Judith L. Capper

The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007

Consumers often perceive that the modern beef production system has an environmental impact far greater than that of historical systems, with improved efficiency being achieved at the expense of greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of this study was to compare the environmental impact of modern (2007) US beef production with production practices characteristic of the US beef system in 1977. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per billion kilograms of beef. Both the modern and historical production systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics, and production data from US beef systems. Modern beef production requires considerably fewer resources than the equivalent system in 1977, with 69.9% of animals, 81.4% of feedstuffs, 87.9% of the water, and only 67.0% of the land required to produce 1 billion kg of beef. Waste outputs were similarly reduced, with modern beef systems producing 81.9% of the manure, 82.3% CH(4), and 88.0% N(2)O per billion kilograms of beef compared with production systems in 1977. The C footprint per billion kilograms of beef produced in 2007 was reduced by 16.3% compared with equivalent beef production in 1977. As the US population increases, it is crucial to continue the improvements in efficiency demonstrated over the past 30 yr to supply the market demand for safe, affordable beef while reducing resource use and mitigating environmental impact.

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

Simple Summary The environmental impact of three beef production systems was assessed using a deterministic model. Conventional beef production (finished in feedlots with growth-enhancing technology) required the fewest animals, and least land, water and fossil fuels to produce a set quantity of beef. The carbon footprint of conventional beef production was lower than that of either natural (feedlot finished with no growth-enhancing technology) or grass-fed (forage-fed, no growth-enhancing technology) systems. All beef production systems are potentially sustainable; yet the environmental impacts of differing systems should be communicated to consumers to allow a scientific basis for dietary choices. Abstract This study compared the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per 1.0 × 109 kg of hot carcass weight beef in conventional (CON), natural (NAT) and grass-fed (GFD) production systems. Production systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics and production data from U.S. beef production systems. Increased productivity (slaughter weight and growth rate) in the CON system reduced the cattle population size required to produce 1.0 × 109 kg of beef compared to the NAT or GFD system. The CON system required 56.3% of the animals, 24.8% of the water, 55.3% of the land and 71.4% of the fossil fuel energy required to produce 1.0 × 109 kg of beef compared to the GFD system. The carbon footprint per 1.0 × 109 kg of beef was lowest in the CON system (15,989 × 103 t), intermediate in the NAT system (18,772 × 103 t) and highest in the GFD system (26,785 × 103 t). The challenge to the U.S beef industry is to communicate differences in system environmental impacts to facilitate informed dietary choice.

A case study of the carbon footprint of milk from high-performing confinement and grass-based dairy farms

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is the preferred methodology to assess carbon footprint per unit of milk. The objective of this case study was to apply an LCA method to compare carbon footprints of high-performance confinement and grass-based dairy farms. Physical performance data from research herds were used to quantify carbon footprints of a high-performance Irish grass-based dairy system and a top-performing United Kingdom (UK) confinement dairy system. For the US confinement dairy system, data from the top 5% of herds of a national database were used. Life-cycle assessment was applied using the same dairy farm greenhouse gas (GHG) model for all dairy systems. The model estimated all on- and off-farm GHG sources associated with dairy production until milk is sold from the farm in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) and allocated emissions between milk and meat. The carbon footprint of milk was calculated by expressing GHG emissions attributed to milk per tonne of energy-corrected milk (ECM). The comparison showed that when GHG emissions were only attributed to milk, the carbon footprint of milk from the Irish grass-based system (837 kg of CO2-eq/t of ECM) was 5% lower than the UK confinement system (884 kg of CO2-eq/t of ECM) and 7% lower than the US confinement system (898 kg of CO2-eq/t of ECM). However, without grassland carbon sequestration, the grass-based and confinement dairy systems had similar carbon footprints per tonne of ECM. Emission algorithms and allocation of GHG emissions between milk and meat also affected the relative difference and order of dairy system carbon footprints. For instance, depending on the method chosen to allocate emissions between milk and meat, the relative difference between the carbon footprints of grass-based and confinement dairy systems varied by 3 to 22%. This indicates that further harmonization of several aspects of the LCA methodology is required to compare carbon footprints of contrasting dairy systems. In comparison to recent reports that assess the carbon footprint of milk from average Irish, UK, and US dairy systems, this case study indicates that top-performing herds of the respective nations have carbon footprints 27 to 32% lower than average dairy systems. Although differences between studies are partly explained by methodological inconsistency, the comparison suggests that potential exists to reduce the carbon footprint of milk in each of the nations by implementing practices that improve productivity.

A comparison of the environmental impact of Jersey compared with Holstein milk for cheese production1

The objective of this study was to compare the environmental impact of Jersey or Holstein milk production sufficient to yield 500,000 t of cheese (equivalent cheese yield) both with and without recombinant bovine somatotropin use. The deterministic model used 2009 DairyMetrics (Dairy Records Management Systems, Raleigh, NC) population data for milk yield and composition (Jersey: 20.9 kg/d, 4.8% fat, 3.7% protein; Holstein: 29.1 kg/d, 3.8% fat, 3.1% protein), age at first calving, calving interval, and culling rate. Each population contained lactating and dry cows, bulls, and herd replacements for which rations were formulated according to DairyPro (Agricultural Modeling and Training Systems, Cornell, Ithaca, NY) at breed-appropriate body weights (BW), with mature cows weighing 454 kg (Jersey) or 680 kg (Holstein). Resource inputs included feedstuffs, water, land, fertilizers, and fossil fuels. Waste outputs included manure and greenhouse gas emissions. Cheese yield (kg) was calculated according to the Van Slyke equation. A yield of 500,000 t of cheese required 4.94 billion kg of Holstein milk compared with 3.99 billion kg of Jersey milk-a direct consequence of differences in milk nutrient density (fat and protein contents) between the 2 populations. The reduced daily milk yield of Jersey cows increased the population size required to supply sufficient milk for the required cheese yield, but the differential in BW between the Jersey and Holstein breeds reduced the body mass of the Jersey population by 125×10(3) t. Consequently, the population energy requirement was reduced by 7,177×10(6) MJ, water use by 252×10(9) L, and cropland use by 97.5×10(3) ha per 500,000 t of cheese yield. Nitrogen and phosphorus excretion were reduced by 17,234 and 1,492 t, respectively, through the use of Jersey milk to yield 500,000 t of Cheddar cheese. The carbon footprint was reduced by 1,662×10(3) t of CO(2)-equivalents per 500,000 t of cheese in Jersey cows compared with Holsteins. Use of recombinant bovine somatotropin reduced resource use and waste output in supplemented populations, with decreases in carbon footprint equivalent to 10.0% (Jersey) and 7.5% (Holstein) compared with nonsupplemented populations. The interaction between milk nutrient density and BW demonstrated by the Jersey population overcame the reduced daily milk yield, thus reducing resource use and environmental impact. This reduction was achieved through 2 mechanisms: diluting population maintenance overhead through improved milk nutrient density and reducing maintenance overhead through a reduction in productive and nonproductive body mass within the population.

The Role of Productivity in Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Ruminant Production Systems

The global livestock industry is charged with providing sufficient animal source foods to supply the global population while improving the environmental sustainability of animal production. Improved productivity within dairy and beef systems has demonstrably reduced resource use and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food over the past century through the dilution of maintenance effect. Further environmental mitigation effects have been gained through the current use of technologies and practices that enhance milk yield or growth in ruminants; however, the social acceptability of continued intensification and use of productivity-enhancing technologies is subject to debate. As the environmental impact of food production continues to be a significant issue for all stakeholders within the field, further research is needed to ensure that comparisons among foods are made based on both environmental impact and nutritive value to truly assess the sustainability of ruminant products.

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

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.

Intramammary infections and teat canal colonization with coagulase-negative staphylococci after postmilking teat disinfection: Species-specific responses

Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) are the most common pathogens associated with intramammary infections (IMI) in dairy cows. We hypothesized that postmilking teat disinfection would reduce microbial colonization of the teat canal and thus reduce the prevalence of IMI caused by certain CNS species. The efficacy of iodine postmilking teat dip was tested against CNS colonization of the teat canal, and incidence of IMI was measured. Using an udder-half model, 43 Holstein cows at the Washington State University Dairy were enrolled in the trial; postmilking teat dip was applied to one udder-half, treatment (TX), and the remaining half was an undipped control (CX). Teat canal swabbing and mammary quarter milk samples were taken in duplicate once a week for 16 wk for microbial culture. Isolates from agar cultures were presumptively identified as CNS and then speciated using PCR-RFLP and agarose gel electrophoresis. Colonization of the teat canal and IMI by CNS were assessed. Thirty CNS IMI were diagnosed and the number of new IMI in CX quarters (21) was significantly greater than that in TX mammary quarters (9). The majority of CNS IMI were caused by Staphylococcus chromogenes (30%) and Staphylococcus xylosus (40%), and the latter were appreciably reduced by teat dip. Except for S. xylosus, an association was observed between teat canal colonization and IMI by all CNS species in this study, in which the majority of IMI were preceded by teat canal colonization. The total number of CNS IMI was greater for CX group cows compared with TX group cows. However, the effect of disinfection on IMI did not appear to be the same for all CNS species.

Bioethics Symposium: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture?

Contemporary animal agriculture is increasingly criticized on ethical grounds. Consequently, current policy and legislative discussions have become highly controversial as decision makers attempt to reconcile concerns about the impacts of animal production on animal welfare, the environment, and on the efficacy of antibiotics required to ensure human health with demands for abundant, affordable, safe food. Clearly, the broad implications for US animal agriculture of what appears to be a burgeoning movement relative to ethical food production must be understood by animal agriculture stakeholders. The potential effects of such developments on animal agricultural practices, corporate marketing strategies, and public perceptions of the ethics of animal production must also be clarified. To that end, it is essential to acknowledge that peoples beliefs about which food production practices are appropriate are tied to diverse, latent value systems. Thus, relying solely on scientific information as a means to resolve current debates about animal agriculture is unlikely to be effective. The problem is compounded when scientific information is used inappropriately or strategically to advance a political agenda. Examples of the interface between science and ethics in regards to addressing currently contentious aspects of food animal production (animal welfare, antimicrobial use, and impacts of animal production practices on the environment) are reviewed. The roles of scientists and science in public debates about animal agricultural practices are also examined. It is suggested that scientists have a duty to contribute to the development of sound policy by providing clear and objectively presented information, by clarifying misinterpretations of science, and by recognizing the differences between presenting data vs. promoting their own value judgments in regard to how and which data should be used to establish policy. Finally, the role of the media in shaping public opinions on key issues pertaining to animal agriculture is also discussed.

An environmental, economic, and social assessment of improving cattle finishing weight or average daily gain within U.S. beef production

The objective of this study was to assess environmental impact, economic viability, and social acceptability of 3 beef production systems with differing levels of efficiency. A deterministic model of U.S. beef production was used to predict the number of animals required to produce 1 × 10(9) kg HCW beef. Three production treatments were compared, 1 representing average U.S. production (control), 1 with a 15% increase in ADG, and 1 with a 15% increase in finishing weight (FW). For each treatment, various socioeconomic scenarios were compared to account for uncertainty in producer and consumer behavior. Environmental impact metrics included feed consumption, land use, water use, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), and N and P excretion. Feed cost, animal purchase cost, animal sales revenue, and income over costs (IOVC) were used as metrics of economic viability. Willingness to pay (WTP) was used to identify improvements or reductions in social acceptability. When ADG improved, feedstuff consumption, land use, and water use decreased by 6.4%, 3.2%, and 12.3%, respectively, compared with the control. Carbon footprint decreased 11.7% and N and P excretion were reduced by 4% and 13.8%, respectively. When FW improved, decreases were seen in feedstuff consumption (12.1%), water use (9.2%). and land use (15.5%); total GHGe decreased 14.7%; and N and P excretion decreased by 10.1% and 17.2%, compared with the control. Changes in IOVC were dependent on socioeconomic scenario. When the ADG scenario was compared with the control, changes in sector profitability ranged from 51 to 117% (cow-calf), -38 to 157% (stocker), and 37 to 134% (feedlot). When improved FW was compared, changes in cow-calf profit ranged from 67% to 143%, stocker profit ranged from -41% to 155% and feedlot profit ranged from 37% to 136%. When WTP was based on marketing beef being more efficiently produced, WTP improved by 10%; thus, social acceptability increased. When marketing was based on production efficiency and consumer knowledge of growth-enhancing technology use, WTP decreased by 12%-leading to a decrease in social acceptability. Results demonstrated that improved efficiency also improved environmental impact, but impacts on economic viability and social acceptability are highly dependent on consumer and producer behavioral responses to efficiency improvements.

Precision diet formulation to improve performance and profitability across various climates: Modeling the implications of increasing the formulation frequency of dairy cattle diets

The objective of this study was to use a precision nutrition model to simulate the relationship between diet formulation frequency and dairy cattle performance across various climates. Agricultural Modeling and Training Systems (AMTS) CattlePro diet-balancing software (Cornell Research Foundation, Ithaca, NY) was used to compare 3 diet formulation frequencies (weekly, monthly, or seasonal) and 3 levels of climate variability (hot, cold, or variable). Predicted daily milk yield (MY), metabolizable energy (ME) balance, and dry matter intake (DMI) were recorded for each frequency-variability combination. Economic analysis was conducted to calculate the predicted revenue over feed and labor costs. Diet formulation frequency affected ME balance and MY but did not affect DMI. Climate variability affected ME balance and DMI but not MY. The interaction between climate variability and formulation frequency did not affect ME balance, MY, or DMI. Formulating diets more frequently increased MY, DMI, and ME balance. Economic analysis showed that formulating diets weekly rather than seasonally could improve returns over variable costs by