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

被引:4
|
作者
Aboagye, Isaac A. [1 ,2 ]
Cordeiro, Marcos R. C. [1 ,2 ]
McAllister, Tim A. [3 ]
May, Matt L. [4 ]
Hannon, Sherry J. [4 ]
Booker, Calvin W. [4 ]
Parr, Sandi L. [4 ]
Schunicht, Oliver C. [4 ]
Burciaga-Robles, Luis O. [4 ]
Grimson, Tracey M. [4 ]
Boonstra, Emily [1 ,2 ]
Mengistu, Genet F. [1 ,2 ]
Fulawka, Deanne L. [1 ,2 ]
Ominski, Kim H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manitoba, Dept Anim Sci, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
[2] Natl Ctr Livestock & Environm, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
[3] Agr & Agri Food Canada, Lethbridge Res & Dev Ctr, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada
[4] Feedlot Hlth Management Serv Ltd, Okotoks, AB T1S 2A2, Canada
关键词
ammonia emissions; beef cattle; greenhouse gas emissions; land use; productivity-enhancing technologies; water use; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; DIRECT-FED MICROBIALS; EXOGENOUS FIBROLYTIC ENZYMES; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; AMMONIA EMISSIONS; CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS; RUMINAL FERMENTATION; ENTERIC METHANE; ESSENTIAL OILS; NITROGEN;
D O I
10.1093/tas/txac074
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of using conventional productivity-enhancing technologies (PETs) with or without other natural PETs on the growth performance, carcass traits, and environmental impacts of feedlot cattle. A total of 768 cross-bred yearling steers (499 +/- 28.6 kg; n = 384) and heifers (390 +/- 34.9 kg; n = 384) were offered a barley grain-based basal diet and divided into implanted or non-implanted groups. Steers were then allocated to diets that contained either: (i) no additive (control); natural feed additives including (ii) fibrolytic enzymes (Enz), (iii) essential oil (Oleo), (iv) direct-fed microbial (DFM), (v) DFM + Enz + Oleo combination; conventional feed additives including (vi) Conv (monensin, tylosin, and beta-adrenergic agonists [beta AA]); or Conv with natural feed additives including (vii) Conv + DFM + Enz; (viii) Conv + DFM + Enz + Oleo. Heifers received one of the first three dietary treatments or the following: (iv) probiotic (Citr); (v) Oleo + Citr; (vi) Melengesterol acetate (MGA) + Oleo + beta AA; (vii) Conv (monensin, tylosin, beta AA, and MGA); or (viii) Conv + Oleo (ConvOleo). Data were used to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions, as well as land and water use. Implant and Conv-treated cattle exhibited improvements in growth and carcass traits as compared to the other treatments (P < 0.05). Improvements in the performance of Conv-cattle illustrated that replacing conventional feed additives with natural feed additives would increase both the land and water required to satisfy the feed demand of steers and heifers by 7.9% and 10.5%, respectively. Further, GHG emission intensity for steers and heifers increased by 5.8% and 6.7%, and NH3 emission intensity by 4.3% and 6.7%, respectively. Eliminating the use of implants in cattle increased both land and water use by 14.6% and 19.5%, GHG emission intensity by 10.5% and 15.8%, and NH3 emission intensity by 3.4% and 11.0% for heifers and steers, respectively. These results demonstrate that the use of conventional PETs increases animal performance while reducing the environmental impacts of beef production. Restricting use would increase the environmental footprint of beef produced for both domestic and international markets.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Productivity-Enhancing Technologies. Can Consumer Choices Affect the Environmental Footprint of Beef?
    Aboagye, Isaac A.
    Cordeiro, Marcos R. C.
    McAllister, Tim A.
    Ominski, Kim H.
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (08)
  • [2] Modelling environmental impacts associated with the removal of productivity-enhancing technologies from Canadian feedlots: a case study
    Boonstra, Emily
    Aboagye, Isaac A.
    McAllister, Tim A.
    Legesse, Getahun
    Mengistu, Genet F.
    Fulawka, Deanne L.
    Cordeiro, Marcos R. C.
    Ribeiro, Gabriel O.
    McGeough, Emma
    Ominski, Kim H.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2023, 103 (03) : 249 - 261
  • [3] Performance-enhancing technologies of beef production
    Strydom, P. E.
    ANIMAL FRONTIERS, 2016, 6 (04) : 22 - 30
  • [4] The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from US beef production
    Capper, J. L.
    Hayes, D. J.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2012, 90 (10) : 3527 - 3537
  • [5] Effects of conventional and nonconventional growth-enhancing technologies for finishing feedlot beef steers
    Ribeiro, G. O.
    May, M. L.
    Parr, S. L.
    Schunicht, O. C.
    Burciaga-Robles, L. O.
    Hannon, S. J.
    Grimson, T. M.
    Booker, C. W.
    McAllister, T. A.
    APPLIED ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2020, 36 (04): : 524 - 536
  • [6] Cattle and carcass performance, and life cycle assessment of production systems utilizing additive combinations of growth promotant technologies
    Webb, Megan J.
    Block, Janna J.
    Harty, Adele A.
    Salverson, Robin R.
    Daly, Russell F.
    Jaeger, John R.
    Underwood, Keith R.
    Funston, Rick N.
    Pendell, Dustin P.
    Rotz, Clarence A.
    Olson, Kenneth C.
    Blair, Amanda D.
    TRANSLATIONAL ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2020, 4 (04) : 1 - 15
  • [7] Environmental and biodiversity effects of different beef production systems
    Angerer, Verena
    Sabia, Emilio
    von Borstel, Uta Koenig
    Gauly, Matthias
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2021, 289
  • [8] Use of Productivity Enhancing Technologies in Beef Steers Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity
    Fortier, Sydney S.
    McAllister, Tim A.
    Lardner, Herbert
    Alemu, Aklilu
    Legesse, Getahun
    Ominski, Kim
    McKinnon, John J.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2021, 99 : 79 - 79
  • [9] The Role of Productivity in Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Ruminant Production Systems
    Capper, Judith L.
    Bauman, Dale E.
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANIMAL BIOSCIENCES, VOL 1, 2013, 1 : 469 - 489
  • [10] Identification of beef production farms in the Pampas and Campos area that stand out in economic and environmental performance
    Modernel, P.
    Dogliotti, S.
    Alvarez, S.
    Corbeels, M.
    Picasso, V
    Tittonell, P.
    Rossing, W. A. H.
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2018, 89 : 755 - 770