Literature DB >> 22665660

The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from U.S. beef production.

J L Capper1, D J Hayes.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to quantify the environmental and economic impact of withdrawing growth-enhancing technologies (GET) from the U.S. beef production system. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per 454 × 10(6) kg of beef. Two production systems were compared: one using GET (steroid implants, in-feed ionophores, in-feed hormones, and beta-adrenergic agonists) where approved by FDA at current adoption rates and the other without GET use. Both systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics, and production data from U.S. beef systems. The economic impact and global trade and carbon implications of GET withdrawal were calculated based on feed savings. Withdrawing GET from U.S. beef production reduced productivity (growth rate and slaughter weight) and increased the population size required to produce 454 × 10(6) kg beef by 385 × 10(3) animals. Feedstuff and land use were increased by 2,830 × 10(3) t and 265 × 10(3) ha, respectively, by GET withdrawal, with 20,139 × 10(6) more liters of water being required to maintain beef production. Manure output increased by 1,799 × 10(3) t as a result of GET withdrawal, with an increase in carbon emissions of 714,515 t/454 × 10(6) kg beef. The projected increased costs of U.S. beef produced without GET resulted in the effective implementation of an 8.2% tax on beef production, leading to reduced global trade and competitiveness. To compensate for the increase in U.S. beef prices and maintain beef supply, it would be necessary to increase beef production in other global regions, with a projected increase in carbon emissions from deforestation, particularly in Brazil. Withdrawing GET from U.S. beef production would reduce both the economic and environmental sustainability of the industry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22665660     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2011-4870

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


  12 in total

1.  Effects of hormonal growth promotants on beef quality: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ian J Lean; Helen M Golder; Natasha M Lees; Peter McGilchrist; Jose E P Santos
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 2.  BEEF SPECIES-RUMINANT NUTRITION CACTUS BEEF SYMPOSIUM: A role for beef cattle in sustainable U.S. food production1.

Authors:  Claire B Gleason; Robin R White
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Cattle breed type and anabolic implants impact calpastatin expression and abundance of mRNA associated with protein turnover in the longissimus thoracis of feedlot steers.

Authors:  Caleb C Reichhardt; Chandler D Stafford; Jocelyn M Cuthbert; David S Dang; Laura A Motsinger; Mackenzie J Taylor; Reganne K Briggs; Tevan J Brady; Aaron J Thomas; Matthew D Garcia; Sulaiman K Matarneh; Kara J Thornton
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 3.338

4.  Feeding the combination of essential oils and exogenous α-amylase increases performance and carcass production of finishing beef cattle.

Authors:  Murillo A P Meschiatti; Vinícius N Gouvêa; Lucas A Pellarin; Camila D A Batalha; Marcos V Biehl; Tiago S Acedo; João R R Dórea; Luis F M Tamassia; Fredric N Owens; Flavio A P Santos
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Is the Grass Always Greener? Comparing the Environmental Impact of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems.

Authors:  Judith L Capper
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 6.  Hops (Humulus lupulus L.) Bitter Acids: Modulation of Rumen Fermentation and Potential As an Alternative Growth Promoter.

Authors:  Michael D Flythe; Isabelle A Kagan; Yuxi Wang; Nelmy Narvaez
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2017-08-21

7.  Increased mortality in groups of cattle administered the β-adrenergic agonists ractopamine hydrochloride and zilpaterol hydrochloride.

Authors:  Guy H Loneragan; Daniel U Thomson; H Morgan Scott
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Slow-Release Urea Supplementation on the Performance of Beef Cattle.

Authors:  Saheed A Salami; Colm A Moran; Helen E Warren; Jules Taylor-Pickard
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 2.752

9.  The Impact of Polyamine Precursors, Polyamines, and Steroid Hormones on Temporal Messenger RNA Abundance in Bovine Satellite Cells Induced to Differentiate.

Authors:  Caleb C Reichhardt; Lillian L Okamoto; Laura A Motsinger; Brian P Griffin; Gordon K Murdoch; Kara J Thornton
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 2.752

10.  Anabolic Implants Varying in Hormone Type and Concentration Influence Performance, Feeding Behavior, Carcass Characteristics, Plasma Trace Mineral Concentrations, and Liver Trace Mineral Concentrations of Angus Sired Steers.

Authors:  Caleb C Reichhardt; Elizabeth M Messersmith; Tevan J Brady; Laura A Motsinger; Reganne K Briggs; Brett R Bowman; Stephanie L Hansen; Kara J Thornton
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 2.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.