Evaluates water footprint in intensive pig production systems, suggesting critical implications for sustainable practices.
Livestock production accounts for a substantial share of global water use, primarily through feed cultivation. Global demand and production of meat continue to increase, driven by income growth and changing dietary preferences. In Argentina, the swine stock increased by 250% between 2002 and 2022. In the municipality of Tandil, province of Buenos Aires, the increase was 720% during the same period. Pork-cured sausages produced in this district have had the “Designation of origin Tandil” (DOT) since 2011. The study aimed to evaluate and compare the water footprint (WF) of small, medium, and large intensive swine production systems clustered within the DOT, during 2021–2025. The average total WF across the three production sizes was 3,140 L/kg of live animal, ranging from 2,338 to 4,100 L/kg, with the highest values reported in medium- and small-scale systems. The green water footprint related to feed production accounted for the largest share (62%) of the total WF. This proportion was lower than the global average (97–99%). In contrast, water pollution represents a more critical issue, as large volumes of excreta are generated and are not always properly managed. This increases the grey WF by 37%, while blue water accounts for only 1% of the total WF. Although differences among production sizes were not statistically significant when applying a Pearson correlation analysis, the results showed a weak negative correlation (−0.36) between farm size and WF. This suggests that production efficiency and good management practices are also important factors, alongside scale and production system. While the WF indicator enables a comprehensive understanding of water use within production systems, its results should be interpreted critically, taking into consideration other environmental indicators, as well as economic, social, productive, political, health, and biosafety considerations. This research will contribute to assessing the total water footprint of the “Salame DOT,” enabling this resource to be managed in an integrated manner through all the production stages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: