Research funded by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) suggests that the water and emissions footprints of red meat production may be a fraction of earlier assumptions.

For instance, the water footprint of beef has been widely quoted as ranging from 15,000 to 105,000 litres per kilogram of beef produced.

But a life cycle analysis by the University of NSW (UNSW) undertaken for MLA, found that under revised assumptions, the water footprint of beef production systems in southern Australia ranges from 27 to 540 l/kg, and 18 to 214 l/kg for lamb.

The higher water-use figures are for grain-finished meat, reflecting the water costs of using feedstuff grown with irrigation.

The UNSW researchers conducted a life-cycle analysis of three production systems:

• Organic beef.

• Lamb production in WA.

• Premium feedlot-finished beef.

Dr Beverley Henry, MLA’s manager Environment, Sustainability & Climate Change, said the gulf between water footprint estimates as high as 200,000 l/kg for beef and the UNSW findings (peer-reviewed, soon to be published), reflects different methodologies.

Some of the most-quoted water footprint data comes from the United States, which is heavily dependent on grain finishing and so entails more “embodied” water than Australia’s largely pasture-based beef production systems.

The UNSW study also accounted for “diverted water”, rather than the “virtual water” counted in other studies.

“If you have cattle grazing a paddock and count all the rainfall that falls on the paddock toward beef production, it actually becomes a nonsense in terms of environmental impacts,” Dr Henry said.

“The more heavily you stock, the less the water use per kilogram of product, which doesn’t make sense.”

“The UNSW study looks at diverted water—the water taken back from a river or pumped from a reservoir that would otherwise be available for another water use. It is a more logical attempt to look at the environmental impact of beef production.”