Literature DB >> 21398565

Feedlot efficiency implications on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability.

K L Cooprider1, F M Mitloehner, T R Famula, E Kebreab, Y Zhao, A L Van Eenennaam.   

Abstract

The term sustainable has many meanings, but in agriculture it generally refers to some balance between environmental, social, and economic goals. The objective of this project was to quantify inputs and outputs to assess the sustainability implications of 2 feedlot cattle management systems: Never Ever 3 (NE3) and a conventional (CON) system using metabolic modifiers. Angus-cross steers (n=104) were stratified by BW (337 kg ± 17) and randomly assigned to 4 pens per treatment group. The NE3 cattle received no feed additives or implants, whereas CON were implanted with 100 mg of trenbolone acetate and 14 mg of estradiol benzoate on d 1 and 70, and were additionally fed monensin [330 mg/(animal·d)] and tylosin phosphate [90 mg/(animal·d)] in their ration throughout the course of the study, and ractopamine hydrochloride at 254 mg/(animal·d) for the last 29 d on feed. Cattle were shipped on a constant average pen weight basis (596 kg ± 32 BW). The CON cattle had greater ADG (1.81 vs. 1.35 kg, P < 0.01) and were on feed fewer days (146 vs. 188 d, P < 0.01) than the NE3 cattle. No significant differences were observed in HCW (P = 0.072) or dressing percentage (P=0.62) between treatments (P > 0.05); however, CON carcasses averaged larger ribeye area (87 vs. 80 cm(2), P < 0.01), greater Warner-Bratzler shear force measurement (WBSF; 3.46 vs. 3.19 kg, P < 0.01), and smaller USDA marbling score (5.4 vs. 6.2, P < 0.01), and less backfat thickness (1.64 vs. 1.84 cm, P < 0.05) and yield grade (3.38 vs. 3.95, P < 0.01) than NE3 carcasses. Overall, CON cattle consumed 393 kg less DM in the feedlot (1,250 vs. 1,643 kg; P < 0.05). No treatment effects were observed for daily methane (CH(4); P=0.62) or nitrous oxide (N(2)O; P=0.7) emissions per steer. Assuming a constant emission rate on a DMI basis throughout the course of the feedlot trial, CON feedlot management resulted in a 31% decrease in emissions per finished steer compared with NE3 management. Expressing CH(4) emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO(2)-eq) basis revealed a 1.10-kg CO(2)-eq difference per kilogram BW gain (5.02 kg of NE3 vs. 3.92 kg of CON) between the 2 feedlot management systems. Although the metabolic modifiers resulted in additional costs for the CON treatment group, the cost per kilogram of feedlot BW gain was significantly less ($1.12/kg vs. $1.35/kg; P < 0.05) than NE3. Both production systems satisfied some sustainability criteria, although neither concurrently fulfilled all of the environmental, social, and economic goals of agricultural sustainability.
© 2011 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21398565     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2010-3539

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  7 in total

1.  A meta-analysis of zilpaterol and ractopamine effects on feedlot performance, carcass traits and shear strength of meat in cattle.

Authors:  Ian J Lean; John M Thompson; Frank R Dunshea
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Economic assessments from experimental research trials of feedlot cattle health and performance: a scoping review.

Authors:  Andrea L Dixon; Christy J Hanthorn; Dustin L Pendell; Natalia Cernicchiaro; David G Renter
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2022-06-06

Review 3.  The Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation Strategies on Animal Welfare.

Authors:  Sara Shields; Geoffrey Orme-Evans
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 2.752

4.  Carbon Footprints for Food of Animal Origin: What are the Most Preferable Criteria to Measure Animal Yields?

Authors:  Gerhard Flachowsky; Josef Kamphues
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Traditional vs modern: role of breed type in determining enteric methane emissions from cattle grazing as part of contrasting grassland-based systems.

Authors:  Mariecia D Fraser; Hannah R Fleming; Jon M Moorby
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Effects of feeding lubabegron on gas emissions, growth performance, and carcass characteristics of beef cattle housed in small-pen environmentally monitored enclosures during the last 3 mo of the finishing period.

Authors:  J Scott Teeter; Samantha J Werth; Sandra L Gruber; John C Kube; Jacob A Hagenmaier; Janet B Allen; Cory T Herr; Michael S Brown; Dustin Boler; Anna C Dilger; Yongjing Zhao; Yuee Pan; Frank M Mitloehner
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 7.  Quantification of methane emitted by ruminants: a review of methods.

Authors:  Luis Orlindo Tedeschi; Adibe Luiz Abdalla; Clementina Álvarez; Samuel Weniga Anuga; Jacobo Arango; Karen A Beauchemin; Philippe Becquet; Alexandre Berndt; Robert Burns; Camillo De Camillis; Julián Chará; Javier Martin Echazarreta; Mélynda Hassouna; David Kenny; Michael Mathot; Rogerio M Mauricio; Shelby C McClelland; Mutian Niu; Alice Anyango Onyango; Ranjan Parajuli; Luiz Gustavo Ribeiro Pereira; Agustin Del Prado; Maria Paz Tieri; Aimable Uwizeye; Ermias Kebreab
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 3.338

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.