There is an increase in requirement and competition for water, while water resources are decreasing at an accelerating rate. Agriculture is the biggest consumer of water and therefore has the largest water footprint, which is not yet known. The largest portion is acknowledged to be for producing animal products. Water footprints account for the amounts of water used to produce a commodity for consumption, measured along the commodity life cycle. Water withdrawals from surface and groundwater are accounted for when assessing the water footprint. The three identified major determinants of a water footprint of meat include feed conversion efficiency (FCE), feed composition, and feed origin, with the first two being influenced greatly by the animal production system. In South Africa (SA), the two distinct production systems are the intensive and extensive production systems. Intensifying beef animals improves FCE due to faster growths per kg feed consumed, reduced activity, and therefore reduced water footprint. Beef cattle in the extensive system consume a large component of roughages, while the intensive system has a high concentrate to roughage ratio. This theoretically increases the water footprint in the intensive system. The literature indicates large amounts of volumetric water footprint indicators of boneless beef in SA. Water footprint assessment is critical for enabling consumers to make well-informed and sound decisions when considering changes in their behavior due to the effect this has on social, economic, and environmental wellbeing. This paper aims to postulate the various issues associated with water usage in beef production. These include factors affecting the water footprint of beef production and the effects it has on various aspects of both the environment and social wellbeing. It further explores the various methods to assess the water footprint of a product.

This study determined the water-use efficiency for post-weaning growth performance of beef cattle of different frame sizes under intensive production systems. A total of 33 beef cattle weaners of three different frame sizes (small, medium, and large) were randomly allocated individually to metabolic pens. Feed and water were provided ad libitum. The water intake (WI), feed intake (FI), and weight were measured across different feeding phases (starter, grower, and finisher). Water consumption (WC) average daily gain (ADG), weight gain (WG), water intake efficiency (WIE), water footprint per animal (WFP/AU), and WFP/kg were computed. General Linear Model of Statical Analysis software (SAS) version 9.4 was used to analyse the data, and the means were separated using Fisher’s LSD test. The results showed that large-frame beef cattle had significantly higher (p < 0.05) WT_f. (412.73 ± 27.27 kg) and WI (3394.09 ± 156.3 L), but also the largest WFP/AU (4407 ± 197.22 L). The medium-frame cattle achieved the highest ADG (1.48 ± 0.14 kg/day) and a moderate WIE (20.15 ± 2.18 L/kg gain), indicating an optimal trade-off between productivity and water use. The small-frame beef cattle exhibited the best WCE (0.051 ± 0.005 kg/L) and the lowest WFP/AU (3822 ± 197.22 L), highlighting superior water-use adaptability. Pearson’s correlation revealed that WCE was positively associated with ADG (r = 0.499; p < 0.05) and negatively with WIE (r = −0.987; p < 0.05). These findings suggest that medium-frame beef cattle provided a balanced compromise between growth performance and resource efficiency, making them more suitable for sustainable production in water-limited environments.

This study determined the water-use efficiency for post-weaning growth performance of different frame sizes beef cattle under intensive production system. A total of 33 beef cattle weaners of three different frame sizes (small, medium, and large) were randomly allocated individually to metabolic pens. Feed and water were provided ad libitum. The water intake (WI), feed intake (FI) and weight were measured across different feeding phases (starter, grower, and finisher). Water consumption (WC) average daily gain (ADG), weight gain (WG), water intake efficiency (WIE), water footprint per animal (WFP/AU) and WFP/kg were computed. The General Linear Model of Statical Analysis Software (SAS) was used to analyze the data, and means were separated using Fisher’s LSD test. Results showed that large frame size beef cattle had significantly (p< 0.05) higher initial and final weights, as well as higher FI (1025.21 kg) and WI (3394 L), compared to medium and small frame size beef cattle. Medium frame size beef cattle finished with higher ADG (1.48 kg/day) and WIE (20.15 L/kg gain), suggesting a more balanced efficiency between growth and water utilization. Small frame size beef cattle demonstrated higher water consumption efficiency (WCE) of 0.051 kg/L and lower water footprint per animal unit (WFP/AU) of 3822 L, indicating greater adaptability to water-limited conditions. These findings suggest that medium frame size beef cattle offer an optimal balance between productivity and resource efficiency.

Here, we report the draft genome sequence of Pediococcus acidilactici RTMP1 isolated from fecal samples of Speckled goats. This bacterium (scaffolds = 54; genome size = 1,973,216 bp; coding sequences = 1,870; N ₅₀ = 59,077; GC content = 42%) encodes for genes attributed to probiotic characteristics.

Enteric methane (CH₄) from beef cattle is a major greenhouse gas and an energy loss to the animal. Understanding how feed and water consumption patterns influence methane production across cattle of different body frame sizes is critical for developing sustainable beef production strategies. This study aimed to determine the impact of water and feed consumption on enteric methane production in South African beef cattle under intensive production systems. Fifteen beef cattle weaners of three different frame sizes (small = 5, medium = 5, and large = 5) were randomly allocated individually to metabolic pens. Feed and water were provided ad libitum. The water intake (WI), feed intake (FI), and weight were measured daily across different feeding phases (starter, grower, and finisher) and WFR were computed. Enteric methane was measured from experimental animals per frame size over five consecutive days per feeding phase using a portable Laser Methane Detector. General Linear Model of Statistical Analysis software (SAS) version 9.4 was used to analyze the data, and the means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship amongst variables, whereas simple linear regression analysis was used to predict methane based on the intake traits. In the starter and grower phases, CH₄ did not differ by frame despite marked intake differences. Medium-frame cattle showed higher FI and WI but lower WFR, indicating efficient hydration relative to intake. In the finisher phase, medium-frame cattle produced more CH₄ (67.33 ppm) than small (34.56 ppm) and large (47.12 ppm). Across phases, CH₄ related weakly to WFR but showed a strong negative correlation with WI in the finisher phase (r=−0.688, p<0.05), suggesting enhanced rumen turnover may constrain methanogenesis. Intake behaviors, modulated by frame size and feeding phase, shape CH₄ dynamics in intensive systems. Managing FI and especially WI to optimize rumen flow offers a practical lever for mitigating CH₄ without compromising performance. Further validation across different diets and production systems is warranted, considering global call to align agricultural practices with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 13 on Climate Action.