Value of Water Research Report Series No. 49 The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products Value of Water A.E. Ercin M.M. Aldaya A.Y. Hoekstra February 2011 T HE WATER FOOTPRINT OF SOY MILK AND SOY BURGER AND EQUIVALENT ANIMAL PRODUCTS A.E. ERCIN 1 M.M. ALDAYA 2 A.Y. HOEKSTRA 1 FEBRUARY 2011 V ALUE OF WATER RESEARCH REPORT SERIES NO. 49 1 Twente Water Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; corresponding author: Arjen Hoekstra, e-mail a.y.hoekstra@utwente.nl 2 United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch, Paris, France © 2011 A.E. Ercin, M.M. Aldaya and A.Y. Hoekstra. Published by: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education P.O. Box 3015 2601 DA Delft The Netherlands The Value of Water Research Report Series is published by UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, in collaboration with University of Twente, Enschede, and Delft University of Technology, Delft. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the authors. Printing the electronic version for personal use is allowed. Please cite this publication as follows: Ercin, A.E., Aldaya, M.M and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011) The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 49, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands. Contents Summary 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Method and data 9 3. Results 13 3.1 Water footprint of soybean 13 3.2 Water footprint of soy products 15 3.3 Water footprint of soy products versus equivalent animal products 19 4. Conclusion 21 References 23 Appendix I: List of ingredients and other components of the soy products 25 Appendix II: Water footprints of raw materials and process water footprints for the ingredients and other components of the soy products 26 Appendix III: Fertilizer and pesticide application and the grey water footprint related to soybean production in the analysed farms in Canada, China and France 28 Summary As all human water use is ultimately linked to final consumption, it is interesting to know the specific water consumption and pollution behind various consumer goods, particularly for goods that are water-intensive, such as foodstuffs. This information is relevant, not only for consumers, but also for food producers and processors, retailers, traders and other businesses that play a role in supplying those goods to the consumers. The objective of this study is to quantify the water footprints of soy milk and soy burger and compare them with the water footprints of equivalent animal products (cow’s milk and beef burger). The study focuses on the assessment of the water footprint of soy milk produced in a specific factory in Belgium and soy burger produced in another factory in the Netherlands. The ingredients and sources of these ingredients are taken according to real case studies. We analysed organic and non-organic soybean farms in three different countries from where the soybeans are imported (Canada, China, and France). Organic production, which relies on animal manure, compost, biological pest control, and mechanical cultivation to maintain soil productivity and control pests, excluding or strictly limiting the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, reduces soil evaporation and diminishes the grey water footprint, ultimately reducing the total water footprint. The water footprint of 1 litre soy milk produced in Belgium amounts to 297 litres, of which 99.7% refers to the supply chain. The water footprint of a 150 g soy burger produced in the Netherlands is 158 litres, of which 99.9% refers to the supply chain. Although most companies focus on just their own operational performance, this study shows that it is important to consider the complete supply chain. The major part of the total water footprint stems from ingredients that are based on agricultural products. In the case of soy milk, 62% of the total water footprint is due to the soybean content in the product; in the case of soy burger, this is 74%. Thus, a detailed assessment of soybean cultivation is essential to understand the claim that each product makes on freshwater resources. This study shows that shifting from non-organic to organic farming can reduce the grey water footprint related to soybean cultivation by 98%. Cow’s milk and beef burger have much larger water footprints than their soy equivalents. The global average water footprint of a 150 gram beef burger is 2350 litres and the water footprint of 1 litre of cow’s milk is 1050 litres. These figures include the water footprint of packaging, but this component contributes no more than a few per cent to the total. 1. Introduction Given that severe freshwater scarcity is a common phenomenon in many regions of the world, improving the governance of the world’s limited annual freshwater supply is a major challenge, not only relevant to water users and managers but also to final consumers, businesses and policymakers in a more general sense (UNESCO, 2006). About 86% of all water used in the world is to grow food (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008). Therefore, food choices can have a big impact on water demand (Steinfeld et al., 2006; De Fraiture et al., 2007; Peden et al., 2007; Galloway et al., 2007). In industrialised countries, an average meat-eater consumes the equivalent of about 3600 litres of water a day, which is 1.6 times more than the 2300 litres used daily by people on vegetarian diets (assuming the vegetarians still consume dairy products; Hoekstra, 2010). Freshwater is a basic ingredient in the operations and supply chains of many companies. A company may face various sorts of risk related to failure to manage freshwater supplies: damage to its corporate image, the threat of increased regulatory control, financial risks caused by pollution, and inadequate freshwater availability for business operations (Rondinelli and Berry, 2000; Pegram et al., 2009). The need for the food industry to take a responsible approach towards the sustainable use and conservation of freshwater is therefore vital. The ‘water footprint’ is an indicator of water use that looks at both direct and indirect water use by a consumer or producer (Hoekstra, 2003). The water footprint is a comprehensive indicator of freshwater resources appropriation, beyond the traditional but rather restrictive measure of water withdrawal. The water footprint of a product is the volume of freshwater used to produce the product, measured over the full supply chain. It is a multi-dimensional indicator, showing water consumption volumes by source and polluted volumes by type of pollution; all components of the water footprint are specified both geographically and temporally (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The blue water footprint refers to consumption of blue water resources (surface and ground water) along the supply chain of a product. ‘Consumption’ refers to the loss of water from the available ground and surface water in a given catchment area, which happens when water evaporates, has been incorporated into a product or returns to another catchment area or the sea. The green water footprint refers to consumption of green water resources (rainwater). The grey water footprint refers to pollution and is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on existing ambient water quality standards. This paper analyses the water footprints of soy milk and soy burger and compares them with the water footprints of the two equivalent animal products (cow’s milk and beef burger). For this purpose, the study identifies the production-chain diagram for 1 litre of soy milk and a 150 g soy burger, indicating the relevant process steps from source to final product and identifying the steps with a substantial water footprint. The study focuses on the assessment of the water footprint of soy milk produced in a specific factory in Belgium and soy burger produced in a specific factory in the Netherlands. The soybeans used in the manufacturing of the soy products in these two countries are imported. The study starts with the assessment of the water footprint of soybean cultivation in Canada, China and France, three of the actual source countries, differentiating between the green, blue and grey water footprint components. Different types of soybean production systems are analysed: organic versus non-organic and irrigated versus rainfed. Next, the water footprint of each of the final products is 8 / The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products assessed based on the composition of the product and the characteristics of the production process and producing facility. Finally, we compare the water footprints of soy products with the water footprints of equivalent animal products. [...]... resources and 3% is the grey water footprint component The colours of the water footprint of 150 g soy burger are 69% green, 4% blue and 27% the grey Soy burgers Soymilk 4% 3% 27% Green WF Blue WF Grey WF 4% 69% 93% Figure 4 The green, blue and grey shares in the total water footprints of 1 litre soy milk and 150 g soy burger 18 / The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products. .. footprint of rainfed soybean is zero The study shows that soy milk and soy burger have much smaller water footprints than their equivalent animal products The water footprint of the soy milk product analysed in this study is 28% of the water footprint of the global average cow milk The water footprint of the soy burger examined here is 7% of the water footprint of the average beef burger in the world For... water footprint accounting Figure 1 Production-chain diagram of soy milk produced in Belgium 10 / The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products Figure 2 Production-chain diagram of a 150 g soy burger produced in the Netherlands The data related to the operational water footprint of soy milk and soy burger are taken from two real factories in Belgium and the Netherlands... fractions and value fractions that are the basis for the water footprint calculations of soy milk and soy burger are given in Appendix II The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products / 11 The green, blue and grey water footprints of soybean grown in Canada, China and France were calculated using the methodology described in Hoekstra et al (2011) The green and blue water. .. products Therefore, 94% of the water footprint of the soybean is attributed to basemilk The water footprint of the basemilk as used in the soy milk is calculated by multiplying the water footprint of soybean by the value fraction and amount used and dividing by the product fraction The green water footprint of the basemilk is thus: (1860×0.94×0.025)/0.64 = 69.1 litres The blue water footprint: (130×0.94×0.025)/0.64... use of the estimates from the latter study For the comparison of cow’s milk and soy milk, the water footprint of packaging material is added to the water footprint of cow’s milk (27.8 litres per 1 litre of milk) Similarly, the water footprint of packaging materials is added to the beef burger for fair comparison with the soy burger (35.5 litres per 150 g of beef burger) Figure 7 shows the water footprint. .. drinking and service water (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008) Clearly, one needs to know the age of the animal when slaughtered and the diet of the animal during the various stages of its life The water footprints of cow’s milk and beef burger have been taken from Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2010b) For the comparison with the soy products, the water footprint of packaging is included in the water footprints of cow’s... of 1 litre of soy milk produced in Belgium in comparison to the water footprint of 1 litre of cow’s milk from various locations The smallest water footprint of cow’s milk is 540 litres for the UK and the largest is 1800 litres for Spain, while the world average amounts to 1050 litres Figure 8 compares the water footprint of 150 g of soy burger produced in the Netherlands with the water footprints of. .. (1990) The detailed list of other components of the supply-chain water footprint of the product is given in Appendix I The water footprints of raw materials, process water footprints, product fractions and value fraction are presented in Appendix II The water footprints of cow’s milk and beef depend on the water footprints of the feed ingredients consumed by the animal during its lifetime and the water footprints... 0.9 litre of water for soy milk and 0.1 litre for soy burger The total operational water footprint is thus no more than the water used as ingredient of the products Table 2 The water footprint of 1 litre of soy milk Water footprint (litres) Green Blue Grey Total Water incorporated into the soy milk 0 0.9 0 0.9 Water consumed during process 0 0 0 0 Wastewater discharge 0 0 0 0 Operational water footprint . soy milk and soy burger and compare them with the water footprints of equivalent animal products (cow’s milk and beef burger) . The study focuses on the assessment of the water footprint of soy. footprint of each of the final products is 8 / The water footprint of soy milk and soy burger and equivalent animal products assessed based on the composition of the product and the characteristics. aggregated value of soybean products. Therefore, 94% of the water footprint of the soybean is attributed to basemilk. The water footprint of the basemilk as used in the soy milk is calculated