LIFE BEEF CARBON: a common framework for quantifying grass and corn based beef farms' carbon footprints

Effect of slaughter age on environmental efficiency on beef cattle in marginal area including soil carbon sequestration: A case of study in Italian Alpine area

The production of beef carries significant environmental repercussions on a worldwide level. Considering that the production of beef in Alpine mountainous regions, such as South Tyrol (Italy), constitutes a modest yet progressively growing segment within the local agricultural sector focus must be put on minimizing the environmental impact of producing one kilogram of meat, while also accounting for the carbon sequestered by Alpine pastures in such marginal areas. To this end 20 beef farms distributed in the South Tyrolean region (Italy) were divided based on the age at slaughter of the beef cattle: 10 farms with a slaughter age of 12 months (SA12) and 10 farms with a slaughter age of 24 months (SA24). Live cycle assessment (LCA) approach was used, and the impact was estimated using two functional units (FU): 1 kg of live weight (LW) and 1 kg of carcass weight (CW). Global warming potential (GWP100, kg CO2-eq), acidification potential (AP, g SO2-eq), and eutrophication potential (EP, g PO4-eq) were investigated. Furthermore, within the account, the carbon sequestered by pastures and permanent grassland has been included for estimated the overall carbon footprint. In terms of GWP100, the SA12 system proved to be significantly lower for both two functional units under studies, with reductions of 8.5 % and 7.4 % in terms of LW and CW, respectively, compared to the SA24 system, specifically, the SA12 system showed an environmental impact in terms of GWP100 of 19.5 ± 1.1 kg CO2-eq/kg LW, which was significantly lower than the SA24 system that exhibited a value of 22.9 ± 1.1 kg CO2-eq/kg LW (P < 0.05). When accounting for the carbon sequestered within the system, the observed values in terms of GWP100 are significantly lower for SA12 compared to SA24, 17.6 ± 1.5 vs. 20.9 ± 1.5 kg CO2-eq/Kg LW (P < 0.05), and 29.2 ± 2.5 vs. 38.7 ± 2.5 kg CO2-eq/Kg CW (P < 0.01). These differences are due to less purchase of concentrated feed and greater use of natural resources such as pastures and permanent grasslands. The research indicated that the production of beef in the Alpine region of South Tyrol predominantly occurs within extensive parameters, leading to a satisfactory environmental profile, also including the C sequestration.

Assessing the environmental impacts of beef production chains integrating grazing and landless systems

Livestock production systems contribute significantly to environmental impacts at the global level, and meat consumption is projected to increase with the population. There is a need to reduce the impact of food production, including that from beef systems. Different production systems, ranging from traditional grazing to landless systems, coexist within the beef sector. Among these, mixed systems have emerged as a promising alternative. These mixed systems typically involve adult cattle in grazing systems alongside fattening calves in landless systems, potentially achieving higher productivity while reducing the overall environmental impacts. The first step towards proposing mitigation strategies involves identifying the impacts of the sector. This study aimed to estimate the main environmental impacts of four types of mixed beef systems based on the origin of the calves that are raised, fattened, and slaughtered. Using life cycle assessment, the study evaluated the environmental impacts from the cradle to the slaughterhouse gate, expressed per kilogram of carcass weight. The four systems assessed include suckler cow farms that fatten their own offspring (beef single farm, BSF), a system in which calves raised on a suckler farm are fattened on a different farm (beef fattening unit, BFU), and systems in which dairy calves are fattened on growing units, with calves either from Spain (dairy national, DN) or from farms located abroad (dairy abroad, DA). Primary data were obtained from representative surveys of farmers and slaughterhouses, and allocation between co-products was performed according to the updated guidelines of Environmental Product Declarations and the Product Category Rules for meat. Seven environmental impact categories were assessed: climate change, marine eutrophication, freshwater eutrophication, stratospheric ozone depletion, terrestrial acidification, photochemical ozone formation on ecosystems, and photochemical ozone formation on human health. The results indicate that meat production from BSF and BFU has greater environmental impacts than that from DN and DA systems, primarily due to the lower environmental burden allocated to dairy calves, whereas the contribution of slaughterhouse activities to the environmental impacts was minimal. This study highlights the importance of mitigating the environmental impacts associated with feed production, enteric fermentation, and manure management in beef systems. Future studies should consider potential environmental benefits of grazing animals such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity promotion.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Cattle Breeding Based on the Ecological Cycle Model

Over the past few decades, the supply of beef has increasingly become available with the great improvement of the quality of life, especially in developing countries. However, along with the demand for meat products of high quality and the transformation of dietary structure, the impact of massive agricultural greenhouse gas emissions on the environmental load cannot be ignored. Therefore, the objective of this study is to predict the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 10 million heads of beef cattle under both the ecological cycle model (EC model) and the non-ecological cycle model (non-EC model), respectively, in order to compare the differences between these two production models in each process, and thus explore which one is more sustainable and environmentally friendly. To this end, through the life cycle assessment (LCA), this paper performs relevant calculations according to the methodology of 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019 IPCC Inventories). The results have shown that the total GHG emissions of the non-EC model were almost 4 times higher than those of the EC model, and feed-grain cultivation and manure management were main emission sources in both models. The non-EC model produced significantly more emissions than the EC model in each kind of GHG, especially the largest gap between these two was in CO₂ emissions that accounted for 68.01% and 56.17% of the respective planting and breeding systems. This study demonstrates that the transformation of a beef cattle breeding model has a significant direct impact on cutting agricultural GHG emissions, and persuades other countries in the similar situation to vigorously advocate ecological cycling breeding model instead of the traditional ones so that promotes coordinated development between planting industry and beef cattle breeding industry.

The Genetics of Thermoregulation in Pigs: A Review

Heat stress (HS) affects pig performance, health and welfare, resulting in a financial burden to the pig industry. Pigs have a limited number of functional sweat glands and their thermoregulatory mechanisms used to maintain body temperature, are challenged by HS to maintain body temperature. The genetic selection of genotypes tolerant to HS is a promising long-term (adaptation) option that could be combined with other measures at the production system level. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the genetics of thermoregulation in pigs. It also discusses the different phenotypes that can be used in genetic studies, as well as the variability in thermoregulation between pig breeds and the inheritance of traits related to thermoregulation. This review also considers on-going challenges to face for improving heat tolerance in pigs.

Influence of various chilling methods on the sustainable beef production based on high voltage electrical stimulation

Among the challenges of sustainable management of meat production, the key issue is to improve the energy efficiency of production processes, which will consequently affect the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Such effects are achieved by combining various chilling systems with electrical stimulation that determines the quality of meat at the slaughter stage. The novelties of the research undertaken included determining the impact of various variants of meat production (chilling method: slow, fast, accelerated + HVES/NES) on changes in the basic (industrial) quality indicators (pH and temperature) of beef produced from Polish Holstein-Friesian breed cattle, and then indicating the optimal variant for energy-efficient (sustainable) beef production. The HVES and the fast chilling method yielded positive economic (meat weight loss), technological (high quality, hot-boning), energetic (lower electricity consumption), and organizational effects (reduced chilling and storage surfaces and expenditures for staff wages) compared to the slow and accelerated methods. Reaching the desired final temperature with an increased amount of chilled meat enables obtaining a few-fold decrease in the specific energy consumption and a higher energy efficiency of the process. This allows recommending the above actions to be undertaken by entrepreneurs in the pursuit of sustainable meat production.

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.

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.