The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model

Abstract

The high water intake and wastewater discharge of slaughterhouses have been a concern for many years. One neglected factor in previous research is allocating the water footprint (WF) to beef production’s different products and by-products. The objective of this article was to estimate the WF of different cattle breeds at a slaughterhouse and cutting plant and allocate it according to the different cuts (products) and by-products of beef based on the value fraction of each. The results indicated a negative relationship between the carcass weight and the processing WF when the different breeds were compared. Regarding a specific cut of beef, a kilogram of rib eye from the heaviest breed had a processing WF of 614.57 L/kg, compared to the 919.91 L/kg for the rib eye of the lightest breed. A comparison of the different cuts indicated that high-value cuts had higher WFs than low-value cuts. The difference between a kilogram of rib eye and flank was 426.26 L/kg for the heaviest breed and 637.86 L/kg for the lightest breed. An option to reduce the processing WF of beef is to lessen the WF by slaughtering heavier animals. This will require no extra investment from the slaughterhouse. At the same time, the returns should increase as the average production inputs per kilogram of output (carcass) should reduce, as the slaughterhouse will process more kilograms.

The Water–Economy Nexus of Beef Produced from Different Cattle Breeds

“…Two distinct data sets for each of the three value chain links are thus needed: The WF and the VA. The WF results from Maré et al [20], Maré and Jordaan [18], and Maré and Jordaan [19] will be used as the WF for cow-calf production, feedlot finishing, and processing, respectively, and are summarised in Table 1. [20], and Maré and Jordaan [19].…”

“…Maré and Jordaan [19] calculated the WF for processing beef at the slaughterhouse and cutting plant and proposed a value fraction allocation model where the WF can be allocated according to individual cuts according to their value fraction. Both the processing WF calculated by the authors and the value fraction allocation model are utilised in this study.…”

“…The total WF of a slaughtered cattle unit (SCU) for a certain breed (WFB SCU) consists of the sum of the WFs of the weaned calf from the cow-calf production system (WFB WCalf) [20], the feedlot finished calf from the feedlot (WFB FFCalf) [18], and the processing at the slaughterhouse and cutting plant (WFB Processing) [19], and can be expressed as:…”

“…The WF of different beef value chain links (cow-calf production, feedlot, and slaughterhouse) for different breeds of cattle was calculated by Maré and Jordaan [18,19] and Maré, Jordaan, and Mekonnen [20]. The authors of the three mentioned studies based the research on the fact that the WF should differ between breeds as the reproduction rate, feed conversion rate, carcass size, and muscle to bone ratio differ.…”

“…The authors did valuable work to calculate the WF through a bottom-up approach. They refined the WF calculation of cow-calf production [20], tested the influence of different feedlot feeding periods on the WF [18], and calculated the WF of processing beef and proposed a value fraction allocation model to allocate the WF to different cuts of beef [19]. However, the mentioned research failed to report the total WF of beef for the whole value chain and did not consider the economic VA with the WF results.…”