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

Investing in health to improve the sustainability of cattle production in the United Kingdom: A narrative review

Livestock health is a key concern for all food system stakeholders and has considerable impacts upon sustainable food production. Improving productivity means that a set quantity of milk or meat may be produced at a lower economic cost, using fewer resources and with reduced greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe); however, diseases that reduce yield, growth or fertility have the opposite effect. The purpose of this narrative review was to assess the breadth of economic and environmental sustainability information relating to cattle health within the literature and to discuss related knowledge gaps within the literature. The mechanisms by which improved awareness and investment can lead to improved cattle health both on-farm and across the wider cattle industry are also appraised; concluding with the opportunities and challenges still outstanding in improving sustainability through livestock health. The economic and environmental impacts of cattle health have not been sufficiently quantified in the literature to draw valid conclusions regarding the sustainability impact of different diseases. Where available, economic data tended to be dated or extremely variable. Furthermore, environmental analyses did not use consistent methodologies and principally focused on GHGe, with little attention paid to other metrics. Although reducing disease severity or occurrence reduced GHGe, published impacts of disease varied from 1% to 40% with little apparent association between GHGe and industry-wide economic cost. An urgent need therefore exists to standardise methodologies and quantify disease impacts using a common baseline with up-to-date data inputs. Given the threat of antimicrobial resistance, improving cattle health through technology adoption and vaccine use would be expected to have positive impacts on social acceptability, especially if these improvements rendered milk and meat more affordable to the consumer. Therefore, it is important for cattle producers and allied industry to take a proactive approach to improving cattle health and welfare, with particular focus on diseases that have the greatest implications for sustainability.

Anabolic Steroids in Fattening Food-Producing Animals—A Review

Simple Summary

Anabolic steroids significantly affect animal tissues and cause morphological and histological changes, which are often irreversible. This issue is currently a very hot topic, as the answers to the questions concerning the health of endangered animals and humans vary greatly from country to country. There is a need to further investigate whether the use of anabolic steroids in animal fattening threatens consumer health and to develop new tools for the detection of anabolic steroids in meat. One possibility for detection could be to observe histological changes in the tissues, which form a typical pattern of anabolic abuse. This review gathered information on the anabolic steroids most commonly used in animal fattening, the legislation governing this issue, and the main effects of anabolics on animal tissues.

Abstract

Anabolic steroids are chemically synthetic derivatives of the male sex hormone testosterone. They are used in medicine for their ability to support muscle growth and healing and by athletes for esthetic purposes and to increase sports performance, but another major use is in fattening animals to increase meat production. The more people there are on Earth, the greater the need for meat production and anabolic steroids accelerate the growth of animals and, most importantly, increase the amount of muscle mass. Anabolic steroids also have proven side effects that affect all organs and tissues, such as liver and kidney parenchymal damage, heart muscle degeneration, organ growth, coagulation disorders, and increased risk of muscle and tendon rupture. Anabolic steroids also have a number of harmful effects on the developing brain, such as brain atrophy and changes in gene expression with consequent changes in the neural circuits involved in cognitive functions. Behavioral changes such as aggression, irritability, anxiety and depression are related to changes in the brain. In terms of long-term toxicity, the greatest impact is on the reproductive system, i.e., testicular shrinkage and infertility. Therefore, their abuse can be considered a public health problem. In many countries around the world, such as the United States, Canada, China, Argentina, Australia, and other large meat producers, the use of steroids is permitted but in all countries of the European Union there is a strict ban on the use of anabolic steroids in fattening animals. Meat from a lot of countries must be carefully inspected and monitored for steroids before export to Europe. Gas or liquid chromatography methods in combination with mass spectrometry detectors and immunochemical methods are most often used for the analysis of these substances. These methods have been considered the most modern for decades, but can be completely ineffective if they face new synthetic steroid derivatives and want to meet meat safety requirements. The problem of last years is the application of “cocktails” of anabolic substances with very low concentrations, which are difficult to detect and are difficult to quantify using conventional detection methods. This is the reason why scientists are trying to find new methods of detection, mainly based on changes in the structure of tissues and cells and their metabolism. This review gathered this knowledge into a coherent form and its findings could help in finding such a combination of changes in tissues that would form a typical picture for evidence of anabolic misuse.

Environmental performance of commercial beef production systems utilizing conventional productivity-enhancing technologies

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of using conventional productivity-enhancing technologies (PETs) with or without other natural PETs on the growth performance, carcass traits and environmental impacts of feedlot cattle. A total of 768 cross-bred yearling steers (499 ± 28.6 kg; n = 384) and heifers (390 ± 34.9 kg; n = 384) were offered a barley grain-based basal diet and divided into implanted or non-implanted groups. Steers were then allocated to diets that contained either: (i) no additive (control); natural feed additives including (ii) fibrolytic enzymes (Enz), (iii) essential oil (Oleo), (iv) direct fed microbial (DFM), (v) DFM + Enz + Oleo combination; conventional feed additives including (vi) Conv (monensin, tylosin, and beta-adrenergic agonists [βAA]); or Conv with the natural feed additives including (vii) Conv + DFM + Enz; (viii) Conv + DFM + Enz + Oleo. Heifers received one of the first three dietary treatments or the following: (iv) probiotic (Citr); (v) Oleo + Citr; (vi) Melengesterol acetate (MGA) + Oleo + βAA; (vii) Conv (monensin, tylosine, βAA, and MGA); or (viii) Conv + Oleo (ConvOleo). Data were used to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions, as well as land and water use. Implant and Conv-treated cattle exhibited improvements in growth and carcass traits as compared to the other treatments (P < 0.05). Improvements in the performance of Conv-cattle illustrated that replacing conventional feed additives with natural feed additives would increase both the land and water required to satisfy the feed demand of steers and heifers by 7.9% and 10.5%, respectively. Further, GHG emission intensity for steers and heifers increased by 5.8% and 6.7%, and NH3 emission intensity by 4.3% and 6.7%, respectively. Eliminating the use of implants in cattle increased both land and water use by 14.6% and 19.5%, GHG emission intensity by 10.5% and 15.8%, and NH3 emission intensity by 3.4% and 11.0% for heifers and steers, respectively. These results demonstrate that use of conventional PETs increased animal performance while reducing environmental impacts of beef production. Restricting use would increase the environmental footprint of beef produced for both domestic and international markets.