Advancing the quantitative characterization of farm animal welfare

Animal welfare is usually excluded from life cycle assessments (LCAs) of farming systems because of limited consensus on how to measure it. Here, we constructed several LCA-compatible animal-welfare metrics and applied them to data we collected from 74 diverse breed-to-finish systems responsible for 5% of UK pig production. Some aspects of metric construction will always be subjective, such as how different aspects of welfare are aggregated, and what determines poor versus good welfare. We tested the sensitivity of individual farm rankings, and rankings of those same farms grouped by label type (memberships of quality-assurance schemes or product labelling), to a broad range of approaches to metric construction. We found farms with the same label types clustered together in rankings regardless of metric choice, and there was broad agreement across metrics on the rankings of individual farms. We found woodland and Organic systems typically perform better than those with no labelling and Red tractor labelling, and that outdoor-bred and outdoor-finished systems perform better than indoor-bred and slatted-finished systems, respectively. We conclude that if our goal is to identify relatively better and worse farming systems for animal welfare, exactly how LCA welfare metrics are constructed may be less important than commonly perceived.

Reassessing the multiple values of lowland British floodplains

Ecosystem services provided by lowland British floodplains respectively under semi-natural conditions and converted for intensive maize production were assessed. Floodplains across lowland Britain have been extensively disconnected from river channels, depleting habitat for wildlife and other beneficial ecosystem services. Conservation measures are often regarded as costly constraints on economic and development freedoms whilst, conversely, conversion for intensive agricultural production is rewarded by markets despite many often-overlooked externalities. Maize growing has increased in Britain since the 1970s, initially for feedlot production of livestock and now increasingly for grant-aided biofuel production for anaerobic digestion. Comparative literature-based ecosystem service assessments using the RAWES (Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services) approach reveal that lowland British floodplains in semi-natural condition provide a wider range of provisioning services than those converted for monocultural intensive production of maize, in addition to a diversity of regulating, cultural and supporting service benefits that are lost or transformed into disservices when floodplains are converted for intensive maize growth. Benefits and disbenefits of floodplains managed under the two scenarios (semi-natural versus monocultural maize) are presented graphically as an intuitive means to support decision-makers. Monetisation of benefits would be risky, not merely due to uncertainties but as this may skew conclusions and subsequent decision-making towards maximisation of marketed or near-market services, consequently misrepresenting the diversity of values of whole socioecological floodplain systems. Management solutions protective of the societal values provided by floodplain ecosystem may include buffer zoning as a mitigation measure, but a more strategic solution may be zonation of land use based on suitability not only for crop production but recognising the full spectrum of societally beneficial ecosystem services demonstrated by RAWES assessment. A variety of drivers for a changing approach to floodplain farming - statutory, fiscal and self-beneficial - are highlighted, and are generically applicable beyond Britain with context-specific modification.

Grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef systems: performance, economic, and environmental trade-offs

Between increasing public concerns over climate change and heightened interest of niche market beef on social media, the demand for grass-fed beef has increased considerably. However, the demand increase for grass-fed beef has raised many producers' and consumers' concerns regarding product quality, economic viability, and environmental impacts that have thus far gone unanswered. Therefore, using a holistic approach, we investigated the performance, carcass quality, financial outcomes, and environmental impacts of four grass-fed and grain-fed beef systems currently being performed by ranchers in California. The treatments included 1) steers stocked on pasture and feedyard finished for 128 d (CON); 2) steers grass-fed for 20 mo (GF20); 3) steers grass-fed for 20 mo with a 45-d grain finish (GR45); and 4) steers grass-fed for 25 mo (GF25). The data were analyzed using a mixed model procedure in R with differences between treatments determined by Tukey HSD. Using carcass and performance data from these systems, a weaning-to-harvest life cycle assessment was developed in the Scalable, Process-based, Agronomically Responsive Cropping Systems model framework, to determine global warming potential (GWP), consumable water use, energy, smog, and land occupation footprints. Final body weight varied significantly between treatments (P < 0.001) with the CON cattle finishing at 632 kg, followed by GF25 at 570 kg, GR45 at 551 kg, and GF20 478 kg. Dressing percentage differed significantly between all treatments (P < 0.001). The DP was 61.8% for CON followed by GR45 at 57.5%, GF25 at 53.4%, and GF20 had the lowest DP of 50.3%. Marbling scores were significantly greater for CON compared to all other treatments (P < 0.001) with CON marbling score averaging 421 (low-choice ≥ 400). Breakeven costs with harvesting and marketing for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were $6.01, $8.98, $8.02, and $8.33 per kg hot carcass weight (HCW), respectively. The GWP for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 4.79, 6.74, 6.65, and 8.31 CO2e/kg HCW, respectively. Water consumptive use for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 933, 465, 678, and 1,250 L/kg HCW, respectively. Energy use for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 18.7, 7.65, 13.8, and 8.85 MJ/kg HCW, respectively. Our results indicated that grass-fed beef systems differ in both animal performance and carcass quality resulting in environmental and economic sustainability trade-offs with no system having absolute superiority.

Review: Analysis of the process and drivers for cellular meat production

Cell-based meat, also called 'clean', lab, synthetic or in vitro meat, has attracted much media interest recently. Consumer demand for cellular meat production derives principally from concerns over environment and animal welfare, while secondary considerations include consumer and public health aspects of animal production, and food security. The present limitations to cellular meat production include the identification of immortal cell lines, availability of cost-effective, bovine-serum-free growth medium for cell proliferation and maturation, scaffold materials for cell growth, scaling up to an industrial level, regulatory and labelling issues and at what stage mixing of myo-, adipo- and even fibrocytes can potentially occur. Consumer perceptions that cell-based meat production will result in improvements to animal welfare and the environment have been challenged, with the outcome needing to wait until the processes used in cell-based meat are close to a commercial reality. Challenges for cell-based meat products include the simulation of nutritional attributes, texture, flavour and mouthfeel of animal-derived meat products. There is some question over whether consumers will accept the technology, but likely there will be acceptance of cell-based meat products, in particular market segments. Currently, the cost of growth media, industry scale-up of specific components of the cell culture process, intellectual property sharing issues and regulatory hurdles mean that it will likely require an extended period for cellular meat to be consistently available in high-end restaurants and even longer to be available for the mass market. The progress in plant-based meat analogues is already well achieved, with products such as the ImpossibleTM Burger and other products already available. These developments may make the development of cellular meat products obsolete. But the challenges remain of mimicking not only the nutritional attributes, flavour, shape and structure of real meat, but also the changes in regulation and labelling.