Virtual Water

(Final Paper in lieu of Oral Exam)

Choo Li-Shan Samantha (samanthachoo@zedat.fu-berlin.de)
Exchange Student at Freie Universitt Berlin
Module 20151: Ecosystems of Agricultural Landscapes and Sustainable Landuse
Humboldt-Universitt Berlin
Professors Dr. Horst Juergen Schwartz and Dr. Ulrich Stachow
Winter Semester 2013


What is meant by the term virtual water? How is it applied to livestock
production?

It may shock people to know that it takes 140 litres of water to make a single cup of
coffee. Indeed, this is the true amount of water used in growing, producing and
shipping the beans that are used to make coffee, not merely the water that we pour
from the kettle. In fact, everything we buy, from food to clothing to gadgets, have a
water cost in the form of virtual water, a new concept by world water expert Professor
Tony Allen that reveals the hidden facts of our real global water consumption.

In essence, virtual water is the water needed to produce agricultural commodities and
encapsulates the sum of water use in the various steps of the production chain. To
illustrate, 1,000 cubic metres of water is needed to produce a ton of grain. If this ton
of grain is transported to an economy short of freshwater or soil water, that economy
can then be said to have been spared the economic and political stress of finding and
mobilizing the 1,000 cubic metres of water. These 1,000 cubic metres of water are
referred to as virtual water. Accordingly, virtual water trade refers to the water
embedded in traded products that is exchanged among different trade partners. This
includes production as well. In this paper, I will focus on the impact of virtual water
on livestock production.

It is important for us to understand the virtual water concept in the context of
livestock production for two main reasons. Firstly, a significant proportion of grain
cultivated in the world is for animal consumption. From 2001 to 2007, on average,
37% of the cereals produced in the world were used for animal feed
1
. Secondly,
global meat production doubled from 1980 to 2004
2
and is projected to double from
2000 to 2050
3
. The sheer immensity of livestock production to satisfy human meat-
eating habits will be explained below.

The overall demand for water in livestock production is influenced by many factors,
such as type of animal, its activity, feed intake and diet, quality of available water,

1
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2011. Food bal- ance sheets. FAOSTAT, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Accessed Jan. 9, 2012. http://faostat. fao.org.
2
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2005. Livestock policy brief 02. FAO, Rome, Italy.
3
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. de Haan. 2006. Livestocks long shadow: Environmental
issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy.
temperature of water and the environment
4
. Naturally, different products require
different amounts of water in their production. Livestock production requires high
amounts of water. One can use the case of beef to obtain a better idea of invisible
water in livestock production. In an industrial beef production system, it takes an
average of three years before the cow is slaughtered to produce about 200 kilos of
boneless beef. The virtual water content of an animal is defined as the total volume of
water that was used to grow and process its feed, to provide its drinking water, and to
clean its housing and the like. During these three years, the animal consumes nearly
1,300kg of grains (such as wheat, oats, barley, corn and dry peas) and 7,200kg of
roughages (such as pasture, dry hay and silage). A whopping 3,060,000 litres of water
is used in the production of all these grains and roughages. We must also take into
account the 24,000 litres of water that the cow drinks during the three years and the
7,000 litres of water used to service the farmhouse and slaughtering processes.
Therefore in total, one needs 3,091,000 litres of water to produce 200 kg of beef
5
.

We can see from the above example that the supply chain of a livestock product starts
with feed crop cultivation and ends with the consumer. The largest contribution to the
total water footprint of all final animal products comes from the first step: water use
for production of feed, fodder and grazing
6
. Water to grow feed crops contributes
about 98% to the total water footprint of animal products
7
. In order to better
understand the impact of virtual water on livestock production, we need to examine
the water footprint of feed crops.

Production region, feed composition and origin of feed ingredients also impact the
virtual water concept in livestock production. A study by Gerbens-Leenes et al
(2001)
8
showed that there are two major determining factors in the water footprint of
animal products. The first is feed conversion efficiency. Since animals move more
and take a longer time to reach slaughter weight in grazing systems, they consume a
greater proportion of feed to convert to meat; thus, it is clear that the water footprint

4
Lardy, G. Stoltenhow, C. Johnson, R. (2008) Livestock and Water.
5
http://www.angelamorelli.com/water/
6
Hoekstra, Arjen Y. 2012. The hidden water resource use behind meat and diary. The Netherlands.
7
Mekonnen, M. M., and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2010. The green, blue and grey water foot- print of farm animals and animal products.
Value of Water Res. Rep. Ser. No. 48. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
8
Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., M. M. Mekonnen, and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2011. A compara- tive study on the water footprint of poultry,
pork and beef in different countries and production systems. Value of Water Res. Rep. Ser. No. 55. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the
Netherlands.
in industrial systems in smaller. The second factor is the composition of the feed eaten
by the animals in each system. When amounts of feed concentrate increase, water
footprints increase accordingly because feed concentrates have a larger water
footprint compared to roughages. This results in a smaller water footprint in grazing
and mixed systems compared to industrial systems because of the increasing
proportion of animal feed concentrates and decreasing proportions of roughages in the
first two
9
. Therefore, once again using the beef example, the water footprint of beef
from an industrial system may partly refer to irrigation water (blue water; liquid water
resrouces in aquifers, rivers and lakes) to grow feed in an area remote from where the
cow is raised. This may be an area where water is abundantly available or scarce. On
the other hand, in a grazing system, the water footprint of beef would mostly refer to
green water (rainfall as soil moisture and the flows of such in form of
evapotranspiration) used in nearby pastures.

The other type of water use in livestock, drinking and process water, is equally
important. Approximately 60-70% of an animals body is water and water is
obviously needed by the animals for services that maintain basic physiological
functions. The water intake of livestock is from drinking and eating, while water
leaves the body through respiration, evaporation, defecation and urination. If the
animal suffers from water deficit, this would impact their production negatively.

For process water, water use per animal differs with different production systems. In
extensive systems, the water requirement will be greater than in intensive ones.
However, the intensive system will have a larger service water demand for cooling
and cleaning of facilities.

This essay has examined the virtual water concept and its impact on livestock
production. By considering and revealing the virtual water hidden in meat, the
concept highlights the reality that meat in our daily consumption has a large effect on
resource use. Meat is not only resource-intensive, but its system of production also
carries substantial environmental and human health problems that are rarely

9
Hendy, C. R. C., U. Kleih, R. Crawshaw, and M. Phillips. 1995. Livestock and the environment finding a balance. Interactions
between livestock production systems and the environment. Impact domain: Concentrate feed demand. FAO, Rome, Italy.
acknowledged in the race to meet meat demand. It should be clear by now that water
footprints of livestock products is larger than that of a crop product with equivalent
nutritional value. In a 2010 study by Mekonnen and Hoekstra, it was calculated that a
150 gram soy burger had a water footprint of 160 litres, but that of a 150 gram beef
burger was 15 times larger
10
. By acknowledging the potential problems of meat, one
can hope that people can search for sensible and sustainable ways forward. There are
three ways for consumers to shrink their water footprint: by reducing their meat
consumption, being more selective about the meat they purchase and stopping food
wastage.

The average daily water consumption of a meat-eater is 5,000 litres per day.
Vegetarians on the other hand, only consume 2,500 litres. Therefore, in cultures
where there is high meat consumption, like the US, consumers can start by partaking
in the practice of having one meatless day a week. Consumers can also choose meat
raised on grass as the land often cannot be used for highly productive crop production.
Lastly, consumers should stop wasting food, particularly in advanced nations where a
third of food purchased is thrown away. By making space for these little practices in
our lives, as a collective, we can make great impacts on saving water.



10
Mekonnen, M. M., and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2010. The green, blue and grey water foot- print of farm animals and animal products.
Value of Water Res. Rep. Ser. No. 48. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.