Literature DB >> 26020346

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

C A Rotz, S Asem-Hiablie, J Dillon, H Bonifacio.   

Abstract

A comprehensive national assessment of the sustainability of beef is being conducted by the U.S. beef industry. The first of 7 regions to be analyzed is Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. A survey and visits conducted throughout the region provided data on common production practices. From these data, representative ranch and feedyard operations were defined and simulated for the varying climate and soil conditions throughout the region using the Integrated Farm System Model. These simulations predicted environmental impacts of each operation including cradle-to-farm gate footprints for greenhouse gas emissions, fossil-based energy use, nonprecipitation water use, and reactive N loss. Individual ranch and feedyard operations were linked to form 28 representative production systems. A weighted average of the production systems was used to determine the environmental footprints for the region where weighting factors were developed based on animal numbers reported in the survey and agricultural statistics data. Along with the traditional beef production systems, Holstein steer and cull cow production from the dairy industry in the region were also modeled and included. The carbon footprint of all beef produced was 18.3 ± 1.7 kg CO2 equivalents (CO2e)/kg carcass weight (CW) with the range in individual production systems being 13 to 25 kg CO2e/kg CW. Energy use, water use, and reactive N loss were 51 ± 4.8 MJ/kg CW, 2,470 ± 455 L/kg CW, and 138 ± 12 g N/kg CW, respectively. The major portion of each footprint except water use was associated with the cow-calf phase; most of the nonprecipitation water use was attributed to producing feed for the finishing phase. These data provide a baseline for comparison as new technologies and strategies are developed and implemented to improve the sustainability of cattle production. Production information also will be combined with processing, marketing, and consumer data to complete a comprehensive life cycle assessment of beef.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26020346     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2014-8809

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


  4 in total

1.  Grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef systems: performance, economic, and environmental trade-offs.

Authors:  Sarah C Klopatek; Elias Marvinney; Toni Duarte; Alissa Kendall; Xiang Crystal Yang; James W Oltjen
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Natural climate solutions for the United States.

Authors:  Joseph E Fargione; Steven Bassett; Timothy Boucher; Scott D Bridgham; Richard T Conant; Susan C Cook-Patton; Peter W Ellis; Alessandra Falcucci; James W Fourqurean; Trisha Gopalakrishna; Huan Gu; Benjamin Henderson; Matthew D Hurteau; Kevin D Kroeger; Timm Kroeger; Tyler J Lark; Sara M Leavitt; Guy Lomax; Robert I McDonald; J Patrick Megonigal; Daniela A Miteva; Curtis J Richardson; Jonathan Sanderman; David Shoch; Seth A Spawn; Joseph W Veldman; Christopher A Williams; Peter B Woodbury; Chris Zganjar; Marci Baranski; Patricia Elias; Richard A Houghton; Emily Landis; Emily McGlynn; William H Schlesinger; Juha V Siikamaki; Ariana E Sutton-Grier; Bronson W Griscom
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 14.136

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

Authors:  Paula Toro-Mujica
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-06-09

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

Authors:  Lucia Holtshausen; Chaouki Benchaar; Roland Kröbel; Karen A Beauchemin
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 2.752

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.