Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States

Pelletier, Nathan; Pirog, Rich; Rasmussen, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009

Cited by 345 publications

(290 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

237

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The corresponding regions of the studies were completely different in terms of soil, weather conditions, management, pasture, animal genetics, and other factors. Despite the large differences among studies, reflecting differences in the boundaries of the systems and assumed farming practices, our results were consistent with those of Pelletier et al (2010). They considered a complete beef production system in which the fattening phase (more than 12 months) accounted for less than 36% of the total GHG emissions in the most efficient scenarios, similar to scenarios II, IV, V and VII of the current study and are the lowest CO 2 -e emitting scenarios.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Carbon footprint in different beef production systems on a southern Brazilian farm: a case study

Ruviaro

Léis²,

Lampert

et al. 2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe carbon footprint (CF) of beef production is one of the most widely discussed environmental issues within the current agricultural community due to its association with climate change. Because of these relevant and serious concerns, the beef cattle industry is under increasing pressure to reduce production or implement technological changes with significant consequences in terms of beef marketing. The goals of this study were to evaluate the CF per 1 kg of live weight gain (LWG) at the farm gate for different beef production systems in the southern part of Brazil. Aberdeen Angus beef-bred cattle were assigned to one of seven categories: natural grass; improved natural grass; natural grass plus ryegrass; improved natural grass plus sorghum; cultivated ryegrass and sorghum; natural grass supplemented with protein mineralised salt; and natural grass supplemented with protein-energetic mineralised salt. Monte Carlo analysis was employed to analyse the effect of variations of dry matter intake digestibility (DMID), total digestible nutrients (TDN) and crude protein (CP) parameters in methane (CH 4 ) enteric, CH 4 manure, nitrous oxide (N 2 O) manure and N 2 O N-fertiliser. The method used was a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) centred on the CF. The CF varied from 18.3 kg CO 2 equivalent/kg LWG for the ryegrass and sorghum pasture system to 42.6 kg CO 2 equivalent/kg LWG for the natural grass system, including the contributions of cows, calves and steers. Among all grassland-based cattle farms, production systems with DMID from 52 to 59% achieved the lowest CO 2 emissions and the highest feed conversion rate, thereby generating lower CH 4 and N 2 O emissions per production system. Because the feed intake and feed conversion rate are one of the most important production parameters in beef cattle production with an obvious risk of data uncertainty, accurate feed data, which include quantity and quality, are important in estimates of CF for LWG. The choice of adequate feeding strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may result in better environmental advantages.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Carbon footprint in different beef production systems on a southern Brazilian farm: a case study

Ruviaro

Léis²,

Lampert

et al. 2015

Journal of Cleaner Production

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pasture yields typically increase with irrigation (Waldron et al, 2002) or fertilization (Monaghan et al, 2005). Additionally, Pelletier et al (2010) demonstrated that improved forage utilization was positively correlated with reduced GHG emissions per kg of beef. The improvement in intensivelymanaged pasture yields facilitated the decreases in land use and GHG emissions observed.…”

Section: Land Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, predictions of increasing future climate variability are expected to impact forage production (Maracchi et al, 2005). The cow-calf sector grazes forage for the majority of the year and is responsible for most of beef production's environmental impact (Beauchemin et al, 2010;Pelletier et al, 2010). In the U.S., most cow-calf operations supplement cows with roughages for 90-180 d (USDA/APHIS, 2010), although the exact amount of supplement given per day and the frequency of supplementation is not known.…”

Section: Pasture Management Cow-calf Efficiency and Whole-system Susmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

White

Brady

Capper³

et al. 2014

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSystem sustainability balances environmental impact, economic viability and social acceptability. Assessment methods to investigate impacts of enterprise management and consumer decisions on sustainability of beef cattle operations are critically needed. Tools of this nature are especially important given the predictions of climate variability and the dependence of beef production systems on forage availability. A model optimizing nutritional and pasture management was created to examine the environmental impact of beef production. The model integrated modules calculating cradle-to-farm gate environmental impact, diet cost, pasture growth and willingness to pay (WTP). Least-cost diet and pasture management options served as a baseline to which environmental-impact reducing scenarios were compared. Economic viability was ensured by a constraint limiting change in diet cost to less than consumer WTP. Increased WTP was associated with improved social acceptability. Model outputs were evaluated by comparing to published data. Sensitivity analysis of the WTP constraint was conducted. A series of scenarios then examined how forecasted changes in precipitation patterns might alter forage supply and opportunities to reduce environmental impact in three regions in the United States. On a national scale, single-objective optimization indicated individual reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG), land use and water use of 3.6%, 5.4% and 4.3% were possible by changing diets. Multi-objective optimization demonstrated that GHG, land and water use could be simultaneously reduced by 2.3%. To achieve this change, cow-calf diets relied on grass hay, continuously-or rotationally-grazed irrigated and fertilized pasture as well as rotationally-grazed pasture. Stocker diets used rotationally-grazed, irrigated and fertilized pasture and feedlot diets used grass hay as a forage source. The model was sensitive to consumer WTP. When alternative precipitation patterns were simulated, opportunities to decrease the environmental impact of beef production in the Pacific Northwest and Texas were reduced by precipitation changes; whereas opportunities in the Midwest improved. Economic viability, rather than biological limitations, reduced the potential to improve environmental impact under future precipitation scenarios. Decreased spring rainfall resulted in lower pasture yields and required greater use of stored forages. Related increases in diet cost reduced opportunities to appropriate funds toward investment in environmental-impact reducing pasture management strategies. The model developed in this study is a robust tool that can be used to assess the impacts of enterprise management and consumer decisions on beef production sustainability.

show abstract

“…Thus, differences in the emission sources presented in Table 1 can largely be attributed to levels of N fertiliser application and to the manure management systems used. Similar to Foley et al (2011) and Beauchemin et al (2010), Pelletier et al (2010) showed that, regardless of production system, the cow-calf phase was the largest contributor to GHG emissions. The results showed that the pasture-based system had higher total GHG emissions than the feedlot-based system on a per unit live weight basis.…”

Section: Assessing Farm-scale Ghg Emissions and Potentials For Mitigamentioning

confidence: 75%

Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems

Prado

Crosson

Olesen

et al. 2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The farm level is the most appropriate scale for evaluating options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, because the farm represents the unit at which management decisions in livestock production are made. To date, a number of whole farm modelling approaches have been developed to quantify GHG emissions and explore climate change mitigation strategies for livestock systems. This paper analyses the limitations and strengths of the different existing approaches for modelling GHG mitigation by considering basic model structures, approaches for simulating GHG emissions from various farm components and the sensitivity of GHG outputs and mitigation measures to different approaches. Potential challenges for linking existing models with the simulation of impacts and adaptation measures under climate change are explored along with a brief discussion of the effects on other ecosystem services.Keywords: adaptation, farm-models, greenhouse gases, mitigation, ruminants ImplicationsWhole-farm models are valuable tools to study the feedback and feedforward interactions between mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adaptation to climate change for ruminant-based production systems. All of the processes affecting GHG emissions and farm productivity involve the cycling of C and N within the farm, most of which will be affected by climate change. However, not all farm models include such responses to climatic drivers, and there is a need for further development and testing of the models under diverse climatic conditions. Modelling of the complex interactions between farm components and the environment, including the socio-economic aspects, is instrumental for providing strategic direction to the development of climate and food-related policies. Despite the contribution of nontemperate livestock systems to total global GHG emissions, there is a dearth of specific farm models to assess GHG emissions from these regions. Modelling of soil carbon (C) fluxes is still largely absent or very simplified in many studies even though soil C has the potential to be the largest source or sink of C for grassland-based livestock systems. IntroductionAccording to The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Steinfeld et al., 2006) livestock production systems contribute about 18% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Livestock is also currently one of the fastest growing agricultural subsectors in developing countries (Thornton, 2010), with projections indicating that by 2050 worldwide animal production is expected to increase by 80% compared with 2005 (Alexandratos andBruinsma, 2012). Although demand for non-ruminant meat has been increasing more rapidly than that for ruminant meats and, consequently, the importance of grasslands in livestock production and trade has been declining, increased milk and beef demand, potentially produced via grassland-based systems, is expected to increase (Fiala, 2008;Thornton, 2010). It is thus projected that the global annual growth rate of beef until 2050 will be 1.2%, clos...

show abstract

Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States

Cited by 345 publications

References 36 publications

Carbon footprint in different beef production systems on a southern Brazilian farm: a case study

Carbon footprint in different beef production systems on a southern Brazilian farm: a case study

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

Whole-farm models to quantify greenhouse gas emissions and their potential use for linking climate change mitigation and adaptation in temperate grassland ruminant-based farming systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About