Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Impact of roughage-concentrate ratio on the water footprints of beef feedlots MARK

a,⁎ b c
Julio Cesar Pascale Palhares , Marcela Morelli , Ciniro Costa Junior
a
Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste, Brazil
b
Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia/USP, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil
c
Instituto de Manejo e Certificação Florestal e Agrícola – Imaflora, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this study was to determine the water footprint of beef feedlots up to the farm gate and evaluate the
Blue water impact of roughage-concentrate ratio on the green water footprint. The study purpose was to provide strategic
By-products insights about nutritional management and water used that have a positive impact reducing water demand and
Green water increasing water efficiency. A regional bottom-up approach of the beef feedlot production was applied and water
Nellore
footprint methodology was used as the primary method. We included green and blue volumetric water footprint.
Sensitivity assessment was done to explore differences in agricultural performance. Total water footprint ranged
from 1935 to 9673 m3 kg− 1 of meat. The results are demonstrating the variability in water footprint that can
exist from farm to farm. Green water represented on average 84.5% and blue water 15.4% of the footprint value.
The farms with larger amounts of concentrate in the diet had high footprint values and the differences in feed
composition have a significant effect on the water footprint. The average water footprint of the current crop
yield was 5814 L kg− 1 of meat. With a reduction of 25% in the current crop yields, it was 7.416 L kg− 1 of meat
and with an increase of 25% in the current crop yields, 4677 L kg− 1 of meat. These results show that increasing
agricultural productivity has positive impacts on reducing the water footprint. The results show that the water
footprint values of feedlots are determined largely by the type of animal diet and by performance indicators of
the animals. The roughage-concentrate ratio and type of roughage are the nutritional aspects that most
significantly influence the footprint values. This study supports the recommendation that beef feedlots should
place emphasis on maximizing the use of roughage, because this could decrease the pressure on fresh water
resources.

1. Introduction
It is important for producers to recognize the growing concerns
attributed to water-animal nexus and for researchers to propose
assessments to evaluate this nexus and improve water balance on
livestock supply chain and farms. With the increasing demand for
animal products in the coming decades, balancing animal productivity
with water use will require a concerted effort among producers,
scientists, agroindustries, and consumers to reduce the risks associated
with animal water demand and scarcity. Numerous management and
resource factors determine the environmental outcome on farms, and
the impact of any change needs to be determined by taking into account
the whole farm system.
There is increasing recognition of the tension between livestock
production and water use, hence understanding the distribution and
demands for freshwater in livestock production are of particular
importance (Busscher, 2012; Ridoutt et al., 2014).To contribute to
better insight into the demand for freshwater in a specific region and to
improve the performance of individual farms, there is a need for water
consumption studies to include detailed farm-level data regarding
climate, agricultural practices, and utilization of feed (Jeswani and
Azapagic, 2011; Krauß et al., 2015b; Ridoutt and Huang, 2012).
Strzepek and Boehlert (2010) water scarcity will become a major
limiting factor to food security due to possible inter-linkage and
competition between the water and the food supply system. Sultana
et al. (2015) to problems of water scarcity and food security, there is a
need for research to develop appropriate strategies that optimize water
use efficiency and increase livestock production without off-setting
water resources. Winchester and Morris (1956), considering areas of
limited water supply, quantitative information on water requirement of
farm animals is comparable in importance to information on the
animals' other nutrient requirements. Sultana (2013) suggested that
in terms of water use efficiency goals, benchmarking with other farms
can be useful so that the individual farmer can see what others are able
to achieve and can strive towards the best practice.
The world has over 1.3 billion cattle — about one for every five

⁎
Corresponding author at: Rod. Washington Luiz km 234 13560-970, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: julio.palhares@embrapa.br (J.C.P. Palhares), ciniro@imaflora.org (C.C. Junior).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.009
Received 12 December 2016; Received in revised form 25 April 2017; Accepted 28 April 2017
Available online 12 May 2017
0308-521X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.C.P. Palhares et al.
people on the planet (FAOSTAT, 2015). Within the livestock sector,
beef emerges as the commodity receiving most attention for its
environmental impacts. Rabobank (2016) as countries continue to
develop, greater incomes will be achieved, increasing food consump-
tion and putting additional pressure on agriculture producers and
water, especially in major producing regions. Gerber et al. (2015) this
is due to the evident aggregated contribution that beef production
makes to global environmental issues such as climate change and water
use. Beef production from feedlots is expanding throughout the world.
Feedlots are well established in countries such as the US or Canada and
rapidly growing in other regions, such as South America, Asia, and
Africa, driven by an increasing demand for meat in urban areas.
Feedlots make use of relatively abundant crop products and co-
products. Vasconcelos et al. (2007) feedlot operations are nevertheless
associated with relatively high impacts on water resources and air
quality, mostly due to the geographical concentration of production
units. Tilman et al. (2002) stated that feedlots are generally sourced
from industrial crop production, and thus contribute to environmental
issues such as eutrophication, water depletion, and emission of
pesticides into the environment.
Brazil is already the world's second largest beef producer and
exporter. The Brazilian beef industry is on the verge of a transformation
shift towards rapid intensification (Rabobank, 2014). The beef feedlot
industry has grown substantially in the last decade as the external
market demand for fed cattle has increased. Brazilian cattle are fed in
feedlots mostly during the dry season when pasture availability is
decreased. In 2014, approximately 36 million cattle were slaughtered,
which includes cattle on grass and in feedlots (IBGE, 2014). Approxi-
mately 10% of the cattle slaughtered in Brazil were finished in feedlots
in 2014.Cederberg et al. (2009), today, a minor fraction of the Brazilian
beef is produced in feedlot systems, but this production will most
probably increase in the future. For upcoming studies, it is essential that
resource use from complementary feed production is also included.
Most significantly, cow and calf producers draw on narratives of
balance between economic and environmental concerns, focus on
environmental benefits, emphasize good management principles, and
fragment their understanding of the beef industry to maintain dis-
courses of sustainability. Abstract and cumulative impacts from the beef
production were not easily observed by producers and were therefore
not the focus of producers' environmental efforts. In other words, a
situated and fragmented view of the cattle production allows producers
to self-identify as stewards (Kessler et al., 2016). The footprint
approaches are a way to change this fragmented view of the beef
supply chain and help to achieve its sustainability.
Beckett and Oltjen (1993) water used for beef cattle can be divided
into drinking water, water used for producing feed, and that used for
processing the cattle into beef. Ridout et al. (2011) water footprint is
likely to become part of the mainstream dialogue about sustainability,
much like the carbon footprint. Similarly, Murphy et al. (2016)
quantifying the water footprint of agricultural outputs is a first step
in reducing the pressures on freshwater systems resulting from livestock
production, while at the same time providing end user information.
Water footprint assessment across the entire value chain of livestock
products is gaining prominence because the livestock industry has
crucial deficits in meeting the food needs of the increasing human
population without exerting potential impacts on water resources
(Zonderland-Thomassen et al., 2014).
Considering the relevance of livestock and the essential role that
water plays in it, there is a high need for water footprint assessment in
this sector. Beef production systems are very diverse and encompass
cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot operations. Most of the environmental
concerns have been directed at the feedlot industry due to the fact that
large numbers of cattle are housed in a small area in certain
geographical regions. Because animal breed, growth rate, feeding
intensity, and carcass composition are significantly more variable to
beef cattle than any other livestock and poultry, water footprint
127
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135
calculation is more challenging.
The water footprint approach provides information about water
consumed and the impact of the product in the quantity and quality of
water. Several approaches exist for assessing water footprint, and one of
them is the Water Footprint Network method (Hoekstra et al., 2011).
The water footprint concept was introduced as an indicator of fresh-
water appropriation, with the aim to quantify and map indirect water
use and show the relevance of involving consumers and producers
along supply chains in water resource management (Hoekstra et al.,
2011). The evaluation of freshwater use is possible by assembling
methods in a comprehensive methodology to adequately characterize
each use. The current state of the art can already provide a preliminary
understanding of water uses and associated impacts (Kounina et al.,
2013). Manzardo et al. (2014) underlined the importance of applying
water footprint accounting to minimize local effects on water resources,
such as water stress and availability.
Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) estimated that beef cattle were
responsible for 33% of the global water footprint of animal production
and almost 10% of the global water footprint of total agricultural
production. Water footprint of beef cattle in Brazil was based on global
averages. No Brazilian case study was considered in the assessment, and
this raises doubts whether regional- or country-specific case study
footprints will be the same as the global averages. The global averages
show very small variations, from 15,415–15,497 L/kg of beef, including
green, blue, and grey water estimates (Ran et al., 2016). In contrast, the
study by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) presents relatively large
variations between regions and production systems. Grazing systems,
for example, have a range of 16,353–26,155 L/kg of beef, mixed
systems of 11,744–16,869 L/kg of beef, and industrial systems of
3856–13,089 L/kg of beef.
The aim of this study was to determine the water footprint of beef
feedlot up to the farm gate and evaluate the impact of roughage-
concentrate ratio on the green water footprint. The study provides
strategic insights about nutritional management and water used. This
study presents the first water footprint assessment of Brazilian beef
feedlot using farm-specific data, which does not currently exist in the
scientific literature.
2. Material and methods
A regional (state of Sao Paulo, Brazil), bottom-up approach of the
beef feedlot production was applied in the analysis and water footprint
methodology was used as the primary method. Beef cattle feedlot is one
of the production systems used in Sao Paulo, within which productive
managements follow the general patterns of feedlots throughout Brazil.
Bos indicus cattle is a common practice in Brazilian feedlots.
Concentrate feed provided on each farm consisted of corn and soya
meal; roughages are corn silage, sugar cane, and its bagasse.
2.1. Systems data and reference unit
Data used in this paper consists of both primary and secondary data.
The study considered the core process of the feedlot (fattening stage
where the animals are brought to the age of slaughtering) and the
upstream processes: cultivation and animal feed (formulation A,
formulation B, formulation C, and so on). Production of farm buildings,
machinery, medicines, and pesticides were excluded.
The reporting period was one production cycle (from 80 to
110 days, average 90 days) based upon farm enterprise budgets. The
underlying typical farm datasets were derived from Costa Junior et al.
(2013). This research analysis was based on 17 farms (Table 1).
Productive characteristics of each feedlot were based on process data
from site visits and dialogues with property managers.
The reference unit was kg of fresh meat (meat with fat without
bones and offal). The live weight of the animal was converted to carcass
beef by multiplying live weight by 54.5%. This value was multiplied by
J.C.P. Palhares et al. Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135

Table 1
Productive characteristics of each feedlot.

Farm Number of animals Inicial body weight Final body weight Average gain Period of Live weight Meat Climatic station Annual
cycle− 1 (kg) (kg) (kg day− 1) cycle (kg cycle− 1) (kg cycle− 1) precipitation
(days) (mm)

1 800 240 357 1.3 90 285,600 120,194 Sao Carlos 1133

2 7150 380 470 1.0 90 3,360,500 1,414,263 Valparaiso 1180
3 10,000 320 480 1.5 90 4,800,000 2,020075 Borborema 981
4 1500 320 480 1.5 90 720,000 303,011 Piracicaba 1316
5 50,000 320 480 1.5 90 24,000000 1,0100376 Andradina 998
6 300 320 428 1.4 80 12,8400 54,037 Sarutaia 1189
7 8000 270 433 1.6 100 3,464,000 1,457,821 Barretos 1300
8 1750 320 480 1.5 107 840,000 353,513 Borborema 981
9 10,000 320 480 1.5 90 4,800,000 2,020075 Borborema 981
10 1000 320 446 1.4 90 446,000 187,699 Batatais 1139
11 6000 375 525 1.5 100 3,150,000 1,325,674 Bauru 995
12 500 380 523 1.3 110 261,500 110,052 Bebedouro 1089
13 1500 380 523 1.5 95 783,750 329,840 Bauru 995
14 500 320 480 1.4 90 240,000 101,004 Fartura 1189
15 600 370 523 1.7 90 313,800 132,062 Guara 1570
16 1500 380 540 1.6 100 810,000 340,888 Barretos 1300
17 150 320 480 1.6 100 72,000 3,0301 Presidente 1286
Prudente

1% (loss of water during frozen, cold carcass) and 78% (percentage of
meat with fat in the carcass). In this study, the output is defined on a
mass basis (meat with fat).
2.2. Water footprint calculation
We included green and blue volumetric water footprint. Quantified
freshwater use included water required for on-farm cultivation of crops
for concentrate feed and silage and water required for animal husban-
dry. Calculations adopted the concept of water footprint as described in
the Water Footprint Assessment Manual by Hoekstra et al. (2011).
To produce a product of agricultural origin, rainfall evaporated
from the soil, absorbed by roots, and transpired by the crop as well as
the water incorporated in the harvested crop (Hoekstra et al., 2011)
must be considered. This represents the green water and is understood
as an indirect use of water. A large amount of data is needed to estimate
the green water footprint. When the purpose of the assessment is to
make a rough estimate, it is common to work with climate data from
nearby locations, crop data obtained from standard statistics, and more
readily available regional or national averages. When the study is
carried out at farm scale, more detailed climate and crop data are
needed for the calculations. Pimentel et al. (2004) assessing consump-
tive water use is linked to feed is a specific methodological challenge,
particularly for ruminant production systems. A simplified approach is
to attribute all, or a fixed share, of the evapotranspiration from all the
biomass that grows in an area. According to Ran et al. (2016), another
approach is estimate the feed required to produce a certain amount of
animal product and the corresponding evapotranspiration for that feed.
Such calculations are more accurate, since they generate water
estimates directly related to the quantity of biomass consumed by
animals rather than the production of biomass over an area.
This study assumed that feed was grown on each farm and fed in
feedlots in that region, which implies that the water required to grow
feedstuffs is used at regional water efficiency.
The equation for green water is expressed as:
n
GW = ∑ p =1 (ETC[a, s] + Product[s])
−1
3
where GW is green water (m tonne ), ETc [a, s] is the potential crop
evapotranspiration of each feed ingredient p consumed by animals a in
a farm s (m3 tonne− 1), and Product [s] is water content in feed
ingredient p in farm s (m3 tonne− 1).
The potential crop evapotranspiration for sugar cane, silage, and
grain crops was calculated based on the crop coefficient method (Kc).
The crop evapotranspiration requirement (ETp, mm/period of growth)
was calculated using the crop coefficient (Kc) for the respective growth
period and reference crop evaporation (ETo) summed over the period
from sowing to harvest (Allen et al., 1998). The crop coefficient is crop-
specific and varies over time, depending on the growth stages of the
crop (initial, crop development, mid-season, and late season). The
sowing date, length of the growing period, and Kc values of a desired
crop were also noted. Evapotranspiration for each feed consumed at
each farm was calculated based on climatic data collected from the
nearest and most representative meteorological station (CIIAGRO,
2017). Land use for the production of grains, silage, and sugar cane
was calculated based on total animal feed intake, considering a feed
intake of 10.1 kg dry matter− 1 head− 1 day− 1 (Millen et al., 2009), one
feedlot production cycle per year, and the crop yield.
Soybean crop produces two products, meal and oil. Meal is the form
that cattle feed on. Technical conversion factors for agricultural
commodities (FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2013) were used to calculate the water quantity from
evapotranspiration that is used to yield meal. Considering the Brazilian
case, each grain produces 77% as meal and 23% as oil.
Blue water footprint refers to “blue water consumption” or “net
water withdrawal” and is equal to the volume of fresh surface water and
groundwater that is withdrawn and not returned because the water
evaporated or was incorporated into a product (Mekonnen and
Hoekstra, 2014). In this study, the blue water calculation comprises
consumptive water use through animal drinking, water to feed mixing,
and water in the meat. The equation for blue water is expressed as:
BW = (Wani‐drinking) + (Wfeed) + (Wprod) 2
where BW is blue water (m3 tonne− 1), Wani–drinking is consumption
of (drinking) water by animals (m3 tonne− 1), Wfeed is consumption of
water for feed mixing (m3 tonne− 1), and Wprod is the percentage of
water in 1 tonne of meat.
Drinking water intake was calculated from the dry matter intake
(kg day− 1), salt intake (kg day− 1), precipitation (cm day− 1), and
1
maximum ambient temperature according to Hicks et al. (1988).
The water consumed for feed mixing is assumed to be 50% of total
concentrate dry matter intake (DMI) (0.5 L kg− 1 DMI) according to
Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011). Water consumed to produce feed
additives was not considered.
The grey component of WF, defined as the amount of water needed
to dilute all the sources of pollution to restore a standard environmental
condition, was not included in this study. Its estimation is quite

128
J.C.P. Palhares et al. Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135

Table 2
Agricultural scenarios to sensitivity assessment: actual crop yields, reduction of 25% in the actual crop yields, and increase of 25% in the actual crop yields.

Farm Roughage (tonne ha− 1) Concentrate (tonne ha− 1)

Maize silage Maize silage Maize silage Sugar cane Sugar cane Sugar cane Soya Soya Soya Maize Maize Maize
actual Yield + 25% −25% Actual + 25% − 25% actual yield + 25% − 25% actual yield + 25% − 25%
Yield

1 11.3 15.1 9.0 35.8 47.7 28.6 44 58 35

2 36.1 48.1 28.9 376.5 502.1 301.2 621 828 497
3 70.7 94.3 56.6 799.8 1063.5 638.8 199 266 160
4 3.4 4.5 2.7 71.6 95.5 57.3 147 196 200
5 50.5 67.3 40.4 1431.7 1908.9 1145.3 7772 10,363 6218
6 0.6 0.8 0.5 9.2 12.3 7.4 33 44 27
7 9.2 12.9 7.4 383.4 511.9 306.5 1177 1569 942
8 4.2 5.6 3.4 74.9 99.6 59.9 414 551 331
9 131.3 175.1 105.0 448.2 597.6 358.6 607 810 485
10 5.6 7.4 4.4 58.6 78.1 46.9 49 65 39
11 23.6 31.5 18.9 532.4 708.3 425.4 595 792 475
12 2.5 3.4 2.0 35.1 46.6 28.00 72 95 57
13 12.8 17.1 10.2 53.7 71.5 43.0 235 314 188
14 7.6 10.1 6.1 20.6 27.4 16.5 12 16 10
15 3.2 4.3 2.6 32.1 42.7 25.7 33 44 27
16 1.7 2.4 1.4 71.9 96.0 57.5 221 294 177
17 0.8 1.0 0.6 9.6 12.7 7.6 24 33 20

complex, mainly when the kind of pollution is diffuse, and could result
in misleading water footprint results due to the great variability of
runoff conditions that exist in each feedlot (i.e. different soils and
nutrient concentration in the manure lead to completely different WF
volume estimation).
2.3. Sensitivity assessment
Sensitivity assessment was done to explore differences in agricul-
tural performance of maize silage, sugar cane and sugar cane bagasse,
corn, and soya production per hectare. We used three scenarios which
were applied to each feed ingredient in order to determine variation of
the results: (1) actual crop yields; (2) reduction of 25% in the actual
crop yields; and (3) increase of 25% in the actual crop yields. Table 2
shows the agricultural scenarios to each local.
3. Results and discussion
Table 3 presents water use by roughage and concentrate, volumetric
and percentage of green water footprint, volumetric and percentage of
blue water footprint, and the sum of blue water footprint and green
water footprint.
The sum of water footprints ranged from 1934 m3 kg− 1 to
9672 m3 kg− 1 of meat. The results are demonstrating the variability
in water footprint that can exist from farm to farm when we calculate
with farm-specific data that enabled this variation be captured. Green
water represented on average 84.5% and blue water 15.4% of the
footprint value. Hydro-efficiency in livestock depends on agriculture,
because the highest water demand to produce meat is found in feed
production. The larger percentage of green water confirms the im-
portance of rainfall, which endorses why Brazilian agriculture and
livestock have a competitive factor compared to other countries.
Owusu-Sekyere et al. (2016) since green water is the largest contributor
to the total water footprint for feed production for lactating cows,
particular attention should be given to feeds such as maize meal, high
protein concentrate feeds, and soybean, which have high green water
footprints in order to minimize green water consumption.
The farms with larger amounts of concentrate in the diet had high
footprint values. When the concentrate represented 90% of the diet,
footprints ranged from 6685 to 9673 m3 kg− 1 of meat. The inclusion of
80% represented a footprint variation from 4628 to 5236 m3 kg− 1 of
meat. Farms 4 and 5 used the same roughage (sugar cane bagasse) and
presented the same daily weight gain (1.5 kg day− 1), initial and final
weights of the animals, and confinement period (90 days). However,

Table 3
Percentage and volumetric of green and blue water footprint and, the sum of blue and green water footprint.

Farm Water use by roughage (%) Water use by concentrate (%) Green water (%) Blue water (%) Blue water footprint Green water footprint Blue plus Green
(L kg− 1) (L kg− 1) (L kg− 1)

1 12.7 87.3 85.8 14.2 773 4686 5459

2 1.9 98.1 87.5 12.5 769 5400 6169
3 4.1 95.9 80.2 19.8 768 3103 3871
4 1.0 99.0 83.4 16.6 769 3859 4628
5 0.3 99.7 89.2 10.8 770 6334 7104
6 0.8 99.2 85.3 14.7 767 4468 5235
7 0.4 99.6 89.5 10.5 774 7378 8151
8 1.0 99.0 92.0 8.0 773 8899 9672
9 12.1 87.9 84.0 16.0 768 4021 4789
10 8.9 91.1 60.2 39.8 769 1165 1934
11 1.3 98.7 87.1 12.9 768 5210 5978
12 1.3 98.7 89.7 10.3 771 6703 7474
13 4.8 95.2 88.3 11.7 767 5818 6585
14 19.1 80.9 76.0 24.0 766 2422 3188
15 2.8 97.2 80.0 20.0 766 3058 3824
16 0.3 99.7 88.5 11.5 769 5916 6685
17 0.01 99.99 90.4 9.6 770 7221 8991

129
J.C.P. Palhares et al.
farm 4 used 80% of concentrate in the diet and farm 5 used 90%. The
water footprint of farm 4 was 4628 m3 kg− 1; farm 5 had a footprint of
7103 m3 kg− 1; a difference of 2475 m3 kg− 1 of meat or 53.5% more
water. The increase in the amount of concentrate in the diet shall result
in higher water footprints, but it should be considered together with the
growth performance of animals and farm managements. A major driver
of water use is the efficiency of feed conversion into product, which is
determined by potential animal productivity as well as feed availability
and quality throughout the year. Herrero et al. (2013) feed quality and
feed efficiency are the key drivers of productivity and water consump-
tion variations between production systems.
Concentrate dry matter intake results in higher water consumption
because water used for concentrates is five times larger than that used
for roughages (Hoekstra, 2012). Concentrate feeds have the highest
water use because they demand higher evapotranspiration, which is
strongly dependent on the geographic position. Disaggregated crop
water use indicates that concentrated water clearly dominates over
roughage water irrespective of the roughage-concentrate ratio. In this
study, concentrated water ranged from 80.8 to 99.9% of the green
water footprint. Values of crop water use indicate that this factor, which
is dependent of regional differences and the evapotranspiration condi-
tion, drive water use in beef production. Millen et al. (2009) argued that
the greater concentration of roughage in finishing diets is likely more
feasible in Brazilian feedlots than in the other countries because feedlot
operations are generally smaller and the availability and decreased cost
of roughage favors greater use. As the capacity of feedlots increases,
especially in areas in which the cost of land and roughage are more
expensive, greater concentrate diets will possibly become a more
common management practice in Brazil.
The differences in feed composition have a significant effect on the
water footprint. Results indicate that the type of roughage influences
the footprint values. Farms that used sugar cane bagasse as roughage
had the highest dietary concentrate percentages; the average inclusion
was 70%. On farms that used sugar cane, this average was 60% and
48% with corn silage. This is an aspect that is related to the nutritional
quality of roughage. While sugar cane has a content of crude protein
and metabolizable energy of 2.76% dry matter and 2.16 Mcal kg− 1,
respectively, its sub-product (bagasse) has 2.03% dry matter and
1.78 Mcal kg− 1. Corn silage has 7.24% of crude protein in the dry
matter and 2.41 Mcal of metabolizable energy kg− 1. Because of the
lower protein value of sugarcane, farmers have to add larger amounts of
concentrate to meet the needs of the animals.
Farms that used bagasse in the ratio of 10% showed high water
footprint values. The uses of by-products in animal nutrition are
understood as a mitigation action that reduces the values of water as
well as ecological or carbon footprints. With the use of a by-product,
only part of the water consumed by the main product is allocated to the
by-product. In this case, bagasse represents 30% of the volume of sugar
cane. Brazil is a major producer of agricultural commodities and
therefore has a high availability of by-products that can be used as
feed in the feedlots. The advantage of using by-products as feed is
economical, and we also have to show that these require less water to
produce one tonne of feed and one kilogram of animal protein.
For the ratio of 10%, the advantage of by-product was not verified.
When the ratio was 20% (farms 4 and 6), footprint values were lower
even when compared with farms with inclusion of 60 to 70% of
concentrate. On farms with a ratio of 10% of bagasse, the confinement
period was 100 days. This period was 85 days for 20%. Farm 8 had the
highest water footprint and used corn silage as roughage and a diet with
90% of concentrate. Farms with sugar cane as roughage and the same
percentage of concentrate presented footprints ranging from 6685 to
7345 m3 L− 1 of meat. On farm 8, animals were confined by 107 days,
while on farms with sugar cane as roughage, this period was on average
95 days. The roughage-concentrate ratio determines the performance of
the animals, which will influence the confinement time and the value of
the footprint.
130
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135
Farms 7 and 16 used the same roughage (sugar cane bagasse),
obtained the same daily weight gain (1.6 kg day− 1), confinement
period (100 days), and percentage of concentrate (90%), but different
initial and final weights of the animals. On farm 7, the initial weight
was 270 kg and the final weight 433 kg. On farm 16, initial weight was
380 kg and the final 540 kg. The water footprint of farm 7 was
7103 m3 L− 1 of meat and of farm 16, it was 6685 m3 L− 1 of meat,
with a difference of 418 m3 kg− 1 of meat. Although the aspects of the
genetic, type of diet, and daily weight gain were the same, the higher
initial weight on farm 16 determined a lower water footprint. Better
herd management prior to the confinement period and hence the
entrance of heavier animals had positive impacts on the value of the
footprint, improving liters of water relative per kilogram of meat. The
ideal initial animal weight to start the confinement was 330 kg.
However, not only herd management prior to confinement, but also
the management during confinement had an impact on the footprint
value. Farms 1 and 9 used corn silage as roughage and a concentrate
inclusion of 30 and 35%, respectively. Despite the lower concentrate
inclusion on farm 1, its footprint was 14% higher. In both farms, the
confinement period was the same (90 days), but they had different daily
weight gains, 1.3 kg day− 1 (farm 1) and 1.5 kg day− 1 (farm 9). This
determined animals with an average final weight of 357 kg on farm 1.
This relationship was also observed between farms 7, 15, and 16, with
concentrate inclusion of 90% and farms 6 and 4 with inclusion of 80%.
The average final weight was different between them. Farm 16 had the
lower footprint and the heaviest animals. In this farm, the animals were
slaughtered with an average weight of 540 kg; up to 480 kg is the
average slaughter weight in Brazil. Farm 4 had ten more days of
confinement that farm 6, but its footprint was lower. In both farms, the
initial weights were the same, but in farm 4, the animals finished
heavier. We know that older animals use nutrients less efficiently and
have higher feed conversion. This fact was not reflected in the footprint
values, but should be studied in depth in future studies. We should
analyze the balance of nutrients and methane emissions together with
water use in order to identify the trade-offs between the nexus water-
nutrient-emission. In addition, studies that integrate the evaluation of
water consumption with the herd and management aspects to identify
and propose mitigation actions should be developed.
The results of green and blue waters will be present and discussed in
a disaggregated way to facilitate our understanding of the impacts of
each water in the footprint. Ridoutt and Pfister (2010) expanded the
discussion about water use by livestock production and stated that it is
important not only to quantify aggregated water use, but also assess
disaggregated water. The aggregated water (i.e. the sum of green and
blue water) in animal products is potentially misleading and confusing
because its use fails to take into consideration disaggregated green and
blue water use.
A growing number of authors highlight the importance of including
green water, as its inclusion demonstrates how rain fed agricultural
systems reduce the demand and impact of blue water consumption. De
Fraiture et al. (2007) the use of green water resources should be seen
from a competition perspective when analyzing the current trend for an
increase in the global demand for animal-source foods. Berger and
Finkbeiner (2010) the consumption of green water can cause water
deprivation for ecosystems and also may reduce the renewability of
ground and surface water, representing a severe shortcoming. De
Fraiture and Wichelns (2010) water consumed by crops fed to cattle
each year was 1312 km3, or about 18% of the total crop water
consumption. An additional 840 km3 (12%) are consumed by grazing
livestock.
Green water footprint on the farms ranged from 1165 to
8899 m3 kg− 1 of meat. The results show that local differences in
evapotranspiration and yields provide insights in why footprints are
small or large in specific regions. Differences in green water use
depended on soil agronomic features (pH, nutrient and mineral soils
content, and texture), protected or unprotected systems, and geogra-
J.C.P. Palhares et al.
phical and/or temporal location, which can deeply affect the yield and
the economic return. Although climatic and soil factors are important in
determining evapotranspiration from crop fields and yields, water
footprint is largely determined by agricultural management rather than
by the environment in which the crop is grown (Rockström et al., 2007;
Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011). Mueller et al. (2012) a large increase
in crop yields, without an increase or even with a decrease in field
evapotranspiration, is achievable for most crops across the different
climate regions of the world through proper nutrient, water, and soil
management.
Water originating from roughage represented on average 4.4% of
green water volume and from concentrate, this value was 95.6%. Farms
with the lowest concentrate inclusion had the lowest percentage of
concentrate feeds in green water volume. On farm 14, this inclusion
was 25% and represented 81% of green water. On farms with inclusion
of 90%, it represented an average of 99.5% of green water volume.
The type of roughage impacts the percentage of it in the green water
footprint and when this is corn silage, representativeness of roughage is
greater in the green water. The water footprint of corn silage varied
from 137 to 166 m3 tonne− 1, that of sugar cane from 137 to
160 m3 tonne− 1, and that of sugarcane bagasse from 38 to
48 m3 tonne− 1. Scarpare et al. (2016) calculated average green water
to sugar cane in the state Sao Paulo to be 145 m3 Mg− 1. Mekonnen and
Hoekstra (2014) calculated the average global green-blue water
footprint for sugarcane of 197 m3 tonne− 1. In a study by Mekonnen
and Hoekstra (2011), the green water footprint in a rain fed system for
sugarcane was 164 m3 tonne− 1. This value is lower than those found by
Scholten (2009), which, on average, quantified above 200 m3 tonne− 1.
Palhares and Pezzopene (2015) stated that to produce 1 tonne of corn
silage in the central region of Sao Paulo, water usage was 131 m3. Feed
ingredients have different water footprints, resulting in differences in
the total green water footprint.
On farms 1 and 3, the inclusion of concentrated feed was 30% and
roughages were corn silage and sugar cane bagasse, respectively; 12.7%
of green water on farm 1 was originating from silage, while this value
was 4.1% for farm 3. When the inclusion was 90% and the roughage
was sugar cane bagasse, it represented 0.3% of green water. On farm 8,
with the inclusion of 90% and corn silage as roughage, this accounted
for 1% of green water. Farms 2, 13, and 17 had 60% of inclusion and
roughages were sugar cane bagasse, corn silage, and sugar cane.
Roughage on farm 2 accounted for 1.9% of the volume of green water,
for 4.8% on farm 13, and for 1.3% on farm 17.
Roughages feeds are different in their water productivity. We
defined water productivity as the crop yield (kg ha− 1) by the crop
evapotranspiration (m3 ha− 1). The averaged water productivity of corn
was 6.5 kg m− 3 and for sugarcane, this value was 6.9 kg m− 3. Dry
matter production per hectare of sugar cane is on average twice as high
as for corn silage. However, if we calculate the protein water efficiency
(m3 tonne− 1 of crude protein), the corn silage average was
5174 m3 tonne− 1 of crude protein and sugar cane average was
5502 m3 tonne−1 of crude protein. Despite the higher water productiv-
ity of sugar cane, the water footprints of the farms that use this
roughage were higher due to the lower nutritional value of this product.
Corn had an average water use of 65.7% of green water from
concentrate and 63.3% of the total green water. Soybean represented
34.3% of green water from concentrate and 32.3% of the total green
water. The use of these grains in feedlots is justified by their high
nutritional values and the positive impact on indicators of animal
performance. Since water scarcity is a major issue of concern and, given
the fact that it is directly associated with production cost, producers
should carefully evaluate the water footprint of the various feed crops
and minimize or substitute the ones with high water footprints with
crops with lower footprints in order to be sustainable in terms of water
use. If feeds are produced in regions or basins with water scarcity
(green and blue), water quality problems from diffuse pollution, and
conflicts over water use; we should promote the replacement by other
131
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135
concentrated feeds or enhance the roughage ratio.
In this study, we considered that both roughages and concentrates
were produced on the farms, but this may not be the reality of other
feedlots. Often, the concentrate is produced in another region. Imports
of grains mean the import water and are water dependent. Considering
the 17 locations of the farms, the water footprint of corn ranged from
1118 to 2326 m3 tonne− 1 and that of soybean from 1534 to
2718 m3 tonne− 1. Higher evapotranspiration resulted in a higher water
use. This shows that, depending on the region, the water footprint can
change significantly. Grain yield also played an important role, i.e., a
larger yield was obtained because greater productivity led to a lower
water footprint. Feed production in areas with poorer natural produc-
tion conditions, less qualified farmers, and low technological develop-
ment will negatively impact water management in livestock chains. São
Paulo is not a state with a considerably high grain productivity. Drastig
et al. (2016) soy produced in the state of Sao Paulo had the lowest crop
water productivity when compared with other Southeast and Center-
West Brazilian States, most likely because soy is not a traditional crop in
Sao Paulo and the production conditions are not ideal. Ercin et al.
(2012), water consumption of soy products is highly influenced by the
location from which production inputs are sourced and the production
conditions. This is most relevant for the agricultural inputs, because
they largely depend on the location and management practices of the
farms producing soy.
If the farm is located in a region of low rainfall, which prevents the
production of grains, importation is a strategy that will enable the
production of beef cattle. The choice of roughage feed can reduce the
concentrate imported and has a positive economic impact because
concentrate has the highest nutritional cost. Another strategy is the use
of by-products, preferably those available in the region. Some examples
of by-products that have been used in feedlots are citrus pulp, cotton-
seed, and peanut hulls. By-products could have lower water footprints
depending on their nutritional content and the performance of the
heads, as demonstrated by the use of sugarcane bagasse, and are also
associated with lower costs. Soybean, at present the most used protein
feed ingredient, and potential alternatives will play an important role
regarding this matter. There is considerable room for expansion and
increased usage of rendered products such as animal by-product meals
(Nates et al., 2009; Tacon et al., 2011). Drastig et al. (2016) soybean
and corn are not the only feedstuffs that can be used to meet the protein
and energy requirements of the animals, although they are the most
traditionally used ones. It is becoming evident that studies on feed
composition should take water consumption by feed ingredients into
consideration in order to formulate water-efficient diets. Choices about
roughage and by-products should also consider the nutritional values.
Currently, the Brazil's Southeast and Central regions are experien-
cing a chronic water shortage due to extremely low rainfall records
when compared to the historical average and water withdrawals
increases (Scarpare et al., 2016). The state of Sao Paulo has a water
scarcity index of 73% (total water use by state water availability) and
has been classified as a state with high water stress (40% < WSI <
100%) (Da Silva et al., 2016). In this high-density region, the available
land for crop expansion is quite expensive, with an average of R$
15,380.00 (Brazilian currency converted at 0.33 USD = 1 BRL, 2015
average value) (AEI, Applied Economics Institute, 2015).
Fig. 1 shows the values of the green water footprint in accordance
with the productivity of crops. The average water footprint of the
current crop yield was 5814 L kg− 1 of meat. With a reduction of 25% in
the current crop yields, it was 7.416 L kg− 1 of meat and with an
increase of 25% in the current crop yields, 4677 L kg− 1 of meat. These
results show that increasing agricultural productivity has positive
impacts on reducing the water footprint. In many cases, techniques
for increasing water productivity, especially when it is low, require
little or no additional water.
The variation of the water productivity between the soil groups has
been caused by the differing yields. Variation between water produc-
J.C.P. Palhares et al.
14000
Actual crop yields
12000
10000
L kg-1 of meat
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 1. Values of green water footprint in accordance with the productivity of crops. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
tivity of the different fields on the commercial farm was as high as the
variation between the soil groups (Krauß et al., 2015a). Water
productivities in crop production will need to be increased by increas-
ing yields and reducing non-productive evaporation (Brauman et al.,
2013; Foley et al., 2011). An important part of a strategy to reduce the
pressure on limited blue water resources will be to raise productivity in
rain-fed agriculture (Rockström et al., 2009).
On average, the productivity increase meant a reduction of 19.4% of
the footprint value with a minimum reduction of 5.1% and a maximum
of 65%. Decreasing or increasing actual yield for grass and maize
production per hectare by 10% decreased or increased consumptive
water use by 52% (De Boer et al., 2013). On the other hand, the lower
amount of tonnes of feed per hectare resulted in an average increase of
26.4% of the footprint value, with a maximum of 30.5%.
If all crops used by the 17 farms had a 25% increase in productivity,
this would result in a reduction of 20% of the agricultural area required
for the production of feeds. On the other hand, a 25% reduction in
productivity would result in 33% more area for feed production. Low
water productivity in precipitation-limited regions was raised to the
20th percentile; the total rain fed food production in Africa could be
increased by > 10% without exploiting additional cropland. Similar
improvements in water productivity in irrigated cropland could reduce
total water consumption by 8–15% in precipitation-limited regions of
Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America (Brauman et al., 2013).
Increases in water efficiency in the production of animal protein will
be only achieved considering agriculture. Therefore, an integrated
approach is essential to improve water performance in livestock, as
well as consideration of green water consumption. If green water is not
calculated, this could mean no interest in the use of agricultural
practices that have positive impacts on improving water efficiency.
These practices also mean other environmental benefits, such as soil
and water quality conservation.
Our results show how diet formulations influence the water
footprint values. They also indicate that improvements in water
efficiency of animal products should consider the nutritional manage-
ment of the farms in order to propose actions and policies that promote
positive impacts. Feed formulations are often termed “standard” in the
literature, but feed for a certain beef type may differ significantly from
country to country or within countries, depending on the producer's
practice, feed ingredient availability, financial means of the farmers,
and the farming system. Precision feeding is formulating the ration to
meet the nutritional requirements of the animals, especially in terms of
protein and phosphorus. It can reduce feed costs and improve feed
efficiency and animal performance. In the plan, whole-farm nutrient
imbalances, nutrient buildup, and feed efficiency can be addressed.
Tacon et al. (2009) in the short term, efforts should focus on further
improvements in feed formulation techniques and on formulating
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135
Reduction of -25% Increase of +25%
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Farms
rations on the basis of individual digestible nutrient levels rather than
on crude gross nutrient levels and at the same time, aim to minimize the
environmental and ecosystem impact of feeds and feeding regimes
(Tacon et al., 2011).
The low feed conversion efficiency may be attributed to errors in
feeding management or genetic factors, such as breed, as well as
climatic factors such as heat stress. Careful nutritional managements to
improve nutrient availability and quality as well as breeding programs
that aim at enhancing growth rates can improve feed conversion
efficiency. Naturally, there will be differences among the terrestrial
plant-based proteins and lipids with respect to their green, blue, and
grey water footprint, which must have implications when different
goals are to be reached, e.g. the reduction of the blue water footprint,
reduction of pollution, or reduction of the overall water footprint. The
choice depends on the goal and therefore, we do not strive to provide
explicit recommendations regarding the choice of feed ingredients
(Pahlow et al., 2015). The climatic condition in a region of production
and the methods for assessing evapotranspiration explain a large part of
the variation between studies, since evapotranspiration can vary hugely
between different areas and climates across the world. The variation in
livestock water productivity for beef can also be explained by differ-
ences in feed quality, digestibility, and feed conversion efficiency
between production systems (Ran et al., 2016). Diet composition and
quality also determine the magnitude of the water footprint of meat and
milk production. Improved diets translate to better feed conversion and,
eventually, to more efficient use of freshwater (Bosire et al., 2015).
If we take a water approach combined with the knowledge that we
have about ruminal physiology and nutritional management, we could
reduce the green, blue, and grey water footprints because the animal
better take advantage of the available nutrients and therefore require
smaller amounts of roughage and concentrates, resulting in lower water
use and agricultural areas.
The blue water footprint ranged from 766 to 774 L kg− 1, the
average value for the 17 farms was 769 L kg− 1 (Table 2). This footprint
represented 15.5% of the footprints on average, with variations from
8.0 to 39.8%. Detected differences in farm size are important because
they influence the water footprint use from a single farm and determine
the presence of scale economies for abatement of water cost and
production.
Among the uses considered in the calculation, water in the meat was
the biggest, followed by drinking water. Meat water had a mean value
of 97% of the blue footprint and drinking water a value of 2.3%. Water
to feed mixing was lowest. Despite the large percentage of blue water in
the form of meat, the consumption of drinking water should be
considered and related to the water availability in the basin. For
example, farm 5 confined 50,000 animals per cycle, which means a
drinking water consumption of 178,066 m3. The sustainability analysis
132
J.C.P. Palhares et al.
of this value is fundamental to propose measures that have a positive
impact on water efficiency. The direct effect of changing beef water
consumption in one region will impact the water availability in that
region and its watersheds, reducing the conflict between water users. It
may have little or no effect on water use for beef meat in other places,
because much of the beef produced in these regions is being sold to
other parts of the country and to other countries in the form of virtual
water. Pfister et al. (2009) blue water use can have an impact on human
health and ecosystem quality or can result in the depletion of water
resources. The impact of freshwater use on human health, ecosystem
quality, or resource depletion, however, is site-specific. Oki and Kanae
(2006) withdrawing > 50–80% of the annual water flow (the exact
figure depends on local conditions) leads to water stress, as water is also
required for environmental use and ecosystem services.
Unlike green water, consumption of blue water is more perceived by
the farmer, so the proposition of actions that contribute to its more
efficient use will have a greater chance of being internalized by farmers.
Kessler et al. (2016) an environmental impact occurring elsewhere is
not tangibly experienced by producers, not measured by producers, and
not understood through local, embodied knowledge. The authors
conclude that abstract and cumulative impacts from beef production
were not easily observed by producers and were therefore not the focus
of producers' environmental efforts.
Water content in the meat is a type of water for which we have little
capacity for intervention. This content is related to the physiology of
animals. It is possible that genetic factors influence its content, but to
date, there is no data in the scientific literature that proves this
hypothesis. Researches evaluating how genetic factors influence the
meat water content should be encouraged in order to generate knowl-
edge that enable the proposition of actions to improve water efficiency.
Such information will also be interesting for agribusinesses and
consumers as it will provide them with choices that improve the
environmental condition. Beede (2012) additional research could prove
useful to better understand the relative quantitative importance of
other factors, such as genetic factors or accelerated growth rates of
modern genetics that may influence cattle water needs at different
stages of the life cycle in different environments. Brew et al. (2011)
reported that cattle from tropically adapted cattle breed types con-
sumed less water than British or continentally influenced cattle.
For the drinking water calculation, we considered zootechnical and
environmental aspects of each farm. It has been known for a long time
that body weight is an important consideration regarding the water
intake (Winchester and Morris, 1956). In the present farms, the average
final body weight was 480 kg and ranged from 357 to 540 kg. The
average consumption of water per animal per day was 37.8 L, repre-
senting an average of 3.78 L kg− 1, with variations from 3.5 to
3.9 L kg− 1 of dry matter intake. Water intake related to dry matter
intake was reported to be about 4 L kg− 1 of dry matter intake in cattle
(Kamphues, 2000). Feedlots presented an average of 18 L kg− 1 of meat,
with variations from 15 to 22 L kg− 1 of meat.
The maximum temperature in the farms ranged from 25 to 31.3 °C
and precipitation from 2.7 to 4.8 mm day− 1. The farms with the
highest maximum temperatures showed the highest drinking water
consumption per animal per day (39.6 L). On farms with the lowest
temperatures, the consumption per animal per day was 34.9 L. Brugger
(2007), in a study on dairy farms, observed a direct correlation between
drinking water consumed and ambient air temperature. During hotter
months, the drinking water use was higher.
It supports that bioclimatic needs of animals is a mitigation
management to reduce blue water demand from feedlots. In this way,
the outcome will be a more sustainable blue footprint. It also subsidizes
managements that provide greater thermal comfort to the animals,
showing the impact that these will have on water demand. These
managements will also reduce the cost of water and enhance animal
performance. Farm 5, which showed the highest maximum tempera-
ture, could implement practices and technologies to give more thermal
133
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135
comfort to the animals. If temperature is reduced by 2 °C, water
consumption per animal per day would be 38.2, a difference of
1.4 L day− 1. Considering the production cycle, this would mean a
water saving of 6378 m3 cycle− 1 or 3.6%.
Nutritional aspects had their values set for all farms according to the
scientific literature, because these kinds of data were not measured by
each feedlot. We know that the dry matter intake and diet quality are
determining factors in the quantity of water consumed by animals. We
should encourage farmers to monitor this information to obtain more
accurate calculations of water use. It will also show the relations
between nutritional management and water efficiency. > 50% of the
clients serviced by the 31 cattle feedlot nutritionists did not manage
feed bunks to control the quantity of feed offered per pen (Millen et al.,
2009). Hansen et al. (2007) noted that more feed efficient bulls drank
less water per unit of body weight gain than less feed efficient bulls.
Meyer et al. (2006) found an average voluntary daily water intake of
17.8 kg bull− 1, varying from 0 to 78.7 kg bull− 1 for fattening bulls of
the German Holstein breed. A positive relation was found between
water intake and dry matter content of roughage, dry matter intake,
roughage part of the diet, maximum ambient temperature, as well as
sodium intake. Hatendi et al. (1996) observed a higher water con-
sumption as a result of an increased roughage content of the diet.
Dry matter intake measurements also have economic significance
since nutrition represents the largest cost in the production cost of an
animal. Thus, the calculation of water consumption with more accurate
intake information will provide the proposition of water friendlier
nutritional managements and the evaluation of the economic viability
of these managements. It is important to show to farmers the relation
between production aspects and water resources. This approach will
facilitate implement conservative water practices because the costs
could be shared throughout the production system. Robinson et al.
(2016) the main relationship between water taxes and future was that
farmers who believed that water should not be taxed were also
concerned about possible future water restrictions. Therefore, dairy
farmers are concerned about future water access, but do not want to be
taxed as an inducement to use less water.
Blue water footprint calculations for animal products are essential
to better understand the water and animal protein relations, facilitate
compliance with environmental legislation by farmers, such as obtain-
ing water use permits, help in integrated river basin policies, and
reduce the cost of water for farmers and the society. Lovarelli et al.
(2016) state that blue water is expensive to use, since it has a high
opportunity cost with which, reducing its use, both production costs
(e.g., energy for pumping, machines, and plants to buy and manage)
and environmental impacts (due to energy, materials, plants, etc.) are
reduced as well. According to Girard (2012), there is a lack of
knowledge of the water requirements of animals. Obviously, being
aware of this situation is the first step towards improving the efficiency
of water use in the production of animal products.
Calculations of blue water use could also assist to reach the
fulfillment of sustainable development goals proposed by the United
Nations. We highlight two goals: ending hunger by achieving food
security and improved nutrition as well as sustainable agriculture
(ensuring sustainable food production systems and the implementation
of resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and produc-
tion by 2030) and ensuring the availability and sustainable manage-
ment of water and sanitation for all (substantially increase water-use
efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and
supply of freshwater by 2030) (United Nations, 2015).
Producing sufficient food to meet future needs will require water
development and management strategies that promote improvements
in food security while maintaining the productivity of our land and
water resources and enhancing environmental amenities (Molden et al.,
2009). The aim for improved natural resource use efficiency, defined as
the amount of natural resources engaged per unit of product, is an
objective of global relevance which applies to the most affluent areas of
J.C.P. Palhares et al.
the globe, where the sector is requested to minimize its environmental
impact, and to emerging economies, where livestock production
expands rapidly in a context of relatively weak environmental policies
and often wastes natural resources (Gerber et al., 2014). High-income
countries have a greater capacity to implement best available technol-
ogy and best practices than less developed countries, but our results
indicate that less developed and tropical countries can reduce water
footprints of crops (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2014). It would be useful
to make footprint evaluations considering the best available technology
and practice (e.g., optimized nutrient management, crop rotation, crop
residue management, reduction of non-beneficial evapotranspiration,
and effective rainfall enhancement) (Lovarelli et al., 2016). Despite the
extensive concerted effort by governments and researchers over many
years, success in protecting the environment is still questioned on the
basis of (a) the efficacy of the individual measures proposed, (b) the
suitability of some methods for certain farm types, (c) the actual level of
uptake of the related technology, and (d) the conflict and incompat-
ibility of methods for differing objectives (Loyon et al., 2016).
Animal production is inevitably associated with water consumption
and therefore, some degree of water depletion seems unavoidable.
Various strategies are available or can be developed to minimize
depletion and achieve water efficiency. For this, animal scientists
should understand the relation between livestock and water and
consider water management in their works. Experience indicates that
the required water efficiency in livestock will not occur without
substantial financial and social investments in water management,
agricultural research, supporting extension services, and rural infra-
structure. Technical assistance, capacity building, and the right incen-
tives and policies are required to motivate farmers to increase water
efficiency.
4. Conclusions
The results show that the water footprint values of feedlots are
determined largely by the type of animal diet and by performance
indicators of the animals. The roughage-concentrate ratio and type of
roughage are the nutritional aspects that most significantly influence
the footprint values. Roughages with less nutritional value demanded
higher inclusion of concentrate in the feed. On the other hand, if the
roughage is a by-product, it will have a lower green water footprint,
which can be an advantage if the feed is produced in an area with water
scarcity, as well as an economic advantage, because by-products have a
lower cost than the raw material.
If the greater use of concentrate means higher daily weight gain and
meat productivity, as well as a shorter confinement cycle, it has a
positive impact on the reduction of the footprint value, but for this to be
achieved, not only the nutritional management is important. The other
production system management techniques also have to be appropriate,
including the phase prior to confinement. The use of best management
practices in the production system could contribute to high perfor-
mance indicators of animals and, consequently, they can reduce the
percentage of concentrate in the diet and confinement cycle. Animal
nutrition is an important factor in determining the water efficiency of
beef products, but if the other aspects of the production system are not
handled in the best way, they will negatively impact nutritional
performance. It is noteworthy that concentrate feeds are commodities
and even in countries that produce them in large quantities and with
high yields, their prices are determined by international markets, so the
use of these feeds in large quantities can also mean an economic threat
to the production system.
The results of this study support the recommendation that beef
feedlots should place more emphasis on maximizing the use of rough-
age feeds, because this could decrease the pressure on fresh water
resources. Tropical countries have higher roughage production capa-
cities, and this advantage should be considered in improving the water
efficiency of animal proteins.
134
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135
The green and blue water consumed is a result of either feeding
strategies or performance indicators. Currently, decision-making under
these two factors is determined by economic aspects, but this reduc-
tionism in decision-making will not be accepted, depending on the
water scarcity and the global demand for environmentally better
production systems. Therefore, the water consumed by livestock
production systems should be quantified and evaluated in a systemic
way. We also need to put a greater focus on water management data
collection at the farm level and on how to benchmark and deliver useful
information back to farmers. Strategies need to be tailored to local
conditions and the combination of managements and technologies will
be required to achieve significant improvements.
Factors of supply chains have to be disposable robust tools for water
decision-making. The results of the studies can subsidize relevant meat
supply chain stakeholders (retails, farm and trade associations, com-
pound feed producers, consumers, government representatives, non-
governmental organizations, public agencies, and independent parties)
to analyze and make decisions regarding water consumption and
efficiency in beef feedlots, ensuring water security to this production
system and animal protein. This study evaluated one of the environ-
mental aspect of beef produced in feedlots. Future studies should
consider all relevant environmental aspects. In this way, we could
identify the trade-offs of meat production and support the best decision
by stakeholders.
Water use by Brazilian livestock has increased in recent decades
because of an unprecedented expansion. This means that the water
consumed by this industry needs to decrease even further to alleviate
local and regional stress on catchments and water resources.
Acknowledgements
This study was developed in the context of the “Water footprint of
beef and dairy products” project (number, 404243/2013-4), founded by
The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
(CNPq).
References
AEI (Applied Economics Institute), 2015. The Bare Land Value. Available from: http://
ciagri.iea.sp.gov.br/nia1/precor.aspx?cod_tipo=1&cod_sis=8.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines
for computing crop water requirements. In: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56.
FAO, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/X0490E00.htm.
Beckett, J.L., Oltjen, J.W., 1993. Estimation of the water requirement for beef production
in the United States. J. Anim. Sci. 71, 818–826.
Beede, D.K., 2012. What will our ruminants drink? Anim. Front. 2, 2. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2527/af.2012-0040.
Berger, M., Finkbeiner, M., 2010. Water footprinting: how to address water use in life
cycle assessment? Sustain. For. 2, 919–944. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su2040919.
Boer, De, et al., 2013. Assessing environmental impacts associated with freshwater
consumption along the life cycle of animal products: the case of Dutch milk
production in Noord-Brabant. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 193–203. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-012-0446-3.
Bosire, C.K., Ogutu, J.O., Said, M.Y., et al., 2015. Trends and spatial variation in water
and land footprints of meat and milk production systems in Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 205, 36–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.02.015.
Brauman, K.A., Siebert, S., Foley, J.A., 2013. Improvements in crop water productivity
increase water sustainability and food security—a global analysis. Environ. Res. Lett.
8, 2–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024030.
Brew, M.N., et al., 2011. Water intake and factors affecting water intake of growing beef
cattle. Livest. Sci. 140, 297–300.
Brugger, M., 2007. Water Use on Ohio Dairy Farms. http://ohioline.osu.edu.
Busscher, W., 2012. Spending our water and soils for food security. J. Soil Water Conserv.
67, 228–234.
Cederberg, C. Meyer, D. Flysjö, A. 2009. Life cycle inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
and use of land and energy in Brazilian beef production. http://www.sik.se/archive/
pdf-filer-katalog/SR792.pdf Accessed (Dec. 15 2014).
CIIAGRO, 2017. Centro Integrado de Informações Agrometeorológicas. http://www.
ciiagro.sp.gov.br/.
Costa Junior, C., Goulart, T.Z., Albertini, B.J., et al., 2013. Brazilian beef cattle feedlot
manure management: a country survey. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 1811–1818.
Da Silva, V.D.P.R., et al., 15 December 2016. Virtual water and water self-sufficiency in
agricultural and livestock products in Brazil. J. Environ. Manag. 184 Part 2, 465–472.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.015.
J.C.P. Palhares et al.
De Fraiture, C., Wichelns, D., 2010. Satisfying future water demands for agriculture.
Agric. Water Manag. 97 (4), 502–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.08.
008.
De Fraiture, C., Wichelns, D., Rockström, J., et al., 2007. Looking ahead to 2050:
scenarious of alternative investment approaches. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Water for
Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture. Earthscan, London, pp. 91–148.
Drastig, K., et al., 2016. Farm water productivity in broiler production: case studies in
Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 9–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.052.
Ercin, A.E., Aldaya, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. The water footprint of soy milk and soy
burger and equivalent animal products. Ecol. Indic. 18, 392–402. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.009.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2013. Technical
Conversion Factor for Agriculture Commodities. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/
templates/ess/documents/methodology/tcf.pdf.
FAOSTAT, 2015. FAO Statistical Database. (access in December 2015).
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., et al., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet.
Nature 478, 337–342.
Gerber, P.J., Uwizeye, A., Schulte, R.P.O., Opio, C.I., de Boer, I.J.M., 2014. Nutrient use
efficiency: a valuable approach to benchmark the sustainability of nutrient use in
global livestock production? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 9–10, 1–140.
Gerber, P.J., Mottet, A., Opio, C.I., et al., 2015. Environmental impacts of beef
production: review of challenges and perspectives for durability. Meat Sci. 109, 2–12.
Girard, C., 2012. Reducing the impact of animal production on the water supply:
increasing knowledge is the only solution. Anim. Front. 2, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2527/af.2012-0042.
Hansen, G.R., Carstens, G.E., Riley, D.G., 2007. Relationship between residual feed
intake, water intake and ultrasound body composition traits in Angus bulls. J. Anim.
Sci. 85, 551.
Hatendi, P.R., Mulenga, F.M., Sibanda, S., Ndlovu, P., 1996. The effect of diet and
frequency of watering on the performance of growing cattle given food at
maintenance. Anim. Sci. 63, 33–38.
Herrero, M., et al., 2013. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas
emissions from global livestock systems. PNAS 110, 20888–20893. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1308149110.
Hicks, R.B., Owens, F.N., Gill, D.R., Martin, J.J., Strasia, C.A., 1988. Water intake by
feedlot steers. Okla. Anim. Sci. Rpt. Mp-125 (208).
Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. The Hidden Water Resource Use Behind Meat and Dairy. http://dx.
doi.org/10.2527/af.2012-0038.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2011. The Water
Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London, UK
(http://doi.org/978-1-84971-279-8).
IBGE. 2014. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/
tabela/protabl.asp?c=1092&z=t&o=24&i=P Accessed (Jan. 30, 2015).
Jeswani, H.K., Azapagic, A., 2011. Water footprint: methodologies and a case study for
assessing the impacts of water use. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1288–1299.
Kamphues, J., 2000. Water requirement of food producing and companion animals.
Dtsch. tiera¨rztl. Wschr 107 (8), 297–302.
Kessler, A., Parkins, J.R., Kennedy, E.H., 2016. Environmental harm and “the good
farmer”: conceptualizing discourses of environmental sustainability in the beef
industry. Rural. Sociol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12091.
Kounina, A., et al., 2013. Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle
inventory and impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 707–721.
Krauß, M., Kebler, J., Prochnow, A., Kraatz, S., Dratig, K., 2015a. Water productivity of
poultry production: the influence of different broiler fattening systems. Food and
Energy Secur. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fes3.51.
Krauß, M., Kraatz, S., Drastig, K., Prochnow, A., 2015b. The influence of dairy
management strategies on water productivity of milk production. Agric. Water
Manage 147, 175–186.
Lovarelli, D., Bacenetti, J., Fiala, M., 2016. Water footprint of crop productions: a review.
Sci. Total Environ. 548–549, 236–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.
01.022.
Loyon, L., et al., 2016. Best available technology for European livestock farms:
availability, effectiveness and uptake. J. Environ. Manage., vol. 166, 1–11. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.046.
Manzardo, A., Ren, J., Piantella, A., et al., 2014. Integration of water footprint accounting
and costs for optimal chemical pulp supply mix in paper industry. J. Clean. Prod. 7,
167–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.014.
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops
and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1577–1600.
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm
animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415.
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2014. Water footprint benchmarks for crop production:
a first global assessment. Ecol. Indic. 46, 214–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2014.06.013.
Meyer, U., Stahl, W., Flachowsky, G., 2006. Investigations on the water intake of growing
bulls. Livest. Sci. 103, 186–191.
Millen, D.D., et al., 2009. A snapshot of management practices and nutritional
recommendations used by feedlot nutritionists in Brazil. J. Anim. Sci. 87, 3427–3439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-1880.
Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P., et al., 2009. Improving agricultural water productivity:
between optimism and caution. Agric. Water Manag. 97 (4), 528–535. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.023.
Mueller, N.D., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Ray, D.K., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 2012.
135
Agricultural Systems 155 (2017) 126–135
Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257.
Murphy, E., Boer, I.J.M., Van Middelaar, C.E., et al., 2016. Water footprinting of dairy
farming in Ireland. J. Clean. Prod. 1–9.
Nates, S.F., Bureau, D.P., Lemos, D., Swisher, K., 2009. Rendered ingredients and their use
in shrimp diets: status and prospects. In: Browdy, C.L., Jory, D.E. (Eds.), The Rising
Tide, Proceedings of the Special Session on Sustainable Shrimp FarmingWorld
Aquaculture 2009. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, USA, pp. 137–146.
Oki, T., Kanae, S., 2006. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science
313, 1068–1072.
Owusu-Sekyere, E., Scheepers, M.E., Jordaan, H., 2016. Water footprint of milk produced
and processed in South Africa: implications for policy-makers and stakeholders along
the dairy value chain. Water 8, 322. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w8080322.
Pahlow, M., Van Oel, P.R., Mekonnena, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. Increasing pressure
on freshwater resources due to terrestrial feed ingredients for aquaculture
production. Sci. Total Environ. 536, 847–857.
Palhares, J.C.P., Pezzopene, J.R.M., 15 April 2015. Water footprint accounting and
scarcity indicators of conventional and organic dairy production systems. J. Clean.
Prod. 93, 299–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.035.
Pfister, S., Koehler, A., Hellweg, S., 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts of
freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 4098–4104.
Pimentel, D., Berger, B., Filiberto, D., Newton, M., Wolfe, B., Karabinakis, E., Clark, S.,
Poon, E., Abbett, E., Nandagopal, S., 2004. Water Resources: Agricultural And
Environmental Issues Bioscience. 54. pp. 909–918.
Rabobank, 2014. Feedlots to Drive Industry Grow. (www.beefcentral.comwp-
contentuploads201410Rabobank_IN459_Beefing_up_in_Brazil.pdf Accessed Jan. 28,
2015).
Rabobank, 2016. Agricultural water. In: Rabobank Industry Note. 534(http://www.
agriworldsa.com/article-archive/natural-resources/718344_Rabobank_IN534_
Agricultural-Water_Crowder_Feb2016.pdf).
Ran, Y., Lannerstad, M., Herrero, M., Van Middelaar, C.E., De Boer, I.J.M., 2016.
Assessing water resource use in livestock production: a review of methods. Livest. Sci.
187, 68–79.
Ridout, B.G., Sanguansri, P., Harper, G., 2011. Comparing carbon and water footprints for
beef cattle production in Southern Australia. Sustain. For. 3, 2443–2455. http://dx.
doi.org/10.3390/su3122443.
Ridoutt, B.G., Huang, J., 2012. Environmental relevance the key to understanding water
footprints. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 1424.
Ridoutt, B., Pfister, S., 2010. A revised approach to water footprinting to make
transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 20, 113–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.08.
003.
Ridoutt, B.G., Page, G., Opie, K., Huang, J., Bellotti, W., 2014. Carbon, water and land use
footprints of beef cattle production systems in Southern Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 73,
24–30.
Robinson, A.D., et al., 2016. Usage and attitudes of water conservation on Ontario dairy
farms. Prof. Anim. Sci. 32, 236–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.15232/pas.2015-01468.
Rockström, J., Lannerstad, M., Falkenmark, M., 2007. Assessing the water challenge of a
new green revolution in developing countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 6253.
Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., et al., 2009. Future water availability for
global food production: the potential of green water for increasing resilience to global
change. Water Resour. Res. 45, W00A12.
Scarpare, F.V., et al., 2016. Sugarcane water footprint under different management
practices in Brazil: Tiete/Jacare watershed assessment. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.107.
Scholten, W., 2009. The water footprint of sugar and sugar-based ethanol. In: Essay
(Master). University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands 148p.
Strzepek, K., Boehlert, B., 2010. Competition for water for the food system. Philos.
Trans.R.Soc. 365, 2927–2940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010. 0152.
Sultana, M.N., 2013. Life Cycle Assessment-Based Water Footprint in Dairy Farming
Systems of Different Production Intensity (A PhD Dissertation). Department of
Agricultural Economics, Humboldt University of Berlin, Veralag Dr. Köster, Germany,
Berlin978-3-89574 838-7.
Sultana, M.N., Uddin, M.M., Ridout, B., et al., 2015. Benchmarking consumptive water
use of bovine milk production systems for 60 geographical regions: an implication for
global food security. Global Food Security 4, 56–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.
2014.08.006i.
Tacon, A.G.J., Metian, M., Hasan, M.R., 2009. Feed ingredients and fertilizers for farmed
aquatic animals: sources and composition. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No. 540. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R., Metian, M., 2011. Demand and supply of feed ingredients for
farmed fish and crustaceans: trends and prospects. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No. 564. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural
sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677.
United Nations, 2015. Welcome to the Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. http://
unstats.un.org/sdgs/.
Vasconcelos, J.T., Tedeschi, L.O., Fox, D.G., Galyean, M.L., Greene, L.W., 2007. Feeding
nitrogen and phosphorus in beef cattle feedlot production to mitigate environmental
impacts. Prof. Anim. Sci. 23, 8–17.
Winchester, C.F., Morris, M.J., 1956. Water intake rates of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 15,
722–740.
Zonderland-Thomassen, M.A., Lieffering, M., Ledgar, S.F., 2014. Water footprint of beef
cattle and sheep produced in New Zealand: water scarcity and eutrophication
impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 253–262.