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

Aboagye, Isaac A.; Cordeiro, Marcos R. C.; McAllister, Tim A.; May, Matt L; Hannon, Sherry J.; Booker, Calvin W.; Parr, S. L.; Schunicht, O. C.; Burciaga-Robles, L. O.; Grimson, Tracey M; Boonstra, Emily; Mengistu, Genet; Fulawka, Deanne L.; Ominski, Kim

doi:10.1093/tas/txac074

Cited by 3 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As water is the first limiting resource for many agricultural products, the efficient use of water in livestock production through any feed technology is very critical to sustainable animal production. The reduction in water use intensity observed in the present study was similar to that reported by Aboagye et al (2022) who reported an average of 14.6% reduction in water requirements when PETs were removed in a commercial feedlot for finishing cattle in western Canada. Similarly, Capper (2012) who estimated a 15.2% reduction in water requirements over the entire US production system as the "natural" production system was shifted to PET-raised beef cattle (0.573 vs. 0.486 m 3 per kg of beef).…”

Section: Water Usesupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Further, increased DMI may account for the decreased GHG emission intensity response in implanted steers compared with implanted heifers (Aboagye et al 2022). Similarly, an increased magnitude of reduction in the GHG emissions (kg CW −1 ) for implanted steers compared with heifers (13.7% vs. 9.6% reduction) was observed in a commercial feedlot for finishing beef cattle in western Canada (Aboagye et al 2022).…”

Section: Greenhouse Gas Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Daily NH 3 emissions from confined cattle housing (NH 3emissions, h ; Legesse et al 2018b;Aboagye et al 2022) were estimated as: NH 3emissions, h = TAN excreted × 0.9 × Feedlot temp adjustment × 17/14 (4) Feedlot temp adjustment = 1.041 average temp /1.041 17.7 (5) Can. J. Anim.…”

Section: Ammonia Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Water use associated with feed production was estimated based on water demand, green water (precipitation that evaporates or transpired through the crops), and blue water (irrigation) for each crop and the consumption (kg DM) of dietary ingredients (Legesse et al 2018a;Aboagye et al 2022). Gray water (freshwater pollution) was not included in the water footprint.…”

Section: Crop Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Capper (2012) who estimated a 15.2% reduction in water requirements over the entire US production system as the "natural" production system was shifted to PET-raised beef cattle (0.573 vs. 0.486 m 3 per kg of beef). Aboagye et al (2022) and Capper (2012) attributed the reduction in water use with PET to an increase in growth rate and slaughter weight. In our study, the reduced water use for PET cattle was attributed to increased ADG, resulting in fewer DOF.…”

Section: Water Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Modelling environmental impacts associated with the removal of productivity-enhancing technologies from Canadian feedlots: a case study

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions, land and water use associated with feedlot cattle ( n = 40 hd treatment−1 trial−1) treated with or without productivity-enhancing technologies were modelled for a multiyear study ( n = 4). Heifers (H) were assigned to the following treatments: (1) implanted (HTBA); (2) provided with melengestrol acetate (HMGA); (3) nonimplanted control, weight-adjusted (CON_Adj) to achieve the same final carcass weight (CW) as 1 (HCON_AdjTBA); or (4) CON_Adj to achieve the CW as 2 (HCON_AdjMGA). Steers (S) were assigned as follows: (1) implanted (STBA); (2) implanted and provided with ractopamine hydrochloride (SRAC; conducted in the last 2 years); (3) CON_Adj to achieve the same CW as 1 (SCON_AdjTBA); or (4) CON_Adj to achieve the same CW as 2 (SCON_AdjRAC). The GHG and NH3 emissions from HTBA, HMGA, STBA, and SRAC were 3.8%, 3.0%, 10.1%, and 8.5% lower and 4.3%, 2.9%, 7.4%, and 7.6% lower, respectively, than the respective control cattle. The land required to produce feed was also reduced by 6.6%, 4.8%, 9.9%, and 10.9%, while water use was reduced by 6.4%, 4.8%, 10.1%, and 11.1% for HTBA, HMGA, STBA, and SRAC, respectively. This modelling study clearly demonstrates that conventional beef production systems have a lower environmental footprint than nonconventional systems.

show abstract

Section: Water Usesupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Greenhouse Gas Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ammonia Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Crop Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Water Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Modelling environmental impacts associated with the removal of productivity-enhancing technologies from Canadian feedlots: a case study

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An assessment of the environmental sustainability of beef production in Canada

Aboagye,

Valappil,

Dutta

et al. 2024

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed the environmental impacts of beef cattle production and their effects on the overall sustainability of Canadian beef production. Cradle to farm gate, cradle to processor’s gate, and cradle to consumer plate life cycle assessments were carried out to quantify greenhouse gases (GHG), resource use (i.e., water, land, and fuel), and potential water and air pollution (i.e., freshwater eutrophication, terrestrial acidification and photochemical oxidants formation). Across the production chain, feed production had the greatest impact on most environmental indicators. The GHG intensity without dairy meat was estimated as 10.4 kg CO2-eq/kg live weight (LW), corresponding to 32.8 kg CO2-eq/kg consumed boneless beef. Including dairy meat reduced GHG intensity by 5.8% (0.6 kg CO2-eq/kg LW) compared to when it was excluded. Other environmental metrics per kg of LW were 657 L, 38.7 m2 annual crop-eq, 0.4 kg oil-eq, 2.6 kg P-eq, 115.9 kg SO2-eq, and 8.7 kg NOx-eq for water use, land use, fossil fuel use, freshwater eutrophication, terrestrial acidification, and photochemical oxidants, respectively. Data provide benchmarks for use in future regional and national assessments that are designed to encourage the adoption of sustainable management practices that can lower the environmental footprint of Canadian beef production.

show abstract

Mitigating Ammonia Deposition Derived from Open-Lot Livestock Facilities into Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park: State of the Science

Brandani,

Lee,

Auvermann

et al. 2023

Atmosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Northeast Colorado’s livestock operations have been identified as a major contributor to reactive nitrogen deposition in the Rocky Mountains National Park (RMNP). We present a review on the state of knowledge concerning the emission, transport, deposition, and mitigation of gaseous ammonia (NH3) from open-lot cattle feeding facilities located east of the Northern Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Gaseous NH3 mitigation strategies discussed are related to diet manipulation and management practices. Crude protein content of 11% and condensed tannins of 8% reduced the NH3 emission by 43% and 57%, respectively. Ambiguous results for NH3 mitigation by using water sprinklers have been reported—an increase in NH3 emission by 27% and decrease of 27 to 56%. Manure harvesting should be evaluated in terms of maintaining proper moisture content, and not necessarily as a mitigation option. The use of chemical and physical manure amendments has shown a wide range in NH3 mitigation effectiveness, ranging from 19 to 98% for chemical and 0 to 43% for physical amendments, respectively. The review outlined the scientific basis, practicality, and expected efficacy of each management practice. The most plausible management practices to reduce NH3 emissions from corral surfaces in cattle feedyards are presented.

show abstract

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

Cited by 3 publications

References 59 publications

Modelling environmental impacts associated with the removal of productivity-enhancing technologies from Canadian feedlots: a case study

Modelling environmental impacts associated with the removal of productivity-enhancing technologies from Canadian feedlots: a case study

An assessment of the environmental sustainability of beef production in Canada

Mitigating Ammonia Deposition Derived from Open-Lot Livestock Facilities into Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park: State of the Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About