Literature DB >> 31415964

Water productivity in meat and milk production in the US from 1960 to 2016.

Mesfin M Mekonnen1, Christopher M U Neale2, Chittaranjan Ray3, Galen E Erickson4, Arjen Y Hoekstra5.   

Abstract

Global demand for livestock products is rising, resulting in a growing demand for feed and potentially burdening freshwater resources to produce this feed. To offset this increased pressure on water resources, the environmental performance of livestock sector should continue to improve. Over the last few decades, product output per animal and feedstuff yields in the US have improved, but before now it was unclear to what extent these improvements influenced the water productivity (WP) of the livestock products. In this research, we estimate changes in WP of animal products from 1960 to 2016. We consider feed conversion ratios (dry matter intake per head divided by product output per head), feed composition per animal category, and estimated the water footprint of livestock production following the Water Footprint Network's Water Footprint Assessment methodology. The current WP of all livestock products appears to be much better than in 1960. The observed improvements in WPs are due to a number of factors, including increases in livestock productivity, feed conversion ratios and feed crop yields, the latter one reducing the water footprint of feed inputs. Monogastric animals (poultry and swine) have a high feed-use efficiency compared to ruminants (cattle), but ruminants consume relatively large portion of feed that is non-edible for humans. Per unit of energy content, milk has the largest WP followed by chicken and pork. Per gram of protein, poultry products (chicken meat, egg and turkey meat) have the largest WP, followed by cattle milk and pork. Beef has the smallest WP. These data provide important information that may aid the development of strategies to improve WP of the livestock sector.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Animal feed; Feed conversion efficiency; Sustainability; Water footprint; Water use

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31415964     DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Int        ISSN: 0160-4120            Impact factor:   9.621


  5 in total

Review 1.  Potential Feed Additives as Antibiotic Alternatives in Broiler Production.

Authors:  Habtamu Ayalew; Haijun Zhang; Jing Wang; Shugeng Wu; Kai Qiu; Guanghai Qi; Ayalsew Tekeste; Teketay Wassie; Demissie Chanie
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2022-06-17

Review 2.  Nutritional Modulation, Gut, and Omics Crosstalk in Ruminants.

Authors:  Mohamed Abdelrahman; Wei Wang; Aftab Shaukat; Muhammad Fakhar-E-Alam Kulyar; Haimiao Lv; Adili Abulaiti; Zhiqiu Yao; Muhammad Jamil Ahmad; Aixin Liang; Liguo Yang
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 3.231

Review 3.  Prospects for sustainability of pig production in relation to climate change and novel feed resources.

Authors:  Wendy M Rauw; Lotta Rydhmer; Ilias Kyriazakis; Margareth Øverland; Hélène Gilbert; Jack Cm Dekkers; Susanne Hermesch; Alban Bouquet; Emilio Gómez Izquierdo; Isabelle Louveau; Luis Gomez-Raya
Journal:  J Sci Food Agric       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 3.638

4.  Phytogenic feed additives improve broiler feed efficiency via modulation of intermediary lipid and protein metabolism-related signaling pathways.

Authors:  Joshua J Flees; Bhaskar Ganguly; Sami Dridi
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2020-12-25       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Livestock water and land productivity in Kenya and their implications for future resource use.

Authors:  Caroline K Bosire; Nadhem Mtimet; Dolapo Enahoro; Joseph O Ogutu; Maarten S Krol; Jan de Leeuw; Nicholas Ndiwa; Arjen Y Hoekstra
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-02-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.