Assessing water resource use in livestock production: A review of methods

Ran, Ylva; Lannerstad, Mats; Herrero, Mario; Middelaar, C.E. van; Boer, I.J.M. de

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2016.02.012

Cited by 85 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The global food system is a major force driving humanity towards bypassing multiple planetary boundaries, including freshwater use, land use change, biodiversity loss, climate change, and water quality degradation [1,2]. This is, in part, because an increasingly affluent and growing global human population is consuming more meat and dairy products [3][4][5][6]. Food animal products provide a concentrated source of calories, protein, and some micronutrients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly?

Fry

Mailloux

Love

et al. 2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

160

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, demand for food animal products is rising. At the same time, we face mounting, related pressures including limited natural resources, negative environmental externalities, climate disruption, and population growth. Governments and other stakeholders are seeking strategies to boost food production efficiency and food system resiliency, and aquaculture (farmed seafood) is commonly viewed as having a major role in improving global food security based on longstanding measures of animal production efficiency. The most widely used measurement is called the 'feed conversion ratio' (FCR), which is the weight of feed administered over the lifetime of an animal divided by weight gained. By this measure, fed aquaculture and chickens are similarly efficient at converting feed into animal biomass, and both are more efficient compared to pigs and cattle. FCR does not account for differences in feed content, edible portion of an animal, or nutritional quality of the final product. Given these limitations, we searched the literature for alternative efficiency measures and identified 'nutrient retention', which can be used to compare protein and calories in feed (inputs) and edible portions of animals (outputs). Protein and calorie retention have not been calculated for most aquaculture species. Focusing on commercial production, we collected data on feed composition, feed conversion ratios, edible portions (i.e. yield), and nutritional content of edible flesh for nine aquatic and three terrestrial farmed animal species. We estimate that 19% of protein and 10% of calories in feed for aquatic species are ultimately made available in the human food supply, with significant variation between species. Comparing all terrestrial and aquatic animals in the study, chickens are most efficient using these measures, followed by Atlantic salmon. Despite lower FCRs in aquaculture, protein and calorie retention for aquaculture production is comparable to livestock production. This is, in part, due to farmed fish and shrimp requiring higher levels of protein and calories in feed compared to chickens, pigs, and cattle. Strategies to address global food security should consider these alternative efficiency measures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly?

Fry

Mailloux

Love

et al. 2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

160

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The exclusion of the green water from the LCA perspective water use has been increasingly viewed as a flaw for several reasons, including that 1) the final estimates may not properly reflect actual water efficiency in livestock production in view of competing uses (Ran et al, 2016) and 2) it disregards the observation that green water can also be a scarce resource (Hoekstra, 2016). Although green water scarcity can be assessed through the impacts of land use in LCA, it does not clearly reflect water use efficiency.…”

Section: Opportunities and Challenges In Water Use Accountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Quantifying water use in ruminant production1

Legesse

Ominski

Beauchemin

et al. 2017

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The depletion of water resources, in terms of both quantity and quality, has become a major concern both locally and globally. Ruminants, in particular, are under increased public scrutiny due to their relatively high water use per unit of meat or milk produced. Estimating the water footprint of livestock production is a relatively new field of research for which methods are still evolving. This review describes the approaches used to quantify water use in ruminant production systems as well as the methodological and conceptual issues associated with each approach. Water use estimates for the main products from ruminant production systems are also presented, along with possible management strategies to reduce water use. In the past, quantifying water withdrawal in ruminant production focused on the water demand for drinking or operational purposes. Recently, the recognition of water as a scarce resource has led to the development of several methodologies including water footprint assessment, life cycle assessment, and livestock water productivity to assess water use and its environmental impacts. These methods differ with respect to their target outcome (efficiency or environmental impacts), geographic focus (local or global), description of water sources (green, blue, and gray), handling of water quality concerns, the interpretation of environmental impacts, and the metric by which results are communicated (volumetric units or impact equivalents). Ruminant production is a complex activity where animals are often reared at different sites using a range of resources over their lifetime. Additional water use occurs during slaughter, product processing, and packaging. Estimating water use at the various stages of meat and milk production and communicating those estimates will help producers and other stakeholders identify hotspots and implement strategies to improve water use efficiency. Improvements in ruminant productivity (i.e., BW and milk production) and reproductive efficiency can also reduce the water footprint per unit product. However, given that feed production makes up the majority of water use by ruminants, research and development efforts should focus on this area. More research and clarity are needed to examine the validity of assumptions and possible trade-offs between ruminants' water use and other sustainability indicators.

show abstract

“…However, there are several animal products, which have lower WFP than crop products when nutritional value is considered. The worldwide meat production has been projected to be double by 2050 in the developing countries, due mainly to the increase in production and consumption (IAASTD 2008;Steinfeld et al 2006;Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012;Ran et al 2016), which is likely to intensify the freshwater crisis in the future (Rost et al 2008;Ran et al 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The water consumption of agricultural products used as feed items forms the major fractions of VWC for livestock farming (Rost et al 2008;Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012;Ran et al 2016). The WFP of an agricultural product is defined as the sum of the blue, green, and grey WFP (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Worldwide, green water contributes about 80% of the consumptive water use (CWU) in agricultural production (Molden et al 2010;Rockström et al 2014). In livestock production, green water accounts for 90% of total CWU (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012), while only 2-8% of CWU is blue water used for drinking water, servicing, and feed mixing purposes (Steinfeld et al 2006;Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012;de Boer et al 2013;Ran et al 2016). In Saudi Arabia, there is no natural surface water flow system and the countrywide average annual rainfall is very low (\ 70 mm/year) (Chowdhury and Al-Zahrani 2013;AlZahrani et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Virtual water content for meat and egg production through livestock farming in Saudi Arabia

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of virtual water content (VWC) may facilitate an understanding of total water demand for commodity production. The water consumption for livestock production forms a significant fraction of freshwater demand in arid regions, i.e., Saudi Arabia. In this paper, VWC was estimated for different livestocks in the 13 regions of Saudi Arabia. The VWC for camel production was also estimated, which has not been investigated in the previous studies. The overall VWC for livestock in Saudi Arabia was about 10.5 and 8.9 billion m 3 in 2006 and 2010, respectively. This study shows the decreasing trend of overall VWC in producing livestock in Saudi Arabia. The VWC were highest in Riyadh followed by Eastern region, Qaseem, Hail, and Makkah with ranges of 3587-4112, 1684-2044, 1007-1331, 644-810, and 504-715 million m 3 /year, respectively. The results demonstrate that a shift in diet from the high VWC meat to low VWC meat may reduce the overall VWC for livestock production. The findings of this analysis provide an assessment of the quantity and trend of water demand for livestock production in Saudi Arabia, which is useful to assess the development of an information-based agricultural water management strategy.

show abstract

Assessing water resource use in livestock production: A review of methods

Cited by 85 publications

References 56 publications

Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly?

Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly?

BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Quantifying water use in ruminant production1

Virtual water content for meat and egg production through livestock farming in Saudi Arabia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About