Cradle-to-farm gate environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas

Consumption-Based Accounting for Tracing Virtual Water Flows Associated with Beef Supply Chains in the United States

Enhancing the environmental sustainability of food systems requires an understanding of both production- and consumption-based impacts. As food supply chains become increasingly complex and connected, they also present a unique context in which to understand the environmental impacts of consumption. This is critical for understanding the disconnect between production- and consumption-based impacts of food systems and ultimately designing, evaluating, and implementing interventions for improving security, resilience, and sustainability of food systems. Using publicly available datasets and an optimization-based framework, we present a county-to-county level network model of beef supply chains in the United States. The model is used to connect and attribute the consumption-based impacts of beef consumption to production in distant locations, specifically focusing on water-based impacts. We specifically focus on the beef system because of its importance in the diet of U.S. consumers and in environmental sustainability discourse. The findings from this work show the spatial disconnect between the consumption and production counties with approximately 22 billion m³ of blue virtual water being transferred for the year 2017, mainly from the northern and southern plains toward the coasts. These results highlight the importance of understanding environmental impacts from both production and consumption perspectives.

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.

Analysis of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Using Enogen Corn in Beef Cattle Rations

Agricultural production systems have been identified as significant sources of anthropogenic impacts across several environmental key performance indicators (KPIs). Livestock husbandry is growing in global importance as the demand for high-quality protein continues to increase. It is therefore imperative to have sustainable intensification technologies, and we describe one such technology. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of Enogen^® corn grain compared to conventional feed corn when used as an ingredient in backgrounding and feed yard beef rations using life cycle assessment. The project was conducted in compliance with ISO standards, including a third-party panel review. A series of scenarios were analyzed to evaluate the impacts of boundaries and functional units on the outcomes. The use of Enogen corn as a feed component in beef production showed a quantifiable benefit in terms of the sustainability metrics of primary interest in this study. The gate-to-gate improvements at the feed yard and backgrounding based on full field trial datasets from field trials conducted at Kansas State University and at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln showed 3.4 and 5.8 percent reductions in Global Warming Potential, respectively. It is particularly noteworthy that the improvement in feed conversion ratio at the feed yard results in approximately 6 percent improvement in the four key environmental performance metrics of beef production, which demonstrates potential for the sector to meet its sustainability targets.

Teff grass for continuous stocking in the Southern High Plains by growing beef steers receiving protein supplements

This experiment evaluated forage quality, total nutrient yield, water footprint, and growth performance of beef steers receiving protein supplements while grazing Teff grass ['Tiffany'Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] over two consecutive growing seasons. Each year, four 2.66-ha irrigated paddocks (experimental units) were stocked with crossbred beef steers (n = 5 per paddock, initial BW = 289 ± 30 for yr 1; and n = 6, initial BW = 286 ± 23 for yr 2) in a randomized complete block design and stocked continuously for 63 d. Daily supplements [0.45 kg/d of cottonseed meal (Control) enough to avoid a negative ruminal N balance; and 0.50% mean paddock BW animal-daily (approximately 1.65 kg) of sorghum-dried distillers grains plus solubles, (DDGS)] were randomly assigned to two paddocks each. Supplement did not influence forage neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber, crude protein, or in vitro true digestibility (P ≥ 0.54), except for a tendency (P = 0.08) for a numerical increase in NDF content of paddocks with steers that received DDGS supplementation. Paddock nutrient-yields were similar (P ≥ 0.43) between supplement treatments. Supplementation with DDGS produced greater (P = 0.01) cattle shrunk average daily gain (ADG). Predicted teff dry matter intake (DMI), net energy for maintenance (NE_m), and growth (NE_g) (P ≤ 0.03) were greater with cattle offered Control treatment. Predicted total DMI was similar (P = 0.14) although predicted dietary NE_m, NE_g, gain:feed, and total BW gain were greater (P ≤ 0.02) with DDGS. Predicted forage intake was greater (P ≤ 0.05) for cattle offered Control treatment. Teff nutrients remaining on d 56 were similar (P = 0.33) between treatments. Water footprint for total production of forage nutrient components did not differ (P ≥ 0.12) by treatments. Nutrient yield and water use efficiency of continuously stocked teff grass was not affected by supplemental regimen. Using DDGS as a supplement may increase BW gain through increased nutrient utilization without hindering teff nutrient production on a continuous stocking system.

Evaluation of Feed Strategies and Changes of Stocking Rate to Decrease the Carbon Footprint in a Traditional Cow-Calf System: A Simulation Model

One of the main production challenges associated with climate change is the reduction of carbon emissions. Increasing the efficiency of resource utilization is one way to achieve this purpose. The modification of production systems through improved reproductive, genetic, feed, and grazing management practices has been proposed to increase technical–economic efficiency, even though the “environmental viability” of these modifications has not always been evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of feeding and management strategies on the carbon footprint (CF) and economic variables in the traditional cow–calf system in southern Chile using a simulation model. The modifications evaluated corresponded to combinations of stocking rate, use of creep feeding practices with different supplementation levels, and the incorporation of feed additives to the supplement, using factorial experiments. Additionally, the scenarios were evaluated with and without carbon sequestration. The CF for the baseline scenarios was 12.5 ± 0.3 kg of CO_2−eq/kg of live weight (LW) when carbon sequestration was considered and 13.0 ± 0.4 kg of CO_2−eq/kg of LW in the opposite case. Changes in stocking rate, supplementation level, and consideration of carbon sequestration in pasture and soil had a significant effect on the CF in all simulated scenarios. The inclusion of additives in the supplement did not have a significant effect on production costs. With regard to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, incorporating canola oil presented the best average results. The model developed made the selection of environmentally viable feed strategies or management adaptations possible.

Small-scale integrated farming systems can abate continental-scale nutrient leakage

Beef is the most resource intensive of all commonly used food items. Disproportionate synthetic fertilizer use during beef production propels a vigorous one-way factory-to-ocean nutrient flux, which alternative agriculture models strive to rectify by enhancing in-farm biogeochemical cycling. Livestock, especially cattle, are central to these models, which advocates describe as the context most likely to overcome beef’s environmental liabilities. Yet the dietary potential of such models is currently poorly known. Here, I thus ask whether nitrogen-sparing agriculture (NSA) can offer a viable alternative to the current US food system. Focusing on the most common eutrophication-causing element, N, I devise a specific model of mixed-use NSA comprising numerous small farms producing human plant-based food and forage, the latter feeding a core intensive beef operation that forgoes synthetic fertilizer and relies only on locally produced manure and N fixers. Assuming the model is deployed throughout the high-quality, precipitation-rich US cropland (delimiting approximately 100 million ha, less than half of today’s agricultural land use) and neglecting potential macroeconomic obstacles to wide deployment, I find that NSA could produce a diverse, high-quality nationwide diet distinctly better than today’s mean US diet. The model also permits 70%–80% of today’s beef consumption, raises today’s protein delivery by 5%–40%, and averts approximately 60% of today’s fertilizer use and approximately 10% of today’s total greenhouse gas emissions. As defined here, NSA is thus potentially a viable, scalable environmentally superior alternative to the current US food system, but only when combined with the commitment to substantially enhance our reliance on plant food.

Is nutrient-sparing agriculture a viable alternative to the current U.S. food system? Using a model of nitrogen-sparing agriculture (NSA), this study finds that exclusive reliance on NSA could markedly improve the nutritional quality of the national diet, enhance protein availability, permit some beef consumption, and reduce eutrophication. It will require, however, substantially elevated reliance on plants as the backbone of the diet.

Canola Meal versus Soybean Meal as Protein Supplements in the Diets of Lactating Dairy Cows Affects the Greenhouse Gas Intensity of Milk

Soybean meal (SBM) and canola meal (CM) are protein supplements used in lactating dairy cow diets and, recently, an enteric methane-mitigating effect (i.e., lower Ym value) was reported for CM. Before recommending CM as a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategy, it is necessary to examine the net impact on total GHG emissions from milk production. The objective was to determine whether using CM rather than SBM in lactating dairy cow diets decreases GHG per kilogram of fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM), and whether the decrease depends upon where the meals are produced. Cradle to farm-gate life cycle assessments were conducted for a simulated dairy farm in eastern (Quebec) and western (Alberta) Canada. Scenarios examined the source of protein meal, location where meals were produced, and the methane-mitigating effect of CM. The Holos model was used to estimate GHG emissions from animals, manure, crop production, imported feeds, and energy use. GHG intensities (CO2e/kg FPCM) were 0.85-1.02 in the east and 1.07-1.11 in the west for the various scenarios, with enteric methane comprising 34 to 40% of total emissions. CM produced in western Canada with a low up-stream emission factor and low Ym value reduced CO2e/kg FPCM by 3% (western farm) to 6.6% (eastern farm) compared with SBM. We conclude that using CM rather than SBM in the diet of lactating dairy cows can be a GHG mitigation strategy depending upon where it is produced and whether it decreases enteric methane emissions.

Cattle and carcass performance, and life cycle assessment of production systems utilizing additive combinations of growth promotant technologies

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of beef production systems utilizing additive combinations of growth promotant technologies on animal and carcass performance and environmental outcomes. Crossbred steer calves (n =120) were stratified by birth date, birth weight, and dam age and assigned randomly to one of four treatments: 1) no technology (NT; control), 2) antibiotic treated (ANT; NT plus therapeutic antibiotics and monensin and tylosin), 3) implant treated (IMP; ANT plus a series of 3 implants, and 4) beta-agonist treated (BA; IMP plus ractopamine-HCl for the last 30 d prior to harvest). Weaned steers were fed in confinement (dry lot) and finished in an individual feeding system to collect performance data. At harvest, standard carcass measures were collected and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Yield Grade and Quality Grade were determined. Information from the cow-calf, growing, and finishing phases were used to simulate production systems using the USDA Integrated Farm System Model, which included a partial life cycle assessment of cattle production for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil energy use, water use, and reactive N loss. Body weight in suckling, growing, and finishing phases as well as hot carcass weight was greater (P < 0.05) for steers that received implants (IMP and BA) than non-implanted steers (NT and ANT). The average daily gain was greater (P < 0.05) for steers that received implants (IMP and BA) than non-implanted steers during the suckling and finishing phases, but no difference (P = 0.232) was detected during the growing phase. Dry matter intake and gain:feed were greater (P < 0.05) for steers that received implants than non-implanted steers during the finishing phase. Steers that received implants responded (P < 0.05) with a larger loin muscle area, less kidney pelvic and heart fat, advanced carcass maturity, reduced marbling scores, and a greater percentage of carcasses in the lower third of the USDA Choice grade. This was offset by a lower percentage of USDA Prime grading carcasses compared with steers receiving no implants. Treatments did not influence (P > 0.05) USDA Yield grade. The life cycle assessment revealed that IMP and BA treatments reduced GHG emissions, energy use, water use, and reactive nitrogen loss compared to NT and ANT. These data indicate that growth promoting technologies increase carcass yield while concomitantly reducing carcass quality and environmental impacts.

Eutrophication and climate change impacts of a case study of New Zealand beef to the European market

OBJECTIVE

Beef production in the Lake Taupō region of New Zealand (NZ) is regulated for nitrogen (N) leaching. The objectives of this study were to 1) evaluate the implications of nitrogen emission limitations on eutrophication and climate change impacts of NZ beef through its life cycle to a European market and uniquely link it to 2) estimation of the reduction in these impacts that can be funded by the consumer's willingness to pay (WTP) a premium for a low environmental-impact product.

METHOD

The cradle-to-market Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of NZ beef on the European market included beef production on farms, meat processing, packaging and transport stages. Various beef production systems in the Lake Taupō region were modelled: farm systems with and without regulated N leaching limits in place (using N fertiliser inputs of 0 and 100 kg N/ha/year respectively) using suckler beef or beef derived from surplus calves from a dairy farm. The FARMAX model was used to model farm productivity and profitability under these various scenarios, whereas the OVERSEER® model was used to model field/farm emissions (N, phosphorus (P)) and the NZ greenhouse gas (GHG) Inventory model was used to estimate total GHG emissions. Eutrophication and climate change impacts of NZ beef to the European market were calculated using recent regionalised LCA indicators. We estimated freshwater and marine eutrophication impacts of European beef using published N emissions to water and air. We estimated the European consumer's WTP for beef with positive environmental attributes based on a meta-regression analysis based on 21 published studies and compared farmer's profit for the farm system scenarios.

RESULTS

When using common P-driven eutrophication indicators, the farms using 100 kg fertiliser-N/ha/year appeared to have a lower freshwater eutrophication impact than farms using no N fertiliser, which is in contradiction with the local freshwater policy for N regulations. When the contribution of both N and P were accounted for, the farms using no N fertiliser had the lowest estimated impact. Comparison with published environmental footprint of beef from Europe showed lower climate change and eutrophication impacts for NZ beef, thus showing potential positive environmental attributes for NZ beef. The European consumer's WTP (32% price premium) for such a beef product with low environmental impacts could offset the cost to farmers for implementing the reduction of N emissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Bridging the gap between local freshwater policy and LCA indicators starts by considering both P and N emissions and impacts. Combining an environmental LCA with an economic analysis revealed that the consumer willingness to pay could compensate for the environmental cost of protecting the lake that currently only the farmers are bearing.

Regional environmental assessment of dairy farms

A comprehensive, yet in depth, assessment is needed of the environmental impacts of dairy farms at regional and national scales to better track improvements made by the industry. With Pennsylvania as an example, a method using process-level simulation and cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment was developed and used to assess important environmental footprints of dairy farms within a state. Representative dairy farms of various sizes and management practices throughout 7 regions of the state were simulated with the Integrated Farm System Model. Environmental footprints varied widely among farms, with this variation influenced primarily by soil characteristics and climate and secondarily by farm management. Therefore, prescriptive mitigation strategies for individual farms are more effective than uniform enforcement of specific strategies across the state. Footprints for the whole state were determined by totaling values among farms and regions based on the amounts of milk produced by each. Pennsylvania dairy farms were determined to emit 4,555 with an uncertainty of ±415 Gg of CO₂ equivalent of greenhouse gas with an intensity of 0.99 ± 0.09 kg of CO₂ equivalent/kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk (FPCM) produced. Fossil energy consumption was 12,324 ± 1,946 TJ or 2.69 ± 0.42 MJ/kg of FPCM. Blue (nonprecipitation) water consumption was 64.1 ± 13.5 Tg with an intensity of 14.0 ± 3.0 kg/kg of FPCM. A total of all forms of reactive N loss was 43.2 ± 5.0 Gg with an intensity of 9.4 ± 1.1 g/kg of FPCM. These metrics were equivalent to 1.6% of the greenhouse gas emissions, 0.4% of fossil energy use, and 0.8% of fresh water consumption reported for the state. Thus, greenhouse gas emissions, fossil energy use, and blue water use associated with dairy farm production are relatively small compared with total estimates for the state. Perhaps the greatest environmental concern is that of ammonia emission, where dairy farms accounted for about half the estimated emissions of the state. This method can be applied to assessments of the dairy industry at larger regional and national scales.

Sustainability of safe foods: Joint environmental, economic and microbial load reduction assessment of antimicrobial systems in U.S. beef processing

Various antimicrobial interventions are applied sequentially in the beef processing industry to reduce microbial load on beef products by using intensive inputs (e.g., chemicals, energy), high strength wastewater, and potentially result in meat discoloration. This study serves as the first analysis to jointly evaluate environmental and economic assessment with its microbial load reduction of proposed antimicrobial systems in the U.S. beef processing industry to identify relatively sustainable systems that minimize environmental and economic impacts while providing microbial safe meat. Specifically, forty potential sequential antimicrobial systems were proposed and evaluated from three perspectives: microbial load reduction, environmental, and economic impacts, by meta-analysis, life cycle assessment, and operational cost analysis orderly. The results show that the antimicrobial systems applying steam pasteurization during the main intervention offer high microbial load reduction (>4.2 log CFU/cm² reduction from a hypothetical initial contamination at 5.0 log CFU/cm²). Human health impact (31.0 to 65.6%) and ecosystem toxicity (3.6 to 12.5%), eutrophication (11.9 to 15.5%) and global warming (6.4 to 22.2%) are the main contributors to the overall environmental single score among the forty antimicrobial systems. Antimicrobial chemicals (up to 82.8%), wastewater treatment (up to 12.7%), and natural gas (up to 10.7%) are the three major drivers of operational cost for sanitizing 1000 kg hot standard carcass weight (HSCW). Devalued (discolored) meat due to contact with heat from steam pasteurization or hot water wash has a considerable increase in economic ($4.5/1000 HSCW) and environmental (especially at farm stage) impacts. Certain antimicrobial systems (e.g., water wash followed by steam pasteurization) were found to be more promising with satisfactory effectiveness, better environmental and cost performance under uncertainty (1000 Monte Carlo simulations). Results from this study can guide the U.S. beef processing industry to advance sustainability while protecting human health from foodborne illness.

BEEF SPECIES-RUMINANT NUTRITION CACTUS BEEF SYMPOSIUM: A role for beef cattle in sustainable U.S. food production1

The increasing global population, limited resource availability, and global focus on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions put pressure on animal agriculture industries to critically evaluate and optimize the role they play in a sustainable food production system. The objective of this review is to summarize evidence of the various roles that the U.S. beef industry plays in the U.S. and global agricultural systems. As the world's largest beef producer, the United States reaps considerable economic benefit from the beef industry through strong domestic and international demand, as well as employment opportunities for many Americans. Beef production contributes to GHG emissions, land use, and water use, among other critical environmental impacts but provides an important source of essential micronutrients for human consumption. The U.S. beef industry provides sufficient product to meet the protein, vitamin B12, omega-3 and -6 fatty acid requirements of 43, 137, 47, and 487 million people, respectively. In the United States, beef production was estimated to account for 53% of GHG emissions from U.S. animal agriculture and 25% of GHG emissions from all of U.S. agriculture. Footprinting studies suggest that much of the land use and water use associated with beef production are attributed to the development of feed crops or pastureland. On a global scale, beef from U.S. origin is exported to numerous developed and developing countries, representing an important international nutrient routing. Along with other prominent beef-producing nations, the United States continues to pursue a greater level of sustainability in its cattle industry, which will bear important implications for future global food security. Efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of beef production will likely be the strongest drivers of enhanced sustainability.

Natural climate solutions for the United States

Limiting climate warming to <2°C requires increased mitigation efforts, including land stewardship, whose potential in the United States is poorly understood. We quantified the potential of natural climate solutions (NCS)-21 conservation, restoration, and improved land management interventions on natural and agricultural lands-to increase carbon storage and avoid greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. We found a maximum potential of 1.2 (0.9 to 1.6) Pg CO₂e year^-1, the equivalent of 21% of current net annual emissions of the United States. At current carbon market prices (USD 10 per Mg CO₂e), 299 Tg CO₂e year^-1 could be achieved. NCS would also provide air and water filtration, flood control, soil health, wildlife habitat, and climate resilience benefits.

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.