Beef Has a Big Water Footprint. Here's Why

Water is in everything, yet this fundamental fact is often overlooked. It seems that water only surfaces in the public's attention when a drought kicks in or every March 22 for World Water Day or when water issues emerge in our social media streams.

While water is in everything, you'll find most of it in your food. In fact, your water footprint is overwhelmingly made up of the water it takes to produce food. Meat and animal products generally have much larger water footprints than fruits, vegetables or grains and beef is the "king" of the big water footprints, which I've written about in detail.

To see how the global average water footprints for different kinds of meat and proteins stack up, take a look at the chart below for the figures developed by the Water Footprint Network:

Water required to produce one pound (1 lb.) of:


1,799 gallons of water


1,250 gallons of water


576 gallons of water


468 gallons of water

Tofu (soy)

303 gallons of water

At an incredible 1,799 gallons of water per pound, the scale of beef's water footprint is giant; the equivalent of 90 eight-minute showers (see the main image above). It should be acknowledged that the comparison is generally useful even if each type of meat, per unit of weight, isn't the same in terms of calorie density, protein content, nutrient content and so forth. When looking through the lens of water, the most sustainable choice is pasture-raised beef that relies on feed produced using rainfall rather than irrigation

When looking through the lens of water, the most sustainable choice is pasture-raised beef that relies on feed produced using rainfall rather than irrigation.

Since beef is the second most popular meat in the United States, the enormous water requirements to produce it have outsize impacts. This matters because as population and prosperity grows in the US and around the world, the amount of water to available produce food - and beef in particular - remains the same.

According to the United Nations, if trends continue, water demand will surpass supply by 40 percent by the year 2030, significantly affecting the world's prime agricultural regions, like California and the US Great Plains. In essence, we need to produce more food with the same or even less water.

Beef's Big Water Footprint

There are a number of reasons why beef has such a big water footprint compared to other meats. What it comes down to is the huge amount of virtual water - or indirect water - that goes into the food that cattle eat. As with other animals raised for meat, the water needed to grow cattle feed is overwhelmingly the largest part of beef's water footprint.

Because cattle are so physically large they must eat huge quantities of feed, consisting mainly of forage and grain. To get beef cattle up to market weight takes a lot of feed and a long time; typically more than a year from calves to full-grown heifers or steers. The longer the time period necessary to get cattle to market weight, the more food cattle eat, and so the larger their water footprint. Another major factor involved in beef's big footprint is the inefficiency of cattle to convert food into meat, otherwise known as feed conversion ratio. Again, more feed means more water.

So due to cattle's large size, big appetite, long lifetime and metabolic inefficiency, beef has an huge water footprint compared to most other meats and food products. In other words, beef eats up a lot of water and other resources.

Eat Less Meat, Better Meat

Since meat - and especially beef - has such a big water footprint, does that mean shunning meat entirely for water conservation reasons? For some, vegetarianism might be an option, but you don't have to go completely cold turkey on beef. What's another strategy? Try less meat, but better meat. This can reduce your overall meat consumption while focusing on more sustainable, humanely-raised meat, because not all meat is the same.

What does less meat, better meat mean in practice? For starters, limiting the amount of meat eaten is straightforward. That could mean trying Meatless Monday, eating smaller portions of meat or simply avoiding sausage on your breakfast sandwich. There are many ways to go and flexibility is key.

When it comes to sustainable meat options, there are also choices. Pasture-raised animals on well-managed farms are what to look for because they subsist primarily on what they forage in the pasture. For beef, as with most other meat animals, it takes longer to get them to market weight but they aren't confined in poor conditions, but rather raised in more natural settings.

The forage they eat depends predominately on rain instead of irrigation water that could go towards other uses. Also, factory farms, which provide the vast majority of US meat, are heavy polluters with giant manure lagoons that can leak into water and groundwater. Moreover, water is just one factor among others to consider when choosing pasture-raised over factory farmed meat, including air pollution, nutrient pollution, healthiness of the meat and animal welfare, to name a few.

Beef certainly has a big water footprint but that's not the end of the story. There are many ways to be aware, eat smart and shrink your water footprint.

Responses to "Beef Has a Big Water Footprint. Here's Why"
The views and opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the Ecocentric Blog or GRACE Communications Foundation.

  1. Stefhan Gordon

    In response to Esther above, you cited the report by Mekonnen and Hoekstraand and the following factoid: A beef burger's water footprint of 2,312.25 liters water/150 gram burger (611 gallons water/5.3 oz) is close to what the Waterwise report gives. But you failed to note how this number is derived, namely for beef 98% of that number is the amount of water needed to grow feed, grasses or forage over the course of the LCA of the head of beef cattle. You then failed to acknowledge that with grass finished beef, 98% of that 98% for water for grasses is GREEN water which is essentially RAIN fall (for grain finished it's on average 93% green water). Additionally you forgot to note that what is critical is BLUE water not green water. Grass finished beef requires a lot less blue water than most crops. Another problem with using water footprints is that they don't account for appropriate land use. Where most of the globe's inventory of cattle is raised is in areas where the land is NOT arable. TO make the land arable requires a lot more blue water diversion. Water footprint models also have a lot of other limitations. For example, currently they don't account for soil types or different methods of irrigation, and they certainly don't account for the content of soil organic matter (soil carbon). When soils contain more carbon, they retain more water. And guess what helps build soil organic matter? Nope, not tilled agriculture which leads to soil erosion, but well managed ruminant grazing. So well manged beef cattle can actually improve the drought resistance of land. You know it helps to actually correspond with some of the researchers who generate these stats, like I did, so you actually understand how the numbers are derived from water balance models plus also understand what are the limitations of such models including the limitations of using global averages for local conditions and land use. Here's a good article on this topic:


    Thanks again for commenting. As we mentioned before, eating pasture-raised meat is an important way for people to improve the make up of their water footprint (especially for green and grey WF). However, from our work and communications with Mekonnen and Hoekstra and as we put together our position on these issues, we took into consideration that the vast majority of meat produced in the US is raised conventionally where within these types of systems and we support a transition to more sustainable, well-managed pastured meat production. Again, we encourage those interested to review our in-depth analysis of these issues here:

  2. Esther Sammut Carbone

    I am an enviromental educator. I need to know how the 2400L per 150g burger comes from. Using the data given in page 10 of a document Hidden Waters - A Briefing, Waterwise February 2007, by is not leading me anywhere close to this number. It gives the following data: 15,340L crop water(for 1300kg grain and 7200kg roughage) 24,000L drinking water 7,000L servicing water ... to produce 1 cow providing 200kg beef. Adding the 3 figures, dividing it by 200 and multiplying by 0.15kg of 1 burger mass gives 34.755L per 150g burger. Regards.


    Hi Esther -- The best source of water footprint data for meat/animal products is the "The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products" report by Mekonnen and Hoekstra. You can find it here: A beef burger's water footprint of 2,312.25 liters water/150 gram burger (611 gallons water/5.3 oz) is close to what the Waterwise report gives. For more details on the calculations, see pp. 23-33. Hope that helps. Regards, Kai

  3. Stefhan Gordon

    Before citing stats, it really helps to understand how those stats are derived. Especially, water footprint numbers because people who cite them rarely have a clue what they represent. For beef 98% of the water footprint number is the life cycle water number needed to grow feed, forage or grasses. (Only 1% is consumption). With grass finished cattle 98% of that 98% is green water. Green water is primarily RAIN. The rain falls regardless, so the real issue is what's the best use of land that the rain fall falls upon. Land isn't interchangeable. More often than not, the best use of land where the rain falls is grazing not crops. (See map of arable land: land#/media/File:Arable land % world (dot)png Most of the earth's land mass is NOT suitable for crops. This makes the feed efficiency argument a red herring since grass fed cattle are eating foods (grasses...that is cellulose) that humans can't consume. Even with feedlot production, cattle are consuming a lot of crop residues and by-products that humans can't consume like almond husks and corn silage. On non-arable land is where the vast majority of most livestock is grazed. Crops often require more BLUE water to be diverted than many grasses that are drought resistant and, if perennials, long rooted. Well managed cattle, by building healthy soils, can also improve water infiltration making more effective the use of rain so they IMPROVE drought resistance........and they do this on land that has no other suitable use for food production. BLUE water is what is critical...not green water. It's really disappointing that EcoCentric regurgitated a lot of the misinformed nonsense out that's bantered about.


    Thanks for the comment. As the post states, eating "better meat" means eating pasture-raised meats, including beef. Basically, the way the US food system produces meat - and beef in particular - is extremely resource-intensive. That's why both eating less meat combined with choosing well-managed, pasture-raised meat (including beef) is a better, more sustainable way to eat. We've analyzed the water footprint of beef (and other items) thoroughly and have written about this extensively. For a more in-depth analysis of the issues you've raised, including the differences between factory farmed and pasture-raised beef, please check out:

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on topic. You represent that comments submitted do not infringe upon anyone's rights including copyright, trademark, privacy or other personal or proprietary rights.

We need to make sure you're a human and not a spambot. Please answer the following question. What is 17 - 11 equal to?

By submitting a comment here you grant us a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/website in attribution.