Full Document Text

                
A Global Assessment of the Water
Footprint of Farm Animal Products
Mesfin M. Mekonnen* and Arjen Y. Hoekstra
Department of Water Engineering and Management, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
The increase in the consumption of animal prod-
ucts is likely to put further pressure on the world’s
freshwater resources. This paper provides a com-
prehensive account of the water footprint of animal
products, considering different production systems
and feed composition per animal type and country.
Nearly one-third of the total water footprint of
agriculture in the world is related to the production
of animal products. The water footprint of any
animal product is larger than the water footprint of
crop products with equivalent nutritional value.
The average water footprint per calorie for beef is
20 times larger than for cereals and starchy roots.
The water footprint per gram of protein for milk,
eggs and chicken meat is 1.5 times larger than for
pulses. The unfavorable feed conversion efficiency
for animal products is largely responsible for the
relatively large water footprint of animal products
compared to the crop products. Animal products
from industrial systems generally consume and
pollute more ground- and surface-water resources
than animal products from grazing or mixed sys-
tems. The rising global meat consumption and the
intensification of animal production systems will
put further pressure on the global freshwater
resources in the coming decades. The study shows
that from a freshwater perspective, animal products
from grazing systems have a smaller blue and grey
water footprint than products from industrial sys-
tems, and that it is more water-efficient to obtain
calories, protein and fat through crop products than
animal products.
Key words: meat consumption; livestock pro-
duction; animal feed; water consumption; water
pollution; sustainable consumption.
INTRODUCTION
Global meat production has almost doubled in the
period 1980–2004 (FAO 2005) and this upward
trend will continue given the projected doubling of
meat production in the period 2000–2050 (Steinfeld
and others 2006). To meet the rising demand for
animal products, the on-going shift from traditional
extensive and mixed to industrial farming systems
is likely to continue (Bouwman and others 2005;
Naylor and others 2005; Galloway and others
2007). There is a rich literature on the expected
environmental consequences of increased con-
sumption of animal products (Naylor and others
2005; Myers and Kent 2003; McAlpine and others
2009; Pelletier and Tyedmers 2010; Sutton and
others 2011), and on the pros and cons of industrial
versus conventional farming systems (Lewis and
others 1990; Capper and others 2009). Specific
fields of interest include, amongst others, animal
welfare (Fraser 2008; Thompson 2008), excessive
use of antibiotics (Gustafson and Bowen 1997;
Witte 1998; Smith and others 2002; McEwen 2006),
the demand for scarce lands to produce the required
Received 30 June 2011; accepted 21 December 2011
Electronic supplementary materials: The online version of this article
(doi: 10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8) contains supplementary material
which is available to authorized users.
Author Contributions: MMM designed the study, performed research,
analysed data and wrote the paper; AYH designed the study, contributed
new methods, analysed data and wrote the paper.
*Corresponding author; e-mail: m.m.mekonnen@ctw.utwente.nl
Ecosystems
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8
C211 2012 The Author(s). This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

feed (Naylor and others 2005; Keyzer and others
2005; Nepstad and others 2006) and the contribu-
tion of livestock to the emission of greenhouse gases
(Pelletier and Tyedmers 2010; Tilman and others
2001; Bouwman and others 2011). Although it is
known that animal products are very water-inten-
sive (Pimentel and others 2004; Chapagain and
Hoekstra 2003), little attention has been paid thus
far to the total impact of the livestock sector on the
global demand for freshwater resources. Most of the
water use along the supply chain of animal products
takes place in the growing of feed. As a result of the
increasing global trade in feed crops and animal
products and the growth of meat preservation over
longer periods, consumers of animal products have
often become spatially disconnected from the pro-
cesses necessary to produce the products, so that the
link between animal products and freshwater con-
sumption is not well known (Naylor and others
2005; Hoekstra 2010; Hoekstra and Chapagain
2008).
There are earlier publications on the water use
behind animal production (Steinfeld and others
2006; Galloway and others 2007; Pimentel and
others 2004; Chapagain and Hoekstra 2003, 2004;
De Fraiture and others 2007; Peden and others
2007; Van Breugel and others 2010; Renault and
Wallender 2000), but a detailed comprehensive
global assessment was lacking. The objective of the
current paper is to provide such an assessment by
quantifying the water footprint of farm animals and
of the various derived animal products per country
and per animal production system. The period of
analysis was 1996–2005. The water footprint of a
product consists of three colour-coded components:
the green, blue and grey water footprint (Hoekstra
and Chapagain 2008). The blue water footprint
refers to the volume of surface and groundwater
consumed (that is evaporated after withdrawal) as
a result of the production of the product; the green
water footprint refers to the rainwater consumed.
The grey water footprint refers to the volume of
freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of
pollutants based on existing ambient water quality
standards. Water footprint calculations have been
based on the recently established global water
footprint standard (Hoekstra and others 2011),
which was developed based on earlier water foot-
print studies (see for example, Chapagain and
others 2006; Hoekstra and Chapagain 2007; Ger-
bens-Leenes and others 2009; Aldaya and others
2010).
With the exception of Chapagain and Hoekstra
(2003, 2004), no previous study has estimated the
water footprint of animal products by product and
country at a global level. Although Chapagain and
Hoekstra (2003, 2004) were able to estimate the
water footprint of farm animals and animal prod-
ucts per country, they have made very crude
assumptions regarding the composition and
amount of feed consumed by different animals.
Besides, the water footprints of feed crops were
estimated based on national average climatic data.
The main differences with Chapagain and Hoekstra
(2003, 2004) are: (1) we estimated the amount of
feed consumed per animal category, per production
system and per country based on estimates of feed
conversion efficiencies and statistics on the annual
production of animal products, (2) we took into
consideration the relative occurrence of the three
production systems (grazing, mixed and industrial)
in each country and (3) we estimated the green,
blue and grey water footprints of growing feed
crops using a grid-based dynamic water balance
model that takes into account local climate, soil
conditions and data on irrigation at a high spatial
resolution.
METHODS
The Water Footprint of an Animal
We follow the water footprint definitions and
methodology as set out in Hoekstra and others
(2011). The blue water footprint refers to con-
sumption of blue water resources (surface and
groundwater) along the supply chain of a product.
‘Consumption’ refers to loss of water from the
available ground-surface water body in a catch-
ment area. Losses occur when water evaporates,
returns to another catchment area or the sea or is
incorporated into a product. The green water
footprint refers to consumption of green water
resources (rainwater in so far as it does not become
runoff). The grey water footprint refers to pollution
and is defined as the volume of freshwater that is
required to assimilate the load of pollutants given
natural background concentrations and existing
ambient water quality standards.
We consider eight farm animal categories: beef
and dairy cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, broiler and layer
chickens, and horses. When estimating total feed
amounts and total water footprints per category,
we include ‘buffaloes’ in the category of ‘beef
cattle’ and ‘asses and mules’ in the category of
‘horses’.
The water footprint of a live animal consists of
different components: the indirect water footprint
of the feed and the direct water footprint related to
the drinking water and service water consumed
M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra

(Chapagain and Hoekstra 2003, 2004). The water
footprint of an animal is expressed as:
WF½a; c; sC138¼WF
feed
½a; c; sC138þWF
drink
½a; c; sC138
þ WF
serv
½a; c; sC138
ð1Þ
where WF
feed
[a,c,s], WF
drink
[a,c,s] and WF
serv
[a,c,s]
represent the water footprint of an animal for animal
category a in country c in production systems s
related to feed, drinking water and service-water
consumption, respectively. Service water refers to
the water used to clean the farmyard, wash the
animal and carry out other services necessary to
maintain the environment. The water footprint of an
animal and its three components can be expressed in
terms of m
3
/y/animal, or, when summed over the
lifetime of the animal, in terms of m
3
/animal. For
beef cattle, pigs, sheep, goats and broiler chick-
ens—animals that provide their products after they
have been slaughtered—it is most useful to look at
the water footprint of the animal at the end of its
lifetime, because it is this total that will be allocated
to the various products (for example, meat, leather).
For dairy cattle and layer chickens, it is most
straightforward to look at the water footprint of the
animal per year (averaged over its lifetime), because
one can easily relate this annual animal water foot-
print to its average annual production (milk, eggs).
The water footprint of an animal related to the
feed consumed consists of two parts: the water
footprint of the various feed ingredients and the
water that is used to mix the feed:
WF
feed
½a; c; sC138
¼
P
n
p¼1
Feed½a; c; s; pC138C2WF
C3
prod
½pC138
C16C17
þ WF
mixing
½a; c; sC138
Pop
C3
½a; c; sC138
ð2Þ
Feed[a,c,s,p] represents the annual amount of
feed ingredient p consumed by animal category a in
country c and production system s (ton/y),
WF
prod
*
[p] the water footprint of feed ingredient p
(m
3
/ton), WF
mixing
[a,c,s] the volume of water
consumed for mixing the feed for animal category a
in country c and production system s (m
3
/y/animal)
and Pop
*
[a,c,s] the number of slaughtered animals
per year or the number of milk or egg producing
animals in a year for animal category a in country c
and production system s.
The Water Footprint of Feed Ingredients
The water footprints of the different crops, rough-
ages and crop by-products (WF
prod
*
[p], m
3
/ton) that
are eaten by the various farm animals have been
calculated following the methodology developed by
Hoekstra and Chapagain (2008) and Hoekstra and
others (2011). The water footprints of feed crops
were estimated using a crop water use model that
estimates crop water footprints at a 5 9 5 arc
minute spatial resolution globally (Mekonnen and
Hoekstra 2010, 2011). Grey water footprints were
estimated by looking at leaching and runoff of
nitrogen-fertilizers only, following Mekonnen and
Hoekstra (2010, 2011). As animal feed in a country
originates from domestic production and imported
products, for the calculation of the water footprint
of animal feed in a country, we have taken a
weighted average water footprint according to the
relative volumes of domestic production and im-
port:
WF
C3
prod
½pC138
¼
P½pC138C2WF
prod
½pC138þ
P
n
e
T
i
½n
e
; pC138C2WF
prod
½n
e
; pC138
C0C1
P½pC138þ
P
n
e
T
i
½n
e
; pC138
ð3Þ
in which P[p] is the production quantity of feed
product p in a country (ton/y), T
i
[n
e
,p] the im-
ported quantity of feed product p from exporting
nation n
e
(ton/y), WF
prod
[p] the water footprint of
feed product p when produced in the nation con-
sidered (m
3
/ton) and WF
prod
[n
e
,p] the water foot-
print of feed product p as in the exporting nation n
e
(m
3
/ton). The water footprint of crop residues such
as bran, straw, chaff and leaves and tops from sugar
beet have already been accounted for in the main
product, therefore their water footprint was set
equal to zero.
Volume and Composition of Feed
The volume and composition of the feed consumed
vary depending on the type of animal, the pro-
duction system and the country. The amount of
feed consumed is estimated following the approach
of Hendy and others (1995), in which the total
annual feed consumption (including both concen-
trates and roughages) is calculated based on annual
production of animal products and feed conversion
efficiencies. Only for horses we have used the ap-
proach as in Chapagain and Hoekstra (2003),
which means that we multiplied the estimated feed
consumption per animal by the number of animals,
thus arriving at an estimate of the total feed con-
sumed by horses.
Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animals

The total feed per production system for both
ruminants and non-ruminants animals is calcu-
lated as follows:
Feed½a; c; sC138¼FCE½a; c; sC138C2P½a; c; sC138ð4Þ
where Feed[a,c,s] is the total amount of feed con-
sumed by animal category a (ton/y) in country c
and production system s, FCE[a,c,s] the feed con-
version efficiency (kg dry mass of feed/kg of prod-
uct) for animal category a in country c and
production system s, and P[a,c,s] the total amount
of product (meat, milk or egg) produced by animal
category a (ton/y) in country c and production
system s. The estimated global amount of feed
consumption per animal category and world region
is presented in Appendix II (Supplementary mate-
rial). Feed consumption per production system is
shown in Appendix III (Supplementary material).
Estimating Feed Conversion Efficiencies
Feed conversion efficiency is defined as the amount
of feed consumed per unit of produced animal
product (for example, meat, milk, egg). Feed con-
version efficiencies were estimated separately for
each animal category (beef cattle, dairy cattle,
sheep, goats, pigs, broiler chickens and egg-layer
chickens), for each animal production system and
per country. Although the term used may suggest
precisely the opposite, animals that have a low ‘feed
conversion efficiency’ are efficient users of feed. We
use the term here as generally used in livestock
studies. The feed conversion efficiencies (FCE, kg
dry mass/kg product) for non-ruminants (pigs and
chickens) were adopted from Hendy and others
(1995). For ruminants (cattle, goats, sheep), feed
conversion efficiencies were estimated through
dividing feed intake per capita by annual produc-
tion (of beef, milk, sheep and goat meat) per capita:
FCE½a; c; sC138¼
FI½a; c; sC138
PO½a; c; sC138
ð5Þ
where FI[a,c,s] is the feed intake per head by
ruminant animal category a in country c and pro-
duction system s (kg dry mass/y/animal), and
PO[a,c,s] the product output per head for ruminant
animal category a in country c and production
system s (kg product/y/animal). The product out-
put (beef, milk, sheep and goat meat) per animal
for ruminants is calculated as:
PO½a; c; sC138¼
P½a; c; sC138
Pop½a; c; sC138
ð6Þ
in which P[a,c,s] is the total annual production of
beef, milk, sheep meat or goat meat in country c
in production system s (kg/y) and Pop[a,c,s] the
total population of beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep
or goats in that country and production system.
Region-specific feed conversion efficiencies are
presented in Appendix I (Supplementary mate-
rial).
Estimating the Total Annual Production
of Animal Products
The meat production (P
meat
, ton/y) per animal
category a (beef cattle, pigs, sheep and goats) in
country c and production system s is estimated by
multiplying the carcass yield per slaughtered
animal by the annual number of animals slaugh-
tered:
P
meat
½a; c; sC138¼CY½a; c; sC138C2SA½a; c; sC138ð7Þ
The carcass yield (CY, kg/animal) for each animal
category per production system was estimated by
combining country average carcass yield data from
FAO (2009) with data on animal live weight per
production system per economic region (Hendy
and others 1995) and data on carcass weight as
percentage of live weight (FAO 2003). The ob-
tained carcass yields were scaled such that the total
meat production per animal category equals the
value provided by FAO (2009). The number of
slaughtered animals per production system (SA,
number of animal/y) was calculated by multiplying
the total animal number by the animal off-take rate
per production system:
SA½a; c; sC138¼Pop½a; c; sC138C2OR½a; c; sC138ð8Þ
where Pop[a,c,s] is the population of animal cate-
gory a in country c for production system s and
OR[a,c,s] the off-take rate, which is the fraction of
the animal population that is taken out in a given
year for slaughter (dimensionless).
Milk and egg production per production system
and country were calculated as:
P
milk
½a; c; sC138¼MY½a; c; sC138C2DC½a; c; sC138ð9Þ
P
egg
½a; c; sC138¼f
egg
½a; c; sC138C2P
egg
½a; cC138ð10Þ
where P
milk
[a,c,s] and P
egg
[a,c,s] represent produc-
tion of milk and egg in country c and production
system s, respectively (ton/y), MY[a,c,s] milk yield
per dairy cow in country c and production system
s (ton/dairy cow), DC[a,c,s] the number of
dairy cows in country c and production system s,
f
egg
[a,c,s] the fraction of egg produced in country c
and production system s and P
egg
[a,c] the total
amount of egg produced in country c (ton/y).
M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra

Estimating the Feed Composition
Animal feeds are generally divided into ‘concen-
trates’ and ‘roughages’. The volume of concentrate
feed has been estimated per animal category and
per production system as:
Concentrate½a; c; sC138¼Feed½a; c; sC138C2f
c
½a; c; sC138ð11Þ
where Concentrate[a,c,s] is the volume of concen-
trate feed consumed by animal category a in
country c and production system s (ton/y) and
f
c
[a,c,s] the fraction of concentrate in the total feed
for animal category a in country c and production
system s. For the latter variable, data have been
obtained from Bouwman and others (2005) and
Hendy and others (1995).
The composition of concentrate feeds varies across
animal species and regions of the world. To our
knowledge, there are no datasets with global cov-
erage on the composition of feed for the different
animals per country. Therefore, we have made a
number of assumptions concerning the concentrate
feed composition of the different animal species.
According to Hendy and others (1995), the diets of
pigs and poultry include, on average, 50–60%
cereals, 10–20% oil meals and 15–25% ‘other con-
centrates’ (grain substitutes, milling by-products,
non-conventional concentrates). Wheeler and oth-
ers (1981) provide the feed composition in terms of
major crop categories for the different animal cate-
gories. We have used these and other sources in
combination with FAOSTAT country average con-
centrate feed values for the period 1996–2003 (FAO
2009) to estimate the diet composition of the dif-
ferent animal species. To estimate the feed in terms
of specific crops per animal, we first estimated the
feed in terms of major crop categories following
Wheeler and others (1981). The feed in terms of
major crop categories is further distributed to each
crop proportional to the crop’s share in its crops
category as obtained from FAO (2009). The rough-
age feed is divided into fodder, grass and crop resi-
dues using the data obtained from Bouwman and
others (2005). The estimated fraction of concentrate
feed in total feed dry matter, per animal category,
production system and world region is presented in
Appendix IV (Supplementary material).
DATA
A large amount of data has been collected from
different sources. A major data source for animal
stocks, numbers of animals slaughtered each year,
annual production of animal products, and con-
centrate feed per country is FAOSTAT (FAO 2009).
Other important sources that have been used are:
Bouwman and others (2005), Sere´ and Steinfeld
(1996), Wint and Robinson (2007), Hendy and
others (1995), FAO (2003) and Wheeler and others
(1981). Appendix V (Supplementary material)
summarizes how specific data have been obtained
from these different sources.
RESULTS
The Water Footprint of Animal Products
per Ton
By combining the feed conversion efficiency—dis-
tinguishing between different animals, production
systems and countries (Hendy and others
1995)—and the water footprint of the various feed
ingredients (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2011)we
estimated the water footprint of different animals
and animal products per production systems and
per country. The water footprints of animal prod-
ucts vary greatly across countries and production
systems. The type of production system is highly
relevant for the size, composition and geographic
spread of the water footprint of an animal product,
because it determines feed conversion efficiency,
feed composition and origin of feed. Differences
between countries are related to existing country
differences in feed conversion efficiencies, but also
to the fact that water footprints of feed crops vary
across countries as a function of differences in cli-
mate and agricultural practice. The Netherlands, for
example, shows lower total water footprints for
most animal products if compared to the USA. The
USA, in turn, generally shows lower total water
footprints for animal products than India (Table 1).
The smaller water footprint in the Netherlands
compared to the USA and India, is due to the fact
that animal production in the Netherlands is
dominated by the industrial production system,
which generally has a smaller total water footprint
than grazing and mixed systems. In addition, the
water footprint per ton of feed material in the
Netherlands is lower than in the two other coun-
tries. Due to the specific climate and poor agricul-
tural practices in India, the water footprint per ton
of feed in this country is larger than in the Neth-
erlands and the USA.
When we look at global averages (Table 1), we
see that the water footprint of meat increases from
chicken meat (4,300 m
3
/ton), goat meat
(5,500 m
3
/ton), pig meat (6,000 m
3
/ton) and
sheep meat (10,400 m
3
/ton) to beef (15,400 m
3
/
ton). The differences can be partly explained from
the different feed conversion efficiencies of the
Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animals

Table
1.
The
Green,
Blue
and
Grey
Water
Footprint
of
Selected
Animal
Products
for
Selected
Countries
and
the
Weighted
Global
Average
(m
3
/ton)
Animal
products
Farming
system
China
India
Netherlands
USA
Weighted
average
Green
Blue
Grey
Green
Blue
Grey
Green
Blue
Grey
Green
Blue
Grey
Green
Blue
Grey
Total
Beef
Grazing
16,140
213
0
25,913
242
0
19,102
525
590
21,121
465
243
21,829
Mixed
13,227
339
103
16,192
533
144
10,319
761
664
12,726
546
768
14,803
508
401
15,712
Industrial
10,922
933
1,234
12,412
1,471
866
3,934
349
225
2,949
356
551
8,849
683
712
10,244
Weighted
average
12,795
495
398
15,537
722
288
5,684
484
345
12,933
525
733
14,414
550
451
15,415
Sheep
meat
Grazing
9,606
388
0
11,441
489
0
11,910
312
18
15,870
421
20
16,311
Mixed
5,337
454
14
7,528
582
316
8,248
422
35
9,842
318
74
7,784
484
67
8,335
Industrial
2,366
451
22
4,523
593
484
0
0
0
4,607
800
216
5,623
Weighted
average
5,347
452
14
7,416
582
314
8,248
422
35
10,948
315
44
9,813
522
76
10,412
Goat
meat
Grazing
5,073
272
0
8,081
374
0
9,277
285
0
9,562
Mixed
2,765
283
0
4,544
381
9
2,443
453
4
4,691
313
4
5,007
Industrial
1,187
437
0
2,046
436
30
2,431
413
18
2,863
Weighted
average
2,958
312
0
4,194
393
13
2,443
454
4
5,185
330
6
5,521
Pig
meat
Grazing
11,134
205
738
3,732
391
325
4,048
479
587
5,118
870
890
7,660
431
632
8,724
Mixed
5,401
356
542
4,068
893
390
3,653
306
451
4,953
743
916
5,210
435
582
6,226
Industrial
3,477
538
925
9,236
2,014
1,021
3,776
236
427
3,404
563
634
4,050
487
687
5,225
Weighted
average
5,050
405
648
5,415
1,191
554
3,723
268
438
4,102
645
761
4,907
459
622
5,988
Chicken
meat
Grazing
4,695
448
1,414
11,993
1,536
1,369
2,535
113
271
2,836
294
497
7,919
734
718
9,370
Mixed
3,005
297
905
7,676
995
876
1,509
76
161
1,688
183
296
4,065
348
574
4,987
Industrial
1,940
195
584
3,787
496
432
1,548
77
165
1,731
187
303
2,337
210
325
2,873
Weighted
average
2,836
281
854
6,726
873
768
1,545
77
165
1,728
187
303
3,545
313
467
4,325
Egg
Grazing
3,952
375
1,189
10,604
1,360
1,176
1,695
76
161
1,740
183
331
6,781
418
446
7,644
Mixed
2,351
230
708
6,309
815
699
1,085
51
103
1,113
121
212
3,006
312
545
3,863
Industrial
2,086
206
628
3,611
472
400
1,187
55
113
1,218
132
232
2,298
205
369
2,872
Weighted
average
2,211
217
666
4,888
635
542
1,175
55
111
1,206
130
230
2,592
244
429
3,265
Milk
Grazing
1,580
106
128
1,185
105
34
572
50
32
1,106
69
89
1,087
56
49
1,191
Mixed
897
147
213
863
132
65
431
40
23
582
59
88
790
90
76
956
Industrial
500
43
25
444
61
100
1,027
98
82
1,207
Weighted
average
927
145
210
885
130
63
462
41
25
647
60
89
863
86
72
1,020
Butter
Grazing
8,600
577
696
6,448
572
188
3,111
272
176
6,022
373
482
5,913
305
265
6,484
Mixed
4,880
799
1,161
4,697
716
352
2,345
218
123
3,169
321
478
4,297
492
415
5,204
Industrial
2,720
233
136
2,417
330
543
5,591
532
448
6,571
Weighted
average
5,044
789
1,141
4,819
706
341
2,513
224
134
3,519
324
483
4,695
465
393
5,553
Milk
powder
Grazing
7,348
493
595
5,510
489
160
2,658
232
151
5,145
319
412
5,052
261
227
5,540
Mixed
4,169
683
992
4,013
612
301
2,003
186
105
2,708
274
409
3,671
421
354
4,446
Industrial
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,324
199
116
2,065
282
464
4,777
455
382
5,614
Weighted
average
4,309
674
975
4,117
603
291
2,147
191
114
3,007
277
413
4,011
398
336
4,745
M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra

animals. Beef production, for example, requires 8
times more feed (in dry matter) per kilogram of
meat compared to producing pig meat, and 11
times if compared to the case of chicken meat. This
is not the only factor, however, that can explain
the differences. Another important factor is the
feed composition. Particularly the fraction of con-
centrate feed in the total feed is important, because
concentrate feed generally has a larger water foot-
print than roughages. Chickens are efficient from a
total feed conversion efficiency point of view, but
have a large fraction of concentrates in their feed.
This fraction is 73% for broiler chickens (global
average), whereas it is only 5% for beef cattle.
For all farm animal products, except dairy prod-
ucts, the total water footprint per unit of product
declines from the grazing to the mixed production
system and then again to the industrial production
system. The reason is that, when moving from
grazing to industrial production systems, feed
conversion efficiencies get better (Appendix I —
Supplementary Material). Per unit of product,
about three to four times more feed is required for
grazing systems when compared to industrial sys-
tems. More feed implies that more water is needed
to produce the feed. The fraction of concentrate
feed in the total feed is larger for industrial systems
if compared to mixed production systems and lar-
ger for mixed systems if compared to grazing sys-
tems (Appendix IV — Supplementary Material).
The water footprint per kg of concentrate feed is
generally larger than for roughages, so that this
works to the disadvantage of the total water foot-
print of animals raised in industrial systems and to
the advantage of the total water footprint of ani-
mals raised in grazing systems. This effect, how-
ever, does not fully compensate for the unfavorable
feed conversion efficiencies in grazing systems.
In dairy farming, the total water footprint per
unit of product is comparable in all three pro-
duction systems. For dairy products, the water
footprint happens to be the smallest when derived
from a mixed system and a bit larger but compa-
rable when obtained from a grazing or industrial
system.
Blue and Grey Water Footprints per Ton
of Product
All the above is about comparing the total water
footprints of animal products. The picture changes
when we focus on the blue and grey water foot-
print components. With the exception of chicken
products, the global average blue and grey water
footprints increase from grazing to industrialTable
1.
continued
Animal
products
Farming
system
China
India
Netherlands
USA
Weighted
average
Green
Blue
Grey
Green
Blue
Grey
Green
Blue
Grey
Green
Blue
Grey
Green
Blue
Grey
Total
Cheese
Grazing
7,812
540
633
5,857
535
171
2,826
263
160
5,470
355
438
5,371
293
241
5,905
Mixed
4,432
742
1,055
4,267
666
320
2,130
214
111
2,878
307
435
3,903
463
377
4,743
Industrial
2,471
227
124
2,196
315
493
5,078
500
406
5,984
Weighted
average
4,581
732
1,036
4,377
657
310
2,283
219
121
3,196
310
439
4,264
439
357
5,060
Leather
(beef
cattle)
Grazing
14,300
266
0
25,195
310
0
21,290
657
658
20,905
535
240
21,680
Mixed
11,719
377
91
15,743
593
140
11,883
947
765
14,185
681
856
16,701
644
453
17,799
Industrial
9,677
904
1,093
12,068
1,505
842
4,530
513
259
3,287
497
614
9,487
805
763
11,056
Weighted
average
11,323
515
352
15,103
777
280
6,067
589
369
14,450
658
819
15,916
679
498
17,093
Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animals

production systems (Table 1). The larger blue and
grey water footprints for products obtained from
industrial production systems are caused by the fact
that concentrate feed takes a larger share in the
total feed in industrial systems when compared to
grazing systems. For beef cattle in grazing systems,
the global average share of concentrate feed in total
feed is 2%, whereas in industrial systems it is 21%.
Mixed systems are generally somewhere in be-
tween. Although the feed crops that are contained
in the concentrate feed are often to a great extent
based on green water, there is a blue water foot-
print component as well, and the larger the con-
sumption of feed crops compared to roughages, the
larger the total amount of blue water consumed.
This explains the larger blue water footprint per ton
of product in industrial production systems for beef,
milk, cheese, and pig, sheep and goat meat. The
application and leaching of fertilizers and other
agro-chemicals in feed crop production results in
the fact that the grey water footprint of animal
products from industrial systems, where the
dependence on feed crops is the greatest, is larger
than for grazing systems. Given the fact that
freshwater problems generally relate to blue water
scarcity and water pollution and to a lesser extent
to competition over green water, industrial systems
place greater pressure on ground- and surface-
water resources than grazing systems, because
grazing systems hardly depend on blue water.
In the case of chicken products (chicken meat
and egg), the industrial production system has, on
average, a smaller blue and grey water footprint per
ton of product compared to the other two produc-
tion systems. The reason is that chickens strongly
rely on concentrate feed in all production systems,
intensive or extensive. Broiler chickens in exten-
sive systems have a share of concentrate feed in
total feed of 63%, whereas this is 81% in intensive
industrial systems. There is still a difference, but the
differences in feed composition for both broiler and
layer chickens is smaller if compared to the other
animal categories. As a result, the relatively unfa-
vorable feed conversion efficiency in extensive
systems is not compensated by a more favorable
composition of the feed as is in the other animal
categories.
The trends in the global averages do not always
hold for specific countries. This can be seen from
Table 1, which provides country average water
footprints for China, India, the Netherlands and the
USA as well as global averages. The feed composi-
tion varies per production system but also from
country to country; as a result, the magnitude of
the different components of the water footprint in
the different countries varies significantly from the
global mean. Cattle in US grazing systems, for
example, are also fed relatively large amounts of
grains, predominantly maize, which is irrigated and
fertilized, which explains the relatively large blue
and grey water footprints of US beef from grazing
systems. In China and India, cattle in grazing and
mixed systems are mainly fed with pasture and
crop residues that have no blue and grey water
footprints. Beef from industrial systems in China
and India, on the contrary, have a relatively large
blue and grey water footprint, which can be ex-
plained from the fact that the concentrates in
Chinese and Indian industrial systems have a rel-
atively large blue and grey water footprint. This
shows that systems that belong to the same cate-
gory, grazing, mixed or industrial, differ in the feed
they provide to animals. Often, the feed ingredients
in the different countries have different water
footprints, resulting in differences in the total
green, blue and grey water footprint of the animal
products.
The Total Water Footprint of Animal
Production
During the period 1996–2005, the total water
footprint for global animal production was 2,422
Gm
3
/y (87.2% green, 6.2% blue and 6.6% grey
water). The largest water footprint for animal pro-
duction comes from the feed they consume, which
accounts for 98% of the total water footprint.
Drinking water, service water and feed-mixing
water further account the only for 1.1, 0.8 and
0.03% of the total water footprint, respectively.
Grazing accounts for the largest share (38%), fol-
lowed by maize (17%) and fodder crops (8%).
The global water footprint of feed production is
2,376 Gm
3
/y, of which 1,463 Gm
3
/y refers to crops
and the remainder to grazing. The estimate of green
plus blue water footprint of animal feed production
is consistent with estimates of earlier studies
(Table 4). The total water footprint of feed crops
amounts to 20% of the water footprint of total crop
production in the world, which is 7,404 Gm
3
/y
(Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2011). The globally
aggregated blue water footprint of feed crop
production is 105 Gm
3
/y, which is 12% of the blue
water footprint of total crop production in the
world (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2011). This means
that an estimated 12% of the global consumption
of groundwater and surface water for irrigation is
for feed, not for food, fibers or other crop products.
Globally, the total water footprint of animal pro-
duction (2,422 Gm
3
/y) constitutes 29% of the
M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra

water footprint of total agricultural production
(8,363 Gm
3
/y). The latter was calculated as the
sum of the global water footprint of crop produc-
tion (7,404 Gm
3
/y, Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2011),
the water footprint of grazing (913 Gm
3
/y, this
study) and the direct water footprint of livestock
(46 Gm
3
/y, this study).
When we consider the total water footprint per
animal category (Table 2), we find that beef cattle
have the largest contribution (33%) to the global
water footprint of farm animal production, fol-
lowed by dairy cattle (19%), pigs (19%) and
broiler chickens (11%). Mixed production systems
account for the largest share (57.4%) in the global
water footprint of animal production. Grazing and
industrial production systems account for 20.3 and
22.3%, respectively. In the grazing system, over
97% of the water footprint related to feed comes
from grazing and fodder crops and the water foot-
print is dominantly (94%) green. In the mixed and
industrial production systems, the green water
footprint forms 87 and 82% of the total footprint,
respectively. The blue water footprint in the graz-
ing system accounts for 3.6% of the total water
footprint and about 33% of this comes from the
drinking and service-water use. In the industrial
Table 2. Average Annual Water Footprint of One Animal, per Animal Category (1996–2005)
Animal
category
Water footprint
of live animal
at end of life
time (m
3
/ton)
Average animal
weight at end
of life time
(kg)
Average water
footprint at end
of life time
(m
3
/animal)
1
Average
life time
(y)
Average annual
water footprint
of one animal
(m
3
/y/animal)
2
Annual water
footprint of
animal category
(Gm
3
/y)
%of
total
WF
Beef cattle 7,477 253 1,889 3.0 630 798 33
Dairy cattle 20,558 10 2,056 469 19
Pigs 3,831 102 390 0.75 520 458 19
Broiler chickens 3,364 1.90 6 0.25 26 255 11
Horses 40,612 473 19,189 12 1,599 180 7
Layer chickens 47 1.4 33 167 7
Sheep 4,519 31.3 141 2.1 68 71 3
Goats 3,079 24.6 76 2.3 32 24 1
Total 2,422 100
1
Calculated by multiplying the water footprint of the live animal at the end of its lifetime in m
3
/ton and the average animal weight.
2
Calculated by dividing the average water footprint of the animal at the end of its life time by the average life time.
Table 3. The Water Footprint of Some Selected Food Products from Vegetable and Animal Origin
Food item Water footprint per ton
(m
3
/ton)
Nutritional
content
Water footprint per unit
of nutritional value
Green Blue Grey Total Calorie
(kcal/kg)
Protein
(g/kg)
Fat
(g/kg)
Calorie
(liter/kcal)
Protein
(liter/g protein)
Fat
(liter/g fat)
Sugar crops 130 52 15 197 285 0.0 0.0 0.69 0.0 0.0
Vegetables 194 43 85 322 240 12 2.1 1.34 26 154
Starchy roots 327 16 43 387 827 13 1.7 0.47 31 226
Fruits 726 147 89 962 460 5.3 2.8 2.09 180 348
Cereals 1,232 228 184 1,644 3,208 80 15 0.51 21 112
Oil crops 2,023 220 121 2,364 2,908 146 209 0.81 16 11
Pulses 3,180 141 734 4,055 3,412 215 23 1.19 19 180
Nuts 7,016 1367 680 9,063 2,500 65 193 3.63 139 47
Milk 863 86 72 1,020 560 33 31 1.82 31 33
Eggs 2,592 244 429 3,265 1,425 111 100 2.29 29 33
Chicken meat 3,545 313 467 4,325 1,440 127 100 3.00 34 43
Butter 4,695 465 393 5,553 7,692 0.0 872 0.72 0.0 6.4
Pig meat 4,907 459 622 5,988 2,786 105 259 2.15 57 23
Sheep/goat meat 8,253 457 53 8,763 2,059 139 163 4.25 63 54
Beef 14,414 550 451 15,415 1,513 138 101 10.19 112 153
Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animals

system, the blue water footprint accounts for 8% of
the total water footprint.
Water Footprint of Animal versus Crop
Products per Unit of Nutritional Value
As a general picture we find that animal products
have a larger water footprint per ton of product
than crop products. As we see from Table 3, the
global average water footprint per ton of crop in-
creases from sugar crops (roughly 200 m
3
/ton) and
vegetables (C24300 m
3
/ton) to pulses (C244,000 m
3
/
ton) and nuts (C249,000 m
3
/ton). For animal prod-
ucts, the water footprint increases from milk
(C241,000 m
3
/ton) and egg (C243,300 m
3
/ton) to beef
(C2415,400 m
3
/ton). Also when viewed from a
caloric standpoint, the water footprint of animal
products is larger than for crop products. The
average water footprint per calorie for beef is 20
times larger than for cereals and starchy roots.
When we look at the water requirements for pro-
tein, we find that the water footprint per gram of
protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5
times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water
footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than
for pulses. In the case of fat, we find that butter has
a relatively small water footprint per gram of fat,
even lower than for oil crops. All other animal
products, however, have larger water footprints per
gram of fat when compared to oil crops. The gen-
eral conclusion is that from a freshwater resource
perspective, it is more efficient to obtain calories,
protein and fat through crop products than animal
products. A note should be made here, however,
that types of proteins and fats differ across the dif-
ferent products.
Meat-based diets have a larger water footprint
compared to a vegetarian diet. We explored the
implications of our results by examining the diet
within one developed country—the USA—to
determine the effect of diet composition on water
footprint. Meat contributes 37% towards the food-
related water footprint of an average American
citizen. Replacing all meat by an equivalent
amount of crop products such as pulses and nuts
will result in a 30% reduction of the food-related
water footprint of the average American citizen.
DISCUSSION
The result of the current study can be compared
with results from earlier studies. However, only a
few other studies on the water footprint per unit of
animal product and the total water footprint of
animal production are available. We will first
compare our estimates of the water footprints per
ton of animal product with two earlier studies and
subsequently we will compare the total water
footprint related to animal feed production with
five earlier studies.
The rough estimates made by Pimentel and
others (2004) for the water footprints of beef and
meat from sheep, pigs and chickens are partly very
close to our global estimates but partly also quite
different. As Pimentel’s studies did not include the
grey water footprint component, we will compare
only the green plus blue water footprint from our
estimate with that of Pimentel and others (2004).
They report a water footprint of chicken meat of
3,500 m
3
/ton, which is only a bit lower than our
global average estimate of 3,858 m
3
/ton. They
report a water footprint of pig meat of 6,000
m
3
/ton, which is a slightly larger than our global
average estimate. For sheep meat, they report a
water footprint of 51,000 m
3
/ton and for beef
43,000 m
3
/ton, values that are very high when
compared to our estimates (10,400 m
3
/ton for
sheep meat and 15,400 m
3
/ton for beef). We con-
sider the values reported by Pimentel as rough
estimates, for which the underlying assumptions
have not been spelled out, so that it is difficult to
explain differences with our estimates.
The study of Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004)is
the only publication with global estimates of
the water footprint of animal products with
specifications by country. The current study gives
better estimates due to a refined assessment as
explained in the introductory section, so that the
previous estimates cannot be used for validation
of the estimates from the current study. However,
it is worth comparing the results from the two
studies to see the differences. At a global level,
the estimated water footprints per ton of animal
and animal product compare very well with the
estimates from Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004),
with an r
2
of 0.88 (Figure 1A). The good agree-
ment at the global level between the two studies
is probably that the global average water foot-
prints for various feed ingredients are very close
in the two studies. The trend line in Figure 1Ais
slightly above 1, which is caused by our higher
estimates for the water footprints of sheep and
goat meat. For most other animal products, the
current study gives a bit lower estimates than the
earlier study.
When we compare our estimates with Chapagain
and Hoekstra (2004) at a country level, more dif-
ferences are found (Figure 1B–F). The two studies
show a relatively good agreement for pig meat,
chicken meat and egg—although for egg the earlier
M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra

study systematically gives higher numbers—but
little agreement for beef and dairy products. In
general we find that Chapagain and Hoekstra
(2004) underestimated the water footprints for
African countries and overestimated the water
footprints for OECD countries. As already pointed
out in the introductory section, there are three
main reasons why the estimates from the current
study can differ from the 2004-study and are con-
sidered more accurate. First, the current study is
based on better data for the estimation of the
quantity and composition of animal feed. Second,
the current study takes into consideration the rel-
ative presence of the three production systems per
country and accounts for the differences between
those systems. Third, we have estimated the water
footprints of the various feed ingredients more
accurately by using a high-resolution grid-based
crop water use model, including the effect of
Figure 1. Comparison of average water footprint of A animals and animal products at global level, and B beef, C milk, D
pig meat, E chicken meat and F egg at the country level as estimated in the current study and Chapagain and Hoekstra
(2004). From the current study we show here the sum of green and blue water footprints, excluding the grey water
footprint, because that component was excluded in the 2004 study.
Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animals

water deficits where they occur, making explicit
distinction between the green and blue water
footprint components and including the grey water
footprint component.
As one can see in the overview presented in Ta-
ble 4, our estimate of the total evaporative water use
(green plus blue water footprint) for producing ani-
mal feed (2,217 Gm
3
/y) is 3% largerthan the estimate
by De Fraiture and others (2007) and 5% smaller
than the estimate by Zimmer and Renault (2003).
Our estimate of the global consumptive water use for
producing feed crops (1,304 Gm
3
/y) does not signif-
icantly differ from the estimate by De Fraiture and
others (2007). Our estimate of global consumptive
water use for grazing (913 Gm
3
/y) is 9% larger than
the estimate by De Fraiture and others (2007). The
differences with three other studies that reported on
the consumptive water use related to grazing are
much larger, which is caused by another definition
applied. Postel and others (1996) estimated the water
evaporated from grazing land to be 5,800 Gm
3
/y. In
more recent studies, Rost and others (2008)and
Hanasaki and others (2010) estimate the total
evapotranspiration from grazing land to be 8,258 and
12,960 Gm
3
/y, respectively. However, unlike the
current study, the estimates in these three studies
refer to the total evapotranspiration from grazing
lands rather than to the evaporation related to the
grass actually consumed. This makes a comparison of
our results with theirs unjustified. According to De
Fraiture and others (2007), reported ‘grazing lands’
are only partly actually grazed. Besides, the harvest
efficiency—the fraction of grass actually consumed
by the animal compared to the standing biomass—is
quite small. In a recent study in the USA, Smart and
others (2010) showed that, depending on the animal
stocking density, harvest efficiencies reach between
14 and 38%.
There are several uncertainties in this study in
the quantification of the water footprint of animals
and animal products. Due to a lack of data, many
assumptions have to be made. There are a number
of uncertainties in the study, but particularly two
types of uncertainty may have a major effect on the
final output of the study. First, data on animal
distribution per production system per country for
OECD countries is not available. Wint and Robin-
son (2007) provide livestock distributions per pro-
duction system per country for developing
countries but not for OECD countries. For these
countries we are forced to use the data from Sere´
and Steinfeld (1996), which provide livestock dis-
tribution per economic region. These data have the
limitation that they are not country-specific and
may lead to errors in distribution of animals into
the different production system for some countries.
The second major uncertainty is related to the
precise composition of feed per animal category per
country. Such data are not directly available so that
we had to infer these data by combining different
data sources and a number of assumptions. Despite
the uncertainties in the data used, the order of
magnitudes of the figures presented are unlikely to
be affected. Similarly, the general findings regard-
ing the overall comparison between different ani-
mals and different production systems and the
comparison between animal versus crop products is
not likely to change with better data.
Although the scope of this study is very com-
prehensive, there are many issues that have been
left out. One issue is that we neglected the indirect
water footprints of materials used in feed produc-
tion and animal raising. We expect that this may
add at most a few percent to the water footprint
estimates found in this study (based on Hoekstra
and others 2011). In the grey water footprint
Table 4. Comparison of the Results of the Current Study with the Results from Previous Studies
Study Period Global water footprint
1
related to
animal feed production (Gm
3
/y)
Grazing Crops Total
Postel and others (1996) 1995 5,800 – –
Zimmer and Renault (2003) 2000 – – 2,340
De Fraiture and others (2007) 2000 840 1,312 2,152
Rost and others (2008) 1971–2002 8,258 – –
Hanasaki and others (2010) 1985–1999 12,960 – –
Current study
1
1996–2005 913 1,304 2,217
1
The numbers in the table, also the ones from the current study, refer to the green plus blue water footprint. None of the previous studies included the grey water footprint
component.
M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra

estimations we have looked at the water pollution
by nitrogen-fertilizers only, excluding the potential
pollution by other fertilizer components or by
pesticides or other agro-chemicals. Besides, we
have not quantified the grey water footprint com-
ing from animal wastes, which is particularly rele-
vant for industrial production systems. Neglecting
nitrogen leaching and runoff from manure under-
estimates the grey water footprint related to animal
production. The magnitude of this underestimate
can roughly be shown by estimating the grey water
footprint related to manure based on the global
nitrogen input from manure found in the litera-
ture. Global nitrogen input from manure for the
year 2000 varies from 17 million tons per year (Liu
and others 2010) to 92 million tons per year
(Bouwman and others 2011). Based on the relative
contribution of manure to the total nitrogen input
and the global total nitrogen leaching/runoff, the
nitrogen leaching/runoff from manure can be
estimated at 6.0–14.5 million tons per year. This
amount of nitrogen leached/runoff to the fresh-
water systems can be translated into a grey water
footprint of 600–1,450 Gm
3
/y. The grey water
footprint is more significant in the intensive animal
production system, which often generates an
amount of waste that cannot be fully recycled on
the nearby land. The large amount of waste gen-
erated in a concentrated place can seriously affect
freshwater systems (FAO 2005; Steinfeld and oth-
ers 2006; Galloway and others 2007). Finally, by
focusing on freshwater appropriation, the study
obviously excludes many other relevant issues in
farm animal production, such as micro- and macro-
cost of production, livelihood of smallholder farm-
ers, animal welfare, public health and environ-
mental issues other than freshwater.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we provide a detailed estimate of the
water footprint of farm animals and animal prod-
ucts per production system and per country. The
results show that the blue and grey water footprints
of animal products are the largest for industrial
systems (with an exception for chicken products).
The water footprint of any animal product is larger
than the water footprint of crop products with
equivalent nutritional value. Finally, 29% of the
total water footprint of the agricultural sector in the
world is related to the production of animal prod-
ucts; one-third of the global water footprint of
animal production is related to beef cattle.
The global meat production has almost doubled
in the period 1980–2004 (FAO 2005) and this trend
is likely to continue given the projected doubling of
meat production in the period 2000–2050 (Stein-
feld and others 2006). To meet this rising demand
for animal products, the on-going shift from tradi-
tional extensive and mixed farming to industrial
farming systems is likely to continue. Because of
the larger dependence on concentrate feed in
industrial systems, this intensification of animal
production systems will result in increasing blue
and grey water footprints per unit of animal prod-
uct. The pressure on the global freshwater
resources will thus increase both because of the
increasing meat consumption and the increasing
blue and grey water footprint per unit of meat
consumed.
Managing the demand for animal products by
promoting a dietary shift away from a meat-rich
diet will be an inevitable component in the envi-
ronmental policy of governments. In countries
where the consumption of animal products is still
quickly rising, one should critically look at how
this growing demand can be moderated. On the
production side, it would be wise to include
freshwater implications in the development of
animal farming policies, which means that partic-
ularly feed composition, feed water requirements
and feed origin need to receive attention. Animal
farming puts the lowest pressure on freshwater
systems when dominantly based on crop residues,
waste and roughages. Policies aimed to influence
either the consumption or production side of farm
animal products will generally entail various sorts
of socio-economic and environmental tradeoffs
(Herrero and others 2009; Pelletier and Tyedmers
2010). Therefore, policies aimed at reducing the
negative impacts of animal production and con-
sumption should be able to address these potential
tradeoffs. Policies should not affect the required
increase in food security in less developed coun-
tries neither the livelihood of the rural poor should
be put in danger through intensification of animal
farming.
This study provides a rich data source for further
studies on the factors that determine how animal
products put pressure on the global water re-
sources. The reported incidents of groundwater
depletion, rivers running dry and increasing levels
of pollution form an indication of the growing
water scarcity (Gleick 1993; Postel 2000; UNESCO
2009). As animal production and consumption play
an important role in depleting and polluting the
world’s scarce freshwater resources, information on
the water footprint of animal products will help us
understand how we can sustainably use the scarce
freshwater resources.
Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animals

OPEN ACCESS
This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial
License which permits any noncommercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author(s) and source are
credited.
REFERENCES
Aldaya MM, Martinez-Santos P, Llamas MR. 2010. Incorporat-
ing the water footprint and virtual water into policy: Reflec-
tions from the Mancha Occidental Region, Spain. Water Res
Manag 24(5):941–58.
Bouwman AF, Van der Hoek KW, Eickhout B, Soenario I. 2005.
Exploring changes in world ruminant production systems.
Agric Syst 84:121–53.
Bouwman L, Goldewijk KK, Van Der Hoek KW, Beusen AHW,
Van Vuuren DP, Willems J, Rufino MC, Stehfest, E. 2011.
Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in
agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900-
2050 period. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA doi:10.1073/pnas.1012878108.
Capper JL, Cady RA, Bauman DE. 2009. The environmental
impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. J
Animal Sci 87(6):2160–7.
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY. 2004. Water footprints of nations.
Value of Water Research Report Series No. 16. Available on-
line: [www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf].
Delft, the Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE.
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra, AY. 2003. Virtual water flows between
nations in relation to trade in livestock and livestock products.
Value of Water Research Report Series No. 13. Available on-
line: [www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report13.pdf]. Delft,
the Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE.
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije HHG, Gautam R. 2006.
The water footprint of cotton consumption: an assessment of
the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on
the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecol
Econom 60(1):186–203.
De Fraiture C, Wichelns D, Rockstro¨m J, Kemp-Benedict E,
Eriyagama N, Gordon LJ, Hanjra MA, Hoogeveen J, Huber-
Lee A, Karlberg L. 2007. Looking ahead to 2050: scenarios of
alternative investment approaches. In: Molden D, Ed. Water
for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. London, Colombo: Earthscan,
International Water Management Institute. pp 91–145.
FAO. 2003. Technical conversion factors for agricultural com-
modities. Available online: [www.fao.org/fileadmin/tem-
plates/ess/documents/methodology/tcf.pdf]. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization.
FAO. 2005. Livestock policy brief 02. Rome: Food and Agricul-
ture Organization.
FAO. 2009. FAOSTAT database. Available online: [http://faos-
tat.fao.org]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Fraser D. 2008. Toward a global perspective on farm animal
welfare. Appl Animal Behav Sci 113(4):330–9.
Galloway J, Burke M, Bradford GE, Naylor R, Falcon W, Chap-
again AK, Gaskell JC, McCullough E, Mooney HA, Oleson KLL,
Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T, Smil V. 2007. International trade in
meat: the tip of the pork chop. Ambio 36:622–9.
Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, Van der Meer TH. 2009. The
water footprint of bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(25):
10219–23.
Gleick PH, Ed. 1993. Water in crisis: a guide to the world’s fresh
water resources. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 473.
Gustafson RH, Bowen RE. 1997. Antibiotic use in animal agri-
culture. J Appl Microbiol 83(5):531–41.
Hanasaki N, Inuzuka T, Kanae S, Oki T. 2010. An estimation of
global virtual water flow and sources of water withdrawal for
major crops and livestock products using a global hydrological
model. J Hydrol 384:232–44.
Hendy CRC, Kleih U, Crawshaw R, Phillips M. 1995. Livestock
and the environment finding a balance: Interactions between
livestock production systems and the environment, Impact
domain: concentrate feed demand. Available at: [www.fao.
org/wairdocs/lead/x6123e/x6123e00.htm#Contents]. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization.
Herrero M, Thornton PK, Gerber P, Reid RS. 2009. Livestock,
livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-
offs. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1(2):111–20.
Hoekstra AY. 2010. The water footprint of animal products. In:
D’Silva J, Webster J, Eds. The meat crisis: developing more
sustainable production and consumption. London: Earthscan.
p 22–33.
Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK. 2007. Water footprints of nations:
water use by people as a function of their consumption pat-
tern. Water Res Manag 21(1):35–48.
Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK. 2008. Globalization of water:
Sharing the planet’s freshwater resources. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing. p 208.
Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen MM.
2011. The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the
global standard. London: Earthscan. p 203.
Keyzer MA, Merbis MD, Pavel IFPW, Van Wesenbeeck CFA.
2005. Diet shifts towards meat and the effects on cereal use: Can
we feed the animals in 2030? Ecol Econom 55(2):187–202.
Lewis JM, Klopfenstein TJ, Stock RA, Nielsen MK. 1990. Eval-
uation of intensive vs extensive systems of beef production
and the effect of level of beef cow milk production on post-
weaning performance. J Animal Sci 68(8):2517–24.
Liu J, You L, Amini M, Obersteiner M, Herrero M, Zehnder AJB,
Yang H. 2010. A high-resolution assessment on global nitro-
gen flows in cropland. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(17):8035–40.
McAlpine CA, Etter A, Fearnside PM, Seabrook L, Laurance WF.
2009. Increasing world consumption of beef as a driver of
regional and global change: A call for policy action based on
evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia and Brazil.
Global Environ Change 19(1):21–33.
McEwen SA. 2006. Antibiotic use in animal agriculture: what
have we learned and where are we going? Animal Biotechnol
17(2):239–50.
Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. 2010. A global and high-resolu-
tion assessment of the green, blue and grey water footprint of
wheat. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14(7):1259–76.
Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. 2011. The green, blue and grey
water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol
Earth Syst Sci 15(5):1577–600.
Myers N, Kent J. 2003. New consumers: the influence of affluence
on the environment. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100(8):4963–8.
Naylor R, Steinfeld H, Falcon W, Galloway J, Smil V, Bradford E,
Alder J, Mooney H. 2005. Agriculture: losing the links be-
tween livestock and land. Science 310(5754):1621–2.
M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra

Nepstad DC, Stickler CM, Almeida OT. 2006. Globalization of the
Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conserva-
tion. Conserv Biol 20(6):1595–603.
Peden D, Tadesse G, Misra AK, Ahmed FA, Astatke A, Ayalneh
W, Herrero M, Kiwuwa G, Kumsa T, Mati B, Mpairwe D,
Wassenaar T, Yimegnuhal A. 2007. Water and livestock for
human development. In: Molden D, Ed. Water for food, water
for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in
agriculture. London: Earthscan International Water Manage-
ment Institute. p 485–514.
Pelletier N, Tyedmers P. 2010. Forecasting potential global
environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 107(43):18371–4.
Pimentel D, Berger B, Filiberto D, Newton M, Wolfe B, Karabi-
nakis E, Clark S, Poon E, Abbett E, Nandagopal S. 2004. Water
resources: agricultural and environmental issues. Bioscience
54(10):909–18.
Postel SL. 2000. Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges
ahead. Ecol Appl 10(4):941–8.
Postel SL, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR. 1996. Human appropriation of
renewable freshwater. Science 271(5250):785–8.
Renault D, Wallender WW. 2000. Nutritional water productivity
and diets. Agric Water Manag 45:275–96.
Rost S, Gerten D, Bondeau A, Lucht W, Rohwer J, Schaphoff S.
2008. Agricultural green and blue water consumption and
its influence on the global water system. Water Resource
Research 44:W09405. doi:10.1029/2007WR006331.
Sere´ C, Steinfeld H. 1996. World livestock production systems:
current status, issues and trends. Animal production and
health paper 127. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Smart AJ, Derner JD, Hendrickson JR, Gillen RL, Dunn BH,
Mousel EM, Johnson PS, Gates RN, Sedivec KK, Harmoney
KR, Volesky JD, Olson KC. 2010. Effects of grazing pressure
on efficiency of grazing on North American Great Plains
rangelands. Rangeland Ecol Manag 63(4):397–406.
Smith DL, Harris AD, Johnson JA, Silbergeld EK, Morris JG.
2002. Animal antibiotic use has an early but important impact
on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in human com-
mensal bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(9):6434–9.
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan
C. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and
options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. p 390.
Sutton MA, Oenema O, Erisman JW, Leip A, Van Grinsven H,
Winiwarter W. 2011. Too much of a good thing. Nature
472(7342):159–61.
Thompson PB, Ed. 2008. The ethics of intensification: Agricul-
tural development and cultural change. The International
Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics Vol.
16. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8722-6.
Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth
R, Schindler D, Schlesinger WH, Simberloff D, Swackhamer D.
2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental
change. Science 292(5515):281–4.
UNESCO. 2009. Water in a changing world: The United Nations
World Water Development Report 3. Paris: UNESCO Pub-
lishing, Earthscan.
Van Breugel P, Herrero M, Van De Steeg J, Peden D. 2010.
Livestock water use and productivity in the Nile Basin. Eco-
systems 13(2):205–21.
Wheeler RO, Cramer GL, Young KB, Ospina E. 1981. The world
livestock product, feedstuff, and food grain system, an analysis
and evaluation of system interactions throughout the world,
with projections to 1985 Little Rock (AK): Winrock Interna-
tional.
Wint GRW, Robinson TP. 2007. Gridded livestock of the world
2007. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Witte W. 1998. Medical consequences of antibiotic use in agri-
culture. Science 279(5353):996–7.
Zimmer D, Renault D. 2003. Virtual water in food production
and global trade: review of methodological issues and pre-
liminary results. In: Hoekstra AY, Ed. Virtual water trade:
Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Virtual
Water Trade. Value of Water Research Report Series No.12,
Available at [http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Re-
port12.pdf] Delft, The Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE. p93-109.
Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animals