Effect of farming practices for greenhouse gas mitigation and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems

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.

Reducing climate impacts of beef production: A synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions

The global demand for beef is rapidly increasing (FAO, 2019), raising concern about climate change impacts (Clark et al., 2020; Leip et al., 2015; Springmann et al., 2018). Beef and dairy contribute over 70% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), which collectively contribute ~6.3 Gt CO₂ -eq/year (Gerber et al., 2013; Herrero et al., 2016) and account for 14%-18% of human GHG emissions (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Gerber et al., 2013). The utility of beef GHG mitigation strategies, such as land-based carbon (C) sequestration and increased production efficiency, are actively debated (Garnett et al., 2017). We compiled 292 local comparisons of "improved" versus "conventional" beef production systems across global regions, assessing net GHG emission data from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. Our results indicate that net beef GHG emissions could be reduced substantially via changes in management. Overall, a 46 % reduction in net GHG emissions per unit of beef was achieved at sites using carbon (C) sequestration management strategies on grazed lands, and an 8% reduction in net GHGs was achieved at sites using growth efficiency strategies. However, net-zero emissions were only achieved in 2% of studies. Among regions, studies from Brazil had the greatest improvement, with management strategies for C sequestration and efficiency reducing beef GHG emissions by 57%. In the United States, C sequestration strategies reduced beef GHG emissions by over 100% (net-zero emissions) in a few grazing systems, whereas efficiency strategies were not successful at reducing GHGs, possibly because of high baseline efficiency in the region. This meta-analysis offers insight into pathways to substantially reduce beef production's global GHG emissions. Nonetheless, even if these improved land-based and efficiency management strategies could be fully applied globally, the trajectory of growth in beef demand will likely more than offset GHG emissions reductions and lead to further warming unless there is also reduced beef consumption.

Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint of pasture-based beef cattle production systems in the tropical region (Atlantic Forest biome)

The production of beef cattle in the Atlantic Forest biome mostly takes place in pastoral production systems. There are millions of hectares covered with pastures in this biome, including degraded pasture (DP), and only small area of the original Atlantic Forest has been preserved in tropics, implying that actions must be taken by the livestock sector to improve sustainability. Intensification makes it possible to produce the same amount, or more beef, in a smaller area; however, the environmental impacts must be assessed. Regarding climate change, the C dynamics is essential to define which beef cattle systems are sustainable. The objectives of this study were to investigate the C balance (t CO2e./ha per year), the intensity of C emission (kg CO2e./kg BW or carcass) and the C footprint (t CO2e./ha per year) of pasture-based beef cattle production systems, inside the farm gate and considering the inputs. The results were used to calculate the number of trees to be planted in beef cattle production systems to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The GHG emission and C balance, for 2 years, were calculated based on the global warming potential (GWP) of AR4 and GWP of AR5. Forty-eight steers were allotted to four grazing systems: DP, irrigated high stocking rate pasture (IHS), rainfed high stocking rate pasture (RHS) and rainfed medium stocking rate pasture (RMS). The rainfed systems (RHS and RMS) presented the lowest C footprints (-1.22 and 0.45 t CO2e./ha per year, respectively), with C credits to RMS when using the GWP of AR4. The IHS system showed less favorable results for C footprint (-15.71 t CO2e./ha per year), but results were better when emissions were expressed in relation to the annual BW gain (-10.21 kg CO2e./kg BW) because of its higher yield. Although the DP system had an intermediate result for C footprint (-6.23 t CO2e./ha per year), the result was the worst (-30.21 CO2e./kg BW) when the index was expressed in relation to the annual BW gain, because in addition to GHG emissions from the animals in the system there were also losses in the annual rate of C sequestration. Notably, the intensification in pasture management had a land-saving effect (3.63 ha for IHS, 1.90 for RHS and 1.19 for RMS), contributing to the preservation of the tropical forest.

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.