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

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 diff...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Frikkie Alberts Maré, Henry Jordaan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-06-01
Series:Sustainability
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6914
id doaj-a284c3e3644d4bfd8c5d547109b101c4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a284c3e3644d4bfd8c5d547109b101c42021-07-01T00:34:47ZengMDPI AGSustainability2071-10502021-06-01136914691410.3390/su13126914The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation ModelFrikkie Alberts Maré0Henry Jordaan1Department of Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South AfricaDepartment of Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South AfricaThe 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.https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6914water footprintbeef processingslaughterhousecattle breedsbottom-up approachvalue fraction allocation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Frikkie Alberts Maré
Henry Jordaan
spellingShingle Frikkie Alberts Maré
Henry Jordaan
The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model
Sustainability
water footprint
beef processing
slaughterhouse
cattle breeds
bottom-up approach
value fraction allocation
author_facet Frikkie Alberts Maré
Henry Jordaan
author_sort Frikkie Alberts Maré
title The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model
title_short The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model
title_full The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model
title_fullStr The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model
title_full_unstemmed The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model
title_sort water footprint of primary and secondary processing of beef from different cattle breeds: a value fraction allocation model
publisher MDPI AG
series Sustainability
issn 2071-1050
publishDate 2021-06-01
description 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.
topic water footprint
beef processing
slaughterhouse
cattle breeds
bottom-up approach
value fraction allocation
url https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6914
work_keys_str_mv AT frikkiealbertsmare thewaterfootprintofprimaryandsecondaryprocessingofbeeffromdifferentcattlebreedsavaluefractionallocationmodel
AT henryjordaan thewaterfootprintofprimaryandsecondaryprocessingofbeeffromdifferentcattlebreedsavaluefractionallocationmodel
AT frikkiealbertsmare waterfootprintofprimaryandsecondaryprocessingofbeeffromdifferentcattlebreedsavaluefractionallocationmodel
AT henryjordaan waterfootprintofprimaryandsecondaryprocessingofbeeffromdifferentcattlebreedsavaluefractionallocationmodel
_version_ 1721348198205751296