Biltong and the Environment: The Honest Footprint

Almost all of biltong's environmental footprint sits in the beef, not in the drying. Raising cattle is where the land, the feed, the water and the methane are, and by the time a piece of meat reaches a curing rack the large majority of its impact has already happened. Anything a maker does after that point moves a small number rather than a large one.

Saying so plainly is the only honest place to start for a company that sells dried beef. What drying does change is the part of the chain that comes after the animal: the weight that gets shipped, the refrigeration that does not have to run, and how much of what is bought actually gets eaten. Those are real effects and they point in a good direction. They do not cancel out what happens upstream, and this page is not going to pretend they do.

The footprint is the animal

Cattle are ruminants, which means they digest through fermentation in a specialized stomach, and that fermentation produces methane as a byproduct. That methane is the single largest contributor to beef's climate impact, and it is a function of the animal itself rather than of any downstream processing choice. Manure management adds to it.

Feed sits behind that. Growing, processing and transporting what cattle eat carries its own land, water and energy cost, and it is a substantial share of the total. Drinking water for the animals adds further, and the water needed across a beef animal's life is on a different scale from what most people picture when they think about the water in their food.

None of that is specific to biltong. It applies to every beef product on the shelf, from a steak to a burger to a dried snack. Biltong is not an exception to beef, it is a form of beef, and the arithmetic starts in the same place.

Land, and where cattle are raised

Grazing and feed production together occupy an enormous amount of land, and the character of that land use varies enormously by region. Cattle raised on established native pasture that was never forest is a different land story from cattle raised on land that was cleared to make room for them. The animal is similar. What happened to the ground underneath it is not.

Habitat conversion for cattle is a well documented pressure in several parts of the world, including in Southern Africa where biltong originates. This matters for a buyer because it is one of the few upstream variables that sourcing can actually influence. Where the beef came from and what the land was before it was pasture are questions with different answers depending on the supplier, unlike methane, which is more or less a constant of the species.

Game meat is a different profile with a smaller supply

Traditionally, biltong is made from beef, and some producers use game meats such as kudu, impala or springbok. Game sourced dried meat carries a different land use profile, because it draws on wild populations grazing land that was not cleared for them rather than on farmed pasture.

The limit is supply. Wild populations are finite and managed, and they cannot scale to meet commercial demand the way cattle can, which is why most commercial biltong on any shelf today still starts with farmed beef. Treat game as an interesting difference in the tradition rather than as an available answer to the footprint question. If it were the answer, the supply would have to be many times what it is.

Beef protein against plant protein, in direction rather than numbers

Per gram of protein, beef sits well above legumes on climate impact. Lentils, beans and chickpeas do not ferment their food in a rumen, do not need pasture, and convert sunlight and soil into protein through a much shorter chain. This is not a close comparison and there is no useful way to argue it.

We are not going to attach a multiple to that statement, because the honest figures vary hugely by farming system, by region and by which study you read, and a precise number quoted without its method is worth less than the direction it points in. The direction is not in dispute. If your primary aim is the lowest impact protein available, that protein is not beef, and it is not biltong.

What we can say is that this is a fact about ruminant meat rather than about dried snacks. The comparison between biltong and a lentil is a comparison between two entirely different foods, and most people making it are not actually choosing between them.

What drying actually changes: weight

Here is where the process starts to matter. Drying removes a large share of the water in the meat, which means the finished product weighs a fraction of what went into it. Every mile that product travels afterward, it travels light.

Shipping a dried food moves fewer kilograms and less volume for the same amount of beef delivered to the same person. That effect runs through every leg of the chain, from the producer to the warehouse to the front door, and it compounds with distance. A shipment of dried beef and a shipment of fresh beef containing the same protein are not comparable loads.

The trade is that the water had to be removed somewhere, and removing it takes time and some energy. Air drying is a low intensity process compared with cooking, since it works by moving air rather than by heating meat to temperature, but it is not free and it occupies space for days. That is the honest shape of the exchange.

Shelf stability takes the cold chain out

This is the clearest advantage in the whole chain, and it is worth being specific about where it applies. Fresh meat requires refrigeration continuously, from the processor through the truck, the warehouse, the retail case and finally the buyer's own fridge. Every one of those stages runs compressors, and they run whether or not anyone is buying.

Biltong is dried far enough that the moisture left inside it is largely unavailable, which is what water activity describes, and that is what allows it to sit on a shelf at ambient temperature. No refrigerated truck, no refrigerated case, no space in a home fridge. Cutting refrigeration out of several consecutive stages is a genuine reduction rather than a rounding error, and it applies for the entire time the product is in the chain rather than at a single moment.

It does not cancel the animal. Refrigeration is a share of a meat product's total footprint, not the bulk of it, and removing a share of a smaller number does not offset the larger one sitting upstream.

The drying itself

Air drying is the low energy end of preserving meat. It works at ordinary indoor temperatures with air movement doing the work, which is a different energy profile from a process that holds meat at high heat for hours. What it costs instead is time and space, days rather than hours, and a room that has to be kept in the right condition throughout.

Humidity control is where the energy actually goes in a commercial setting, since a drying space in a wet climate needs help to stay in range. That is a real input and it varies by region and season. It is still small next to the pasture, the feed and the animal, which is the point this whole page keeps returning to.

Salt, vinegar and spice

The cure contributes something, and it is minor. Salt has to be extracted and processed, vinegar has to be produced, and spices such as coriander are grown, dried and shipped. Each carries a small cost.

Relative to the beef, these are decimal places. Naming them at all is a matter of completeness rather than significance, and any account of biltong's footprint that spends its time on the spice rack is avoiding the animal in the room.

The waste question at the household end

Food that gets thrown away carries its entire footprint with it and delivers nothing. Fresh meat is thrown away in meaningful quantities, because it has a short window, it depends on a fridge working, and it punishes an over-optimistic shopping trip.

Dried meat behaves differently. It keeps at room temperature, it does not fail when a fridge is full or a trip runs long, and it can sit in a cupboard for a considerable time and still be eaten. Whatever share of fresh meat ends up in a bin is a share that mostly does not arise here, which means more of the animal's footprint ends up attached to food that a person actually ate.

We are not going to attach a percentage to that, because household waste rates vary by country, by household and by product, and a made up number would be worse than the plain statement. The direction is clear enough on its own.

Trim, fat, and the rest of the animal

A beef animal does not arrive as biltong cuts. Silverside and topside are two parts of it, and everything else goes somewhere. When those other parts are used, whether as other cuts, as rendered products, as pet food or as gelatin and collagen, the animal's footprint spreads across more useful output instead of being carried by less.

Rendering takes energy of its own, so it is not a free environmental win. It is still better than disposal, and it is a reason to think about a beef animal as a whole rather than as a single product. Trim from a drying operation follows the same logic.

Packaging is the honest weak point

Here is the part that cuts the other way. Shelf stability depends on a barrier, and that barrier is usually plastic. A vacuum or barrier film is what keeps moisture and air away from the product between the drying room and your kitchen, and no paper wrap performs that job.

So the same property that removes refrigeration from the chain adds packaging to it. That is a real trade rather than a footnote, and the fair way to describe it is as an exchange: less energy running continuously across several stages, in return for a film that will outlast the food inside it by a very long time. Buying a larger format rather than several small ones is the one lever a customer has on this, since a pound in one bag uses less film than a pound in many. That is a reason the $58.00 pound and the $58.00 slab exist alongside the $4.99 Mini's, though convenience and how fast you eat still decide which is the right buy.

A small snack is not a small amount of beef

This is the fact people miss, and it belongs on a page claiming to be honest. Because the water is gone, a small bag of dried beef represents considerably more raw beef than its weight suggests. An ounce of biltong started as several ounces of meat.

That cuts against the intuition that a snack sized purchase is a small one. In footprint terms, a bag of dried beef is not a light choice made lighter by being small. It is a concentrated one. Anyone eating biltong specifically as a way to eat less beef should do the arithmetic on finished weight against raw weight before drawing that conclusion, because the number will not say what they expect.

What actually moves the number for a buyer

• Sourcing. Where the beef was raised and what the land was before it was pasture is the one upstream variable that varies between suppliers, and it dwarfs anything downstream.
• Eating what you buy. Food thrown away carries its whole footprint for nothing. Shelf stability helps here, but only if the bag actually gets finished.
• Format and packaging. Fewer, larger bags use less barrier film per ounce than many small ones.
• Total quantity. The only lever with real weight behind it is how much beef a person eats in a year. Everything else on this list adjusts the edges.

We would rather say that last one than dress up the rest. A page that tells you the packaging choice matters as much as the animal is selling comfort rather than information.

Bottom line

The footprint of biltong is the footprint of beef, and beef is a high impact protein because of what a ruminant is. Drying does not change that. What drying genuinely changes is everything downstream of the animal: less weight moving through the chain, no refrigeration at any stage, and less food thrown out at the end.

Those are real advantages over fresh meat and they are worth knowing about. They are not an argument that a dried beef snack is a low impact food, and we are not going to make that argument. If footprint is your first consideration, the honest answer is to eat less beef in total. If you are going to eat beef anyway, a shelf stable form of it wastes less of what the animal already cost.

Frequently Asked Questions