Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada – Evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment

Climate impacts of alternative beef production systems depend on the functional unit used: Weight or monetary value

Beef production has been identified as a significant source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the agricultural sector. United States and Canada account for about a quarter of the world's beef supply. To compare the GHG emission contributions of alternative beef production systems, we conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies that were conducted between 2001 and 2023. Results indicated that GHG emissions from beef production in North America varied almost fourfold from 10.2 to 37.6 with an average of 21.4 kg CO2e/kg carcass weight (CW). Studies that considered soil C sequestration (C-seq) reported the highest mitigation potential in GHG emissions (80%), followed by growth enhancement technology (16%), diet modification (6%), and grazing management improvement (7%). Our study highlights the implications of using carbon intensity per economic activity (i.e., GHG emissions per monetary unit), compared to the more common metric of intensity on per weight of product basis (GHG emissions per kg CW) for comparisons across differentiated beef cattle products. While a positive association was found between the proportion of lifespan on grassland and the conventional weight-based indicator, grass-finished beef was found to have lower carbon intensity per economic activity than feedlot-finished beef. Our study emphasizes the need to incorporate land use and management effects and soil C-seq as fundamental aspects of beef GHG emissions and mitigation assessments.

Greenhouse gas emissions in the Indian agriculture sector and mitigation by best management practices and smart farming technologies-a review

The growing demand for agricultural products, driven by the Green Revolution, has led to a significant increase in food production. However, the demand is surpassing production, making food security a major concern, especially under climatic variation. The Indian agriculture sector is highly vulnerable to extreme rainfall, drought, pests, and diseases in the present climate change scenario. Nonetheless, the key agriculture sub-sectors such as livestock, rice cultivation, and biomass burning also significantly contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a driver of global climate change. Agriculture activities alone account for 10-12% of global GHG emissions. India is an agrarian economy and a hub for global food production, which is met by intensive agricultural inputs leading to the deterioration of natural resources. It further contributes to 14% of the country's total GHG emissions. Identifying the drivers and best mitigation strategies in the sector is thus crucial for rigorous GHG mitigation. Therefore, this review aims to identify and expound the key drivers of GHG emissions in Indian agriculture and present the best strategies available in the existing literature. This will help the scientific community, policymakers, and stakeholders to evaluate the current agricultural practices and uphold the best approach available. We also discussed the socio-economic, and environmental implications to understand the impacts that may arise from intensive agriculture. Finally, we examined the current national climate policies, areas for further research, and policy amendments to help bridge the knowledge gap among researchers, policymakers, and the public in the national interest toward GHG reduction goals.

Carbon footprint based on lifetime productivity for future cows selected for resilience to climate-related disturbances

Droughts, which can affect feed production, are projected to become more common under future climate conditions. In light of this, breeding cattle resilient to changes in feeding regimens is increasingly becoming an important topic. Body reserves can play a crucial role when feed resources are limited. We simulated populations of dairy cows selected with 2 different breeding goals: one reflecting the current breeding goal and the other placing weight on minimum level of body reserves in early lactation and change in body reserves during lactation. We considered this latter as a breeding goal for resilience. We used the 2 dynamic simulation programs ADAM and AQAL to predict performance of the cows after selection. In AQAL, we modeled moderate and severe drought by decreasing feed quality and quantity offered to cows during one year. We compared cows selected with the 2 breeding goals under 3 environments: without disturbances related to climate and with moderate and severe drought. In the environments without disturbances and the moderate drought, the cows selected with the current breeding goal had higher lifetime lactation efficiency (energy invested in milk/energy acquired from feed) and lower carbon footprint per kilogram of protein in milk and meat than cows selected for resilience. However, with severe drought, cows selected for resilience had higher lifetime lactation efficiency and lower carbon footprint per kilogram of protein in milk and meat than those selected with the current breeding goal. This suggests that cows selected for high productive performance do not perform well under very limiting conditions, leading to increased climate impact. The importance of inclusion of body reserves as a resilience trait in dairy cattle breeding depends on the future environment in which the cows will be used.

Environmental advantages of coproducing beef meat in dairy systems

Beef meat, one of the more environmentally costly animal-based foods, can be produced in two general ways, as the main product on specialised farms or as a co-product on dairy farms. In this study, two cases (a semi-confinement dairy farm (A) and a pasture-based dairy farm (B)) have been analysed by means of LCA to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the coproduction of beef meat. In both cases, purchased feed production was found to be the main cause of environmental impacts in most of the categories considered. Additionally, cow emissions to air were the main contributor for the global warming category. Comparing the two dairy systems, notably lower environmental impacts were obtained for B in 13 of the 18 categories analysed. Regarding CF, 8.10 and 8.88 kg CO₂eq/kg LW were obtained for A and B, respectively. These CF values were within the wide range found in the literature for beef meat (1.2-42.6 kg CO₂eq/kg LW). Beef calves and cull cows are an important output of dairy farming, so that coproduction enables milk and meat with lower CF and associated environmental impacts to be obtained. In addition, the variability of the data found in literature and the lack of LCA studies based on real data for beef meat coproduced on dairy farms evidence the importance of in-depth study of this interesting topic.

Enteric Methane Emissions and Animal Performance in Dairy and Beef Cattle Production: Strategies, Opportunities, and Impact of Reducing Emissions

Enteric methane (CH4) emissions produced by microbial fermentation in the rumen resulting in the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere. The GHG emissions reduction from the livestock industry can be attained by increasing production efficiency and improving feed efficiency, by lowering the emission intensity of production, or by combining the two. In this work, information was compiled from peer-reviewed studies to analyze CH4 emissions calculated per unit of milk production, energy-corrected milk (ECM), average daily gain (ADG), dry matter intake (DMI), and gross energy intake (GEI), and related emissions to rumen fermentation profiles (volatile fatty acids [VFA], hydrogen [H2]) and microflora activities in the rumen of beef and dairy cattle. For dairy cattle, there was a positive correlation (p < 0.001) between CH4 emissions and DMI (R2 = 0.44), milk production (R2 = 0.37; p < 0.001), ECM (R2 = 0.46), GEI (R2 = 0.50), and acetate/propionate (A/P) ratio (R2 = 0.45). For beef cattle, CH4 emissions were positively correlated (p < 0.05−0.001) with DMI (R2 = 0.37) and GEI (R2 = 0.74). Additionally, the ADG (R2 = 0.19; p < 0.01) and A/P ratio (R2 = 0.15; p < 0.05) were significantly associated with CH4 emission in beef steers. This information may lead to cost-effective methods to reduce enteric CH4 production from cattle. We conclude that enteric CH4 emissions per unit of ECM, GEI, and ADG, as well as rumen fermentation profiles, show great potential for estimating enteric CH4 emissions.

Climate Smart Regenerative Agriculture to Produce Sustainable Beauty Products: The Case Study of Snail Secretion Filtrate (LX360®)

In the last years, the environmental impacts of cosmetics production have received growing interest from consumers, industries and the scientific community. Therefore, the selection and evaluation of more sustainable ingredients for cosmetic preparations need greater attention. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the environmental impact of snail secretion filtrate (LX360®), which could be used as an alternative cosmetic ingredient. The Carbon Footprint (CF) was used to quantify the kgCO2eq per liter of the LX360® produced in a rearing system farm that follows circularity economy and regenerative agriculture principles. The study computes the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock change due to the implementation of regenerative agricultural practices. The CF of the production system was up to 1.76 kg CO2eq L−1, where the extraction stage contributed most. Findings on SOC stock showed a significant increase compared to the previous land-use. The net sequestered CO2 into the soil amounts to 2.07 kg CO2eq L−1; therefore, the production of LX360® showed a positive carbon balance (0.31 kg CO2eq L−1). The application of regenerative agriculture in snail rearing systems positively affects SOC sequestration, and it should be considered as a best management practice for the restoration of degraded land.

Voisin Rational Grazing as a Sustainable Alternative for Livestock Production

Current livestock practices do not meet current real-world social and environmental requirements, pushing farmers away from rural areas and only sustaining high productivity through the overuse of fossil fuels, causing numerous environmental side effects. In this narrative review, we explore how the Voisin Rational Grazing (VRG) system responds to this problem. VRG is an agroecological system based on four principles that maximise pasture growth and ruminant intake, while, at the same time, maintaining system sustainability. It applies a wide range of regenerative agricultural practices, such as the use of multispecies swards combined with agroforestry. Planning allows grazing to take place when pastures reach their optimal resting period, thus promoting vigorous pasture regrowth. Moreover, paddocks are designed in a way that allow animals to have free access to water and shade, improving overall animal welfare. In combination, these practices result in increased soil C uptake and soil health, boost water retention, and protect water quality. VRG may be used to provide ecosystem services that mitigate some of the current global challenges and create opportunities for farmers to apply greener practices and become more resilient. It can be said that VRG practitioners are part of the initiatives that are rethinking modern livestock agriculture. Its main challenges, however, arise from social constraints. More specifically, local incentives and initiatives that encourage farmers to take an interest in the ecological processes involved in livestock farming are still lacking. Little research has been conducted to validate the empirical evidence of VRG benefits on animal performance or to overcome VRG limitations.

Animal board invited review - Beef for future: technologies for a sustainable and profitable beef industry

The global consumption, notably in developing countries, and production of beef are increasing continuously, and this requires the industry to improve performance and to reduce the environmental impact of the production chain. Since the improvement in efficiency and the highest impacts occur at farm level, it is appropriate to focus on the profitability and environmental sustainability of these enterprises. In many areas of the world, beef production is economically and socially relevant because it accounts for a significant portion of the agricultural production and represents a vital economic activity in mountain and hill districts of many regions, where few alternatives for other agricultural production exist. Due to the important role in the agricultural and food economy worldwide, the future of the beef industry is linked to the reduction of ecological impacts, mainly adopting the agroecological mitigation practices, and the simultaneous improvement of production performances and of product quality. This review analyses the technical and managerial solutions currently available to increase the efficiency of the beef industry and, at the same time, to reduce its environmental impacts in response to the growing concerns and awareness of citizens and consumers.

Modeling the effects of steroid implant use on the environmental and economic sustainability of Brazilian beef production

Brazilian beef systems contribute 14.9% of global beef production, therefore given climate change concerns, there is a clear need to reduce environmental impacts while maintaining economic viability. This study evaluated the hypothesis that steroid implant use in Brazilian beef cattle would reduce resource use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and economic costs of production, thereby improving environmental and economic sustainability. A deterministic model based on beef cattle population demographics, nutrition and performance was used to quantify resource inputs and GHG emissions per 1.0 × 106 kg of hot carcass weight (HCW) beef. System boundaries extended from cropping input manufacture to cattle arriving at the slaughterhouse. Beef systems were modeled using herd population dynamics, feed and performance data sourced from producers in four Brazilian states, with additional data from global databases. Implants were used in calves, growing and finishing cattle at low (LI), medium (MI), and high (HI) levels of performance enhancement, compared to nonimplanted (NI) controls. Feed use results were used in combination with producer-derived input costs to assess the economic impacts of implant use, including production costs and returns on investment. Improved FCE, ADG, and carcass weights conferred by implant use reduced the number of cattle and the time taken to produce 1.0 × 106 kg HCW beef. Compared to NI controls, the quantities of feed, land, water and fossil fuels required to produce 1.0 × 106 kg HCW beef was reduced in implanted cattle, with reductions proportional to the performance-enhancing effect of the implant (HI > MI > LI). Implant use reduced GHG emissions per 1.0 × 106 kg HCW beef by 9.4% (LI), 12.6% (MI), or 15.8% (HI). Scaling up the MI effects to represent all eligible Brazilian cattle being implanted, revealed avoided GHG emissions equivalent to the annual exhaust emissions of 62.0 × 106 cars. Economic impacts of implant use reflected the environmental results, resulting in a greater margin for the producers within each system (cow-calf through to finishing). The 6.13% increase in kg of HCW beef produced generates a cost reduction of 3.76% and an increase in the return on invested capital of 4.14% on average. Implants offer the opportunity for Brazilian beef producers to demonstrate their dedication to improving environmental and economic sustainability through improved productivity, although care must be taken to avoid negative trade-offs.

Effects of protein supplementation to steers consuming low-quality forages on greenhouse gas emissions

Providing supplements that enhance the efficiency of feed utilization can reduce methane (CH4) emissions from ruminants. Protein supplementation is widely used to increase intake and digestion of low-quality forages, yet little is known about its impact on CH4 emissions. British-cross steers (n = 23; initial body weight [BW] = 344 ± 33.9 kg) were used in a three-period crossover design to evaluate the effect of protein supplementation to beef cattle consuming low-quality forage on ruminal CH4, metabolic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, forage intake, and ruminal fermentation. Steers individually had ad libitum access to low-quality bluestem hay (4.6% crude protein [CP]) and were provided supplemental protein based on (dry matter basis): cottonseed meal (CSM; 0.29% of BW daily; 391 g/d CP), dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS; 0.41% of BW daily 563 g/d CP), or none (CON). Urea was added to DDGS to match rumen degradable protein provided by CSM. Ruminal CH4 and metabolic CO2 fluxes were obtained 2.4 ± 0.4 times per steer daily using an automated open-circuit gas quantification system (GreenFeed emission monitoring system; C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD). Forage intake increased (P < 0.01) with protein supplementation; however, no difference in forage intake (P = 0.14) was observed between CSM and DDGS treatments. Flux of CO2 (g/d) was greater (P < 0.01) for steers fed CSM and DDGS than for steers fed CON. Steers supplemented with CSM had greater (P < 0.01) CH4 emissions (211 g/d) than DDGS (197 g/d) both of which were greater (P < 0.01) than CON (175 g/d). Methane emissions as a proportion of gross energy intake (GEI) were lowest (P < 0.01) for DDGS (7.66%), intermediate for CSM (8.46%) steers, and greatest for CON (10.53%). Steers fed DDGS also had the lowest (P < 0.01) ruminal acetate:propionate ratio (3.60), whereas CSM (4.89) was intermediate, and CON (5.64) steers were greatest. This study suggests that the common practice of supplementing protein to cattle consuming low-quality forage decreases greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GEI.

Environmental impact of primary beef production chain in Colombia: Carbon footprint, non-renewable energy and land use using Life Cycle Assessment

In Colombia, the beef production chain accounts for approximately 11.6 million cattle heads and annually produces 933 million kg of the beef carcass. There are no life cycle assessment (LCA) studies that have evaluated the environmental performance of Colombian beef systems. The present study aimed to estimate the carbon footprint (CF), non-renewable energy use, and land use of 251 cow-calf and 275 fattening farms in Colombia. The study also aimed to identify the main hotspots of adverse environmental impacts and propose possible mitigation options and their cost-effectiveness. The impact categories were estimated using the 2006 IPCC and the 2019 Refinement to 2006 IPCC guidelines, databases, and locally estimated emission factors. The functional units used were 1 kg fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) and 1 kg live weight gain (LWG), leaving the farm gate. Three methods of allocating environmental burdens to meat and milk products were applied: economic, energy, and mass allocation. The adoption of improved pastures was considered a mitigation measure, and an economic assessment was performed to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of its establishment. A principal component multivariate analysis and a Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components were performed. The economic allocation method assigned a greater environmental burden to meat (83%), followed by energy content (80%) and mass production (73%). The largest sources of GHG emissions were enteric fermentation and manure deposited on pasture. Both cow-calf and fattening systems had a cluster of farms with better productivity, pasture and cattle management practices, and environmental performance. The CF for meat could be reduced by 33 to 56% for cow-calf and 21 to 25% for fattening farms, by adopting improved pastures. Therefore, our results suggest that GHG emissions can be reduced by adopting improved pastures, better agricultural management practices, efficient fertilizer usage, using the optimal stocking rate, and increasing productivity.

3-Nitrooxypropanol Decreased Enteric Methane Production From Growing Beef Cattle in a Commercial Feedlot: Implications for Sustainable Beef Cattle Production

Effects of the investigational methane (CH4) inhibitor 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) on animal performance, health and enteric CH4 production of beef cattle were evaluated in a commercial feedlot. Two concurrent studies were conducted: a large pen study (4,048 cattle, eight pen replicates per experimental group) to measure animal performance and health and a small pen study (a subset of 50 cattle from the large pen study, n = 25 per experimental group) to measure enteric CH4 emissions. Within the study, animals (body weight ± SD, 282 ± 8 kg) were assigned in a completely randomized design to one of two groups: control, fed a backgrounding diet (70% corn or barley silage, 30% steam-flaked barley grain concentrate; dry matter (DM) basis) and 3-NOP, fed the backgrounding diet containing 3-NOP. The treatment group in the large pen study was adapted to 3-NOP (12 ± 3 d) before receiving the final target level of 200 mg/kg of DM, which was fed for 108 ± 8 d. Animals in the small pen CH4 emissions study received a basal diet or a basal diet with 3-NOP, with the dose increased every 28 d: low (150 mg/kg DM; 1.27 g/d), medium (175 mg/kg DM; 2.25 g/d), and high (200 mg/kg DM; 2.75 g/d). Intake in the small pens was monitored by electronic feeding bunks and CH4 was measured using the GreenFeed system. In the large pen study, total weight gained, average daily gain, and animal health variables were not affected by 3-NOP, but DM intake (DMI) tended to decrease (P = 0.06) by 2.6% relative to control (8.07 kg/d), while gain:feed ratio tended to be improved (P = 0.06) by 2.5% relative to control (0.161 kg weight gain/kg DMI). In the small pen study, average daily consumption of 3-NOP increased with inclusion rate whereas average DMI was decreased by 5.4% (P = 0.02) compared with control (10.4 kg/d). On average, addition of 3-NOP decreased (P = 0.001) CH4 emissions (g/d) by 25.7% and yield (g CH4/kg DMI) by 21.7%. In conclusion, supplementing a backgrounding diet with 3-NOP decreased CH4 yield and tended to improve feed efficiency of beef cattle fed in a commercial feedlot with no negative impacts on animal health.

Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System

Regenerative agriculture is a newly codified approach to agriculture that emphasizes reducing reliance on exogeneous inputs, as well as restoring and enhancing ecosystem services such as soil carbon (C) sequestration. These regenerative agriculture principles suggest that modern livestock systems can be redesigned to better capitalize on animals' ecological niche as biological up cyclers and may be necessary to fully regenerate some landscapes. One example is a multispecies pasture rotation (MSPR) system, which symbiotically stacks multiple animal production enterprises (i.e., chickens, cattle, sheep, and pigs) on one landscape. We conducted a whole-farm life cycle assessment (LCA) of an MSPR in the southeastern United States that was originally converted from degraded cropland. We compared the production outputs, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land footprints, and soil health outcomes to a conventional, commodity (COM) production system of each respective species. Our 20-year MSPR chronosequence of soil C and other soil health indicators shows dramatic improvement since establishment, sequestering an average of 2.29 Mg C ha−1 yr−1. Incorporation of soil C sequestration into the LCA reduced net GHG emissions of the MSPR by 80%, resulting in a footprint 66% lower than COM. However, when comparing required land between the two systems for food production, MSPR required 2.5 times more land when compared to COM. Thus, while our model indicates that MSPR can simultaneously produce protein while regenerating land, a considerably greater land area is needed when compared to COM. Our results present an important yet paradoxical conclusion on land and food production balance. Should society prioritize an input-intensive, COM system that produces more food from a smaller yet degrading land base? Or, alternatively, should systems such as MSPR that produce less food on a larger, but more ecologically functional landscape be more highly prioritized? These complexities must be considered in the global debate of agricultural practice and land. Our results indicate MSPRs are a useful model for alternative livestock production systems with improved environmental outcomes, but in this study may present considerable land-use tradeoffs.

Beef cattle production impacts soil organic carbon storage

Grazing of natural rangeland and seeded pasture is an important feeding strategy for the Canadian beef cattle industry. As a consequence, beef cattle population has a direct influence on the proportion of land base maintained as perennial forage, which in turn changes soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. We examined historical relationships between the net change in SOC resulting from perennial/annual crop conversion and beef cattle populations. We observed strong negative linear relationships, both regionally and nationally, between the population of beef cattle and the estimated change in SOC (negative sign indicating soil C sink) resulting from the conversion of annual crops and vice versa. These relationships indicate that as beef cattle population declines there is a corresponding loss of SOC resulting from a reduction in the relative proportion of perennial to annual crops on the landscape. The annual C loss resulting from land use conversion was roughly equivalent to 62% (±13%) of the combined enteric and manure annual emissions of CH₄ and N₂O [(1400 (±440) kg CO₂ eq head^-1 yr^-1] resulting in net greenhouse gas emissions of 850 (±360) kg CO₂ eq head^-1 yr^-1. These results highlight the importance of an integrated analysis that considers land use conversion and its impact on SOC when assessing the environmental footprint associated with beef cattle production.

Effect of tannin-containing hays on enteric methane emissions and nitrogen partitioning in beef cattle1

The objective of this study was to determine whether feeding tannin-containing hays to heifers and mature beef cows influences enteric methane (CH4) emissions and nitrogen (N) excretion relative to feeding traditional legume and grass hays. Fifteen mature beef cows (Exp. 1) and 9 yearling heifers (Exp. 2) were each randomly assigned to treatment groups in an incomplete bock design with 2 periods and 6 types of hays with 3 hays fed each period (n = 5 cows and 3 heifers per treatment). Groups were fed tannin-containing [birdsfoot trefoil (BFT), sainfoin (SAN), small burnet (SML)] or non-tannin-containing [alfalfa (ALF), cicer milkvetch (CMV), meadow bromegrass (MB)] hays. Each period consisted of 14 d of adjustment followed by 5 d of sample collection. Nine cows and 9 heifers were selected for the measurement of enteric CH4 emissions (sulfur hexafluoride tracer gas technique), and excretion of feces and urine, while dry matter intake (DMI) was measured for all animals. The concentration of condensed tannins in SAN and BFT was 2.5 ± 0.50% and 0.6 ± 0.09% of dry matter (DM), respectively, while SML contained hydrolyzable tannins (4.5 ± 0.55% of DM). Cows and heifers fed tannin-containing hays excreted less urinary urea N (g/d; P < 0.001) and showed lower concentrations of blood urea N (mg/dL; P < 0.001) than animals fed ALF or CMV, indicating that tannins led to a shift in route of N excretion from urine to feces. Additionally, cows fed either BFT or CMV showed the greatest percentage of retained N (P < 0.001). Enteric CH4 yield (g/kg of DMI) from heifers (P = 0.089) was greatest for MB, while daily CH4 production (g/d) from heifers (P = 0.054) was least for SML. However, digestibility of crude protein was reduced for cows (P < 0.001) and heifers (P < 0.001) consuming SML. The results suggest that tannin-containing hays have the potential to reduce urinary urea N excretion, increase N retention, and reduce enteric CH4 emissions from beef cattle. The non-bloating tannin-free legume CMV may also reduce environmental impacts relative to ALF and MB hays by reducing N excretion in urine and increasing N retention.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Grazing Systems in Semi-Arid Rangelands of Central Argentina

The livestock sector can be a major contributor to the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Within the sector, beef production produces the largest proportion of the livestock sector’s direct emissions. The objective of this study was to assess the on-farm GHG emissions in semi-arid rangelands in Argentina and to identify the relationship between emissions and current farm management practices. A survey recorded detailed information on farm management and characteristics. Assessments of GHG emissions were based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2 protocols. The relationship between farm management and GHG emissions were identified using general linear models. Cluster analysis was used to identify groups of farms that differed from others in emissions and farm characteristics. Emissions per product sold were low on farms that had improved livestock care management, rotational grazing, received technical advice, and had high animal and land productivities. Emissions per hectare of farmland were low on farms that had low stocking rates, a low number of grazing paddocks, little or no land dedicated to improved pastures and forage crops, and low land productivity. Our results suggest that the implementation of realistic, relatively easy-to-adopt farming management practices has considerable potential for mitigating the GHG emissions in the semi-arid rangelands of central Argentina.

Distributions of emissions intensity for individual beef cattle reared on pasture-based production systems

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of livestock production systems is often based on inventory data for farms typical of a study region. As information on individual animals is often unavailable, livestock data may already be aggregated at the time of inventory analysis, both across individual animals and across seasons. Even though various computational tools exist to consider the effect of genetic and seasonal variabilities in livestock-originated emissions intensity, the degree to which these methods can address the bias suffered by representative animal approaches is not well-understood. Using detailed on-farm data collected on the North Wyke Farm Platform (NWFP) in Devon, UK, this paper proposes a novel approach of life cycle impact assessment that complements the existing LCA methodology. Field data, such as forage quality and animal performance, were measured at high spatial and temporal resolutions and directly transferred into LCA processes. This approach has enabled derivation of emissions intensity for each individual animal and, by extension, its intra-farm distribution, providing a step towards reducing uncertainty related to agricultural production inherent in LCA studies for food. Depending on pasture management strategies, the total emissions intensity estimated by the proposed method was higher than the equivalent value recalculated using a representative animal approach by 0.9-1.7 kg CO₂-eq/kg liveweight gain, or up to 10% of system-wide emissions. This finding suggests that emissions intensity values derived by the latter technique may be underestimated due to insufficient consideration given to poorly performing animals, whose emissions becomes exponentially greater as average daily gain decreases. Strategies to mitigate life-cycle environmental impacts of pasture-based beef productions systems are also discussed.

Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural food production to supply Indian diets: Implications for climate change mitigation

Agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally. The growing global population is putting pressure on agricultural production systems that aim to secure food production while minimising GHG emissions. In this study, the GHG emissions associated with the production of major food commodities in India are calculated using the Cool Farm Tool. GHG emissions, based on farm management for major crops (including cereals like wheat and rice, pulses, potatoes, fruits and vegetables) and livestock-based products (milk, eggs, chicken and mutton meat), are quantified and compared. Livestock and rice production were found to be the main sources of GHG emissions in Indian agriculture with a country average of 5.65 kg CO₂eq kg^-1 rice, 45.54 kg CO₂eq kg^-1 mutton meat and 2.4 kg CO₂eq kg^-1 milk. Production of cereals (except rice), fruits and vegetables in India emits comparatively less GHGs with <1 kg CO₂eq kg^-1 product. These findings suggest that a shift towards dietary patterns with greater consumption of animal source foods could greatly increase GHG emissions from Indian agriculture. A range of mitigation options are available that could reduce emissions from current levels and may be compatible with increased future food production and consumption demands in India.

Eco-Efficiency Model for Evaluating Feedlot Rations in the Great Plains, United States

Environmental impacts attributable to beef feedlot production provide an opportunity for economically linked efficiency optimization. Eco-efficiency models are used to optimize production and processes by connecting and quantifying environmental and economic impacts. An adaptable, objective eco-efficiency model was developed to assess the impacts of dietary rations on beef feedlot environmental and fiscal cost. The hybridized model used California Net Energy System modeling, life cycle assessment, principal component analyses (PCA), and economic analyses. The model approach was based on 38 potential feedlot rations and four transportation scenarios for the US Great Plains for each ration to determine the appropriate weight of each impact. All 152 scenarios were then assessed through a nested PCA to determine the relative contributing weight of each impact and environmental category to the overall system. The PCA output was evaluated using an eco-efficiency model. Results suggest that water, ecosystem, and human health emissions were the primary impact category drivers for feedlot eco-efficiency scoring. Enteric CH emissions were the greatest individual contributor to environmental performance (5.7% of the overall assessment), whereas terrestrial ecotoxicity had the lowest overall contribution (0.2% of the overall assessment). A well-balanced ration with mid-range dietary and processing energy requirements yielded the most eco- and environmentally efficient system. Using these results, it is possible to design a beef feed ration that is more economical and environmentally friendly. This methodology can be used to evaluate eco-efficiency and to reduce researcher bias of other complex systems.

A typological characterization of Canadian beef cattle farms based on a producer survey

The diverse nature of beef production was captured by establishing a farm typology based on an extensive survey of 1005 Canadian farms in 2011. The survey provided information on the type of operation, cattle numbers, feed storage and management, manure management, land use, producer demographics and attitudes to risk, and technology adoption. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to understand the relationships among variables and to statistically identify farm types. A total of 41 diagnostic variables from 133 survey questions were used to define 16 principal components explaining 68% of the variation. Cluster analysis yielded eight major clusters as distinct farm types. The largest number of farms (37%) was grouped as small-scale, part-time cow–calf operations. Mixed operations (crop–beef) were next most frequent (22%), followed by large cow–calf backgrounding (18%) and diversified cow–calf operations that included crop–beef mixed operations as well as off-farm activities (11%). Cow–calf operations that finished calves comprised 8% of the total farms surveyed. Extensive cow–calf backgrounding operations, large backgrounding/finishing operations, and large finishing operations represented the remaining 3% of the farms. The typology not only provides a strategy by which the Canadian beef cattle industry can be characterized, but also improves understanding of the diversity of farm management practices to help develop policies and beneficial management practices.

Cow-calf reproductive, genetic, and nutritional management to improve the sustainability of whole beef production systems

Optimizing efficiency in the cow-calf sector is an important step toward improving beef sustainability. The objective of the study was to use a model to identify the relative roles of reproductive, genetic, and nutritional management in minimizing beef production systems' environmental impact in an economically viable, socially acceptable manner. An economic and environmental diet optimizer was used to identify ideal nutritional management of beef production systems varying in genetic and reproductive technology use. Eight management scenarios were compared to a least cost baseline: average U.S. production practices (CON), CON with variable nutritional management (NUT), twinning cattle (TWN), early weaning (EW), sire selection by EPD using either on-farm bulls (EPD-B) or AI (EPD-AI), decreasing the calving window (CW), or selecting bulls by EPD and reducing the calving window (EPD-CW). Diets to minimize land use, water use, and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were optimized under each scenario. Increases in diet cost attributable to reducing environmental impact were constrained to less than stakeholder willingness to pay for improved efficiency and reduced environmental impact. Baseline land use, water use, and GHG emissions were 188 m, 712 L, and 21.9 kg/kg HCW beef. The NUT scenario, which assessed opportunities to improve sustainability by altering nutritional management alone, resulted in a simultaneous 1.5% reduction in land use, water use, and GHG emissions. The CW scenario improved calf uniformity and simultaneously decreased land use, water use, and GHG emissions by 3.2%. Twinning resulted in a 9.2% reduction in the 3 environmental impact metrics. The EW scenario allowed for an 8.5% reduction in the 3 metrics. The EPD-AI scenario resulted in an 11.1% reduction, which was comparable to the 11.3% reduction achieved by EPD-B in the 3 metrics. Improving genetic selection by using AI or by purchasing on-farm bulls based on their superior EPD demonstrated clear opportunity to improve sustainability. When genetic and reproductive technologies were adopted, up to a 12.4% reduction in environmental impact was achievable. Given the modeling assumptions used in this study, optimizing nutritional management while concurrently improving genetic and reproductive efficiency may be promising avenues to improve productivity and sustainability of U.S. beef systems.

The concordance between greenhouse gas emissions, livestock production and profitability of extensive beef farming systems

Here we examine the concordance among emissions, production and gross margins of extensive beef farming systems by modelling a range of scenarios for herd management, animal genotype and pasture nutritive quality. We based our simulations on a case-study farm in central Queensland, Australia, and studied the influence of interventions designed for emissions mitigation, increasing productivity, or increasing gross margin. Interventions included replacing urea supplementation with nitrate, finishing cattle on the perennial forage leucaena (L), herd structure optimisation (HO), higher female fecundity (HF), and a leucaena finishing enterprise that had net farm emissions equal to the baseline (leucaena equal emissions; LEE). The HO intervention reduced the ratio of breeding cows relative to steers and unmated heifers, and lowered the ratio of costs to net cattle sales. Gross margin of the baseline, nitrate, L, LEE, HO and HF scenarios were AU$146 000, AU$91 000, AU$153 000, AU$170 000, AU$204 000 and AU$216 000, respectively. Enterprises with early joining of maiden heifers as well as HO and HF further increased gross margin (AU$323 000), while systems incorporating all compatible interventions (HO, HF, early joining, LEE) had a gross margin of AU$315 000. We showed that interventions that increase liveweight turnoff while maintaining net farm emissions resulted in higher gross margins than did interventions that maintained liveweight production and reduced net emissions. A key insight of this work was that the relationship between emissions intensity (emissions per unit liveweight production) or liveweight turnoff with gross margin were negative and positive, respectively, but only when combinations of (compatible) interventions were included in the dataset. For example, herd optimisation by reducing the number of breeding cows and increasing the number of sale animals increased gross margin by 40%, but this intervention had little effect on liveweight turnoff and emissions intensity. However, when herd optimisation was combined with other interventions that increased production, gross margins increased and emissions intensity declined. This is a fortuitous outcome, since it implies that imposing more interventions with the potential to profitably enhance liveweight turnoff allows a greater reduction in emissions intensity, but only when each intervention works synergistically with those already in place.

Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011

Sheppard, S. C., Bittman, S., Donohoe, G., Flaten, D., Wittenberg, K. M., Small, J. A., Berthiaume, R., McAllister, T. A., Beauchemin, K. A., McKinnon, J., Amiro, B. D., MacDonald, D., Mattos, F. and Ominski, K. H. 2015. Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 305–321. Beef production in Canada is diverse in many dimensions with numbers of cattle per operation ranging over 10 000-fold, pasture usage from nil to 100%, and types of operations from solely cow–calf to exclusively feedlot finishing. This study summarizes management information obtained from a survey conducted in 2012 (about 2011) on 1009 beef operations in Canada. Many of the results clearly differentiate the practices in the Prairies from those in Ontario and Quebec. Compared to eastern Canada, the Prairies had earlier and shorter calving seasons, higher weaning weights, utilized more winter grazing with a variety of strategies, grew and fed more barley than corn, used more seasonal feeding areas and feedlots (and hence fewer barns), and more commonly spread manure in the fall. Many of the management practices used by cow–calf operations would have low environmental impact, including extensive use of grazing even in winter, low fertilizer inputs and feeding perennial forages with a high content of legumes. Some practices such as not covering forages or manure storage structures were common and could be changed to improve forage quality and reduce manure emissions. Most forage was harvested 3–7 d after full bloom. Earlier harvest has the potential to improve forage quality, which could reduce dependence on arable crops. Finishing operations used more housing, fed more arable-land crops and less perennial forages, and practiced little grazing. Rationale regarding the adoption of many of the management strategies was reported by the producers. For example, winter grazing was adopted primarily to reduce costs and labour, but for some it was also linked to a late calving season. Preferred sources of technical information included their own experience, farm print media, producer organisations and demonstrations at field days. The survey also identified several areas in which the industry may realize improved sustainability.

Win–win strategies for high beef quality, consumer satisfaction, and farm efficiency, low environmental impacts and improved animal welfare

Meat quality includes intrinsic qualities (the characteristics of the product itself) and extrinsic qualities (e.g. animal health and welfare, environmental impacts, price). There is still a high level of variability in beef palatability, which induces consumer dissatisfaction. We also observe a general trend towards an increasing importance of healthiness and safety (intrinsic) and environmental issues and animal welfare (extrinsic). Most grading systems describe carcasses using only animal traits (e.g. weight, conformation, fatness, animal age and sex). In North American and Asian countries, emphasis has been put on maturity and marbling. The European system is mainly based on yield estimation. The Meat Standards Australia grading scheme, which predicts beef palatability for each cut, proved to be effective in predicting beef palatability in many other countries. Some genetic markers are available to improve beef quality. In addition, gene and protein expression profiling of the bovine muscle revealed that the expression level of many genes and the abundance of many proteins may be potential indicators of muscle mass, tenderness, flavour or marbling of meat. The integration of all these parameters is likely to predict better beef palatability. The integration of extrinsic qualities in the prediction model increases the difficulty of achieving a global evaluation of overall meat quality. For instance, with respect to environmental issues, each feeding system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Despite this, win–win strategies have been identified. For example, animals that were less stressed at slaughter also produced more tender meat, and in some studies the most economically efficient farms had the lowest environmental impact. In other cases, there are trade-offs among and between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. In any case, the combination of the different integrative approaches appears promising to improve the prediction of overall beef quality. A relevant combination of indicators related to sensory and nutritional quality, social and environmental considerations (such as e.g. carbon footprint, animal welfare, grassland biodiversity, rural development) and economic efficiency (income of farmers and of other stakeholders of the supply chain, etc.) will allow the prediction of the overall quality of beef mainly for consumers but also for any stakeholder in the supply chain.

Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems

The farm level is the most appropriate scale for evaluating options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, because the farm represents the unit at which management decisions in livestock production are made. To date, a number of whole farm modelling approaches have been developed to quantify GHG emissions and explore climate change mitigation strategies for livestock systems. This paper analyses the limitations and strengths of the different existing approaches for modelling GHG mitigation by considering basic model structures, approaches for simulating GHG emissions from various farm components and the sensitivity of GHG outputs and mitigation measures to different approaches. Potential challenges for linking existing models with the simulation of impacts and adaptation measures under climate change are explored along with a brief discussion of the effects on other ecosystem services.

Life-cycle assessment of the beef cattle production system for the northern great plains, USA

A life-cycle assessment (LCA) model was developed to estimate the environmental impacts associated with four different U.S. Northern Great Plains (NPG) beef production systems. The LCA model followed a "cradle-to-gate" approach and incorporated all major unit processes, including mineral supplement production. Four distinct operation scenarios were modeled based on production strategies common to the NGP, and a variety of impacts were determined. The scenarios include a normal operation, early weaning of the calf, fast-tack backgrounding, and grassfed. Enteric emissions and manure emissions and handling were consistently the largest contributors to the LCA impacts. There was little variability between production scenarios except for the grassfed, where the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 37% higher due to a longer finishing time and lower finishing weight. However, reductions to GHG emissions (15-24%) were realized when soil organic carbon accrual was considered and may be a more realistic estimate for the NGP. Manure emissions and handing were primary contributors to potential eutrophication and acidification impacts. Mitigation strategies to reduce LCA impacts, including diet manipulation and management strategies (i.e., treatment of manure), were considered from a whole-systems perspective. Model results can be used for guidance by NGP producers, environmental practitioners, and policymakers.

The role of productivity in improving the environmental sustainability of ruminant production systems

The global livestock industry is charged with providing sufficient animal source foods to supply the global population while improving the environmental sustainability of animal production. Improved productivity within dairy and beef systems has demonstrably reduced resource use and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food over the past century through the dilution of maintenance effect. Further environmental mitigation effects have been gained through the current use of technologies and practices that enhance milk yield or growth in ruminants; however, the social acceptability of continued intensification and use of productivity-enhancing technologies is subject to debate. As the environmental impact of food production continues to be a significant issue for all stakeholders within the field, further research is needed to ensure that comparisons among foods are made based on both environmental impact and nutritive value to truly assess the sustainability of ruminant products.

The Influence of Climate, Soil and Pasture Type on Productivity and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity of Modeled Beef Cow-Calf Grazing Systems in Southern Australia

Simple Summary

Livestock production systems and the agricultural industries in general face challenges to meet the global demand for food, whilst also minimizing their environmental impact through the production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Livestock grazing systems in southern Australia are low input and reliant on pasture as a low-cost source of feed. The balance between productivity and GHG emission intensity of beef cow-calf grazing systems was studied at sites chosen to represent a range of climatic zones, soil and pasture types. While the climatic and edaphic characteristics of a location may impact on the emissions from a grazing system, management to efficiently use pasture can reduce emissions per unit product.

Abstract

A biophysical whole farm system model was used to simulate the interaction between the historical climate, soil and pasture type at sites in southern Australia and assess the balance between productivity and greenhouse gas emissions (expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents, CO₂-eq.) intensity of beef cow-calf grazing systems. Four sites were chosen to represent a range of climatic zones, soil and pasture types. Poorer feed quality and supply limited the annual carrying capacity of the kikuyu pasture compared to phalaris pastures, with an average long-term carrying capacity across sites estimated to be 0.6 to 0.9 cows/ha. A relative reduction in level of feed intake to productivity of calf live weight/ha at weaning by feeding supplementary feed reduced the average CO₂-eq. emissions/kg calf live weight at weaning of cows on the kikuyu pasture (18.4 and 18.9 kg/kg with and without supplementation, respectively), whereas at the other sites studied an increase in intake level to productivity and emission intensity was seen (between 10.4 to 12.5 kg/kg without and with supplementary feed, respectively). Enteric fermentationand nitrous oxide emissions from denitrification were the main sources of annual variability in emissions intensity, particularly at the lower rainfall sites. Emissions per unit product of low input systems can be minimized by efficient utilization of pasture to maximize the annual turnoff of weaned calves and diluting resource input per unit product.

The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from U.S. beef production

The objective of this study was to quantify the environmental and economic impact of withdrawing growth-enhancing technologies (GET) from the U.S. beef production system. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per 454 × 10(6) kg of beef. Two production systems were compared: one using GET (steroid implants, in-feed ionophores, in-feed hormones, and beta-adrenergic agonists) where approved by FDA at current adoption rates and the other without GET use. Both systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics, and production data from U.S. beef systems. The economic impact and global trade and carbon implications of GET withdrawal were calculated based on feed savings. Withdrawing GET from U.S. beef production reduced productivity (growth rate and slaughter weight) and increased the population size required to produce 454 × 10(6) kg beef by 385 × 10(3) animals. Feedstuff and land use were increased by 2,830 × 10(3) t and 265 × 10(3) ha, respectively, by GET withdrawal, with 20,139 × 10(6) more liters of water being required to maintain beef production. Manure output increased by 1,799 × 10(3) t as a result of GET withdrawal, with an increase in carbon emissions of 714,515 t/454 × 10(6) kg beef. The projected increased costs of U.S. beef produced without GET resulted in the effective implementation of an 8.2% tax on beef production, leading to reduced global trade and competitiveness. To compensate for the increase in U.S. beef prices and maintain beef supply, it would be necessary to increase beef production in other global regions, with a projected increase in carbon emissions from deforestation, particularly in Brazil. Withdrawing GET from U.S. beef production would reduce both the economic and environmental sustainability of the industry.

Is the Grass Always Greener? Comparing the Environmental Impact of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems

Simple Summary

The environmental impact of three beef production systems was assessed using a deterministic model. Conventional beef production (finished in feedlots with growth-enhancing technology) required the fewest animals, and least land, water and fossil fuels to produce a set quantity of beef. The carbon footprint of conventional beef production was lower than that of either natural (feedlot finished with no growth-enhancing technology) or grass-fed (forage-fed, no growth-enhancing technology) systems. All beef production systems are potentially sustainable; yet the environmental impacts of differing systems should be communicated to consumers to allow a scientific basis for dietary choices.

Abstract

This study compared the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per 1.0 × 10⁹ kg of hot carcass weight beef in conventional (CON), natural (NAT) and grass-fed (GFD) production systems. Production systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics and production data from U.S. beef production systems. Increased productivity (slaughter weight and growth rate) in the CON system reduced the cattle population size required to produce 1.0 × 10⁹ kg of beef compared to the NAT or GFD system. The CON system required 56.3% of the animals, 24.8% of the water, 55.3% of the land and 71.4% of the fossil fuel energy required to produce 1.0 × 10⁹ kg of beef compared to the GFD system. The carbon footprint per 1.0 × 10⁹ kg of beef was lowest in the CON system (15,989 × 10³ t), intermediate in the NAT system (18,772 × 10³ t) and highest in the GFD system (26,785 × 10³ t). The challenge to the U.S beef industry is to communicate differences in system environmental impacts to facilitate informed dietary choice.