industrially produced beef.
Does meat have a water footprint?
This is not necessarily the case, although it can be more water friendly. People often ask, “What’s the best way to reduce my water footprint?” and the conversation always drifts to meat eating. That’s because meat, especially beef, has a large water footprint — 1,800 gallons of water per pound of beef produced.