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
  • [21] Environmental impacts of Italian beef production: A comparison between different systems
    Bragaglio, Andrea
    Napolitano, Fabio
    Pacelli, Corrado
    Pirlo, Giacomo
    Sabia, Emilio
    Serrapica, Francesco
    Serrapica, Maria
    Braghieri, Ada
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 172 : 4033 - 4043
  • [22] Economic and environmental feasibility of beef production in different feed management systems in the Pampa biome, southern Brazil
    Ruviaro, Clandio Favarini
    da Costa, Jaqueline Severino
    Florindo, Thiago Jose
    Rodrigues, Whanderson
    Bom de Medeiros, Giovanna Isabelle
    Vasconcelos, Paulo Sergio
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2016, 60 : 930 - 939
  • [23] Comparing the environmental efficiency of milk and beef production through life cycle assessment of interconnected cattle systems
    Mazzetto, Andre M.
    Bishop, George
    Styles, David
    Arndt, Claudia
    Brook, Robert
    Chadwick, Dave
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020, 277 (277)
  • [24] Environmental impact of beef sourced from different production systems - focus on the slaughtering stage: input and output
    Mogensen, Lisbeth
    Nguyen, Thu Lan T.
    Madsen, Niels T.
    Pontoppidan, Ole
    Preda, Teodora
    Hermansen, John E.
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 133 : 284 - 293
  • [25] Analysis of modern technologies commonly used in beef cattle production: Conventional beef production versus nonconventional production using meta-analysis
    Wileman, B. W.
    Thomson, D. U.
    Reinhardt, C. D.
    Renter, D. G.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2009, 87 (10) : 3418 - 3426
  • [26] Bioeconomic and sustainability performance of dairy-beef steer and heifer production systems differing in stocking rate
    Kearney, M.
    O'Riordan, E. G.
    Mcgee, M.
    Breen, J.
    Dunne, R.
    French, P.
    Crosson, P.
    LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, 2024, 287
  • [27] Metabolic modifiers as performance-enhancing technologies for livestock production
    Dunshea, F. R.
    D'Souza, D. N.
    Channon, H. A.
    ANIMAL FRONTIERS, 2016, 6 (04) : 6 - 14
  • [28] Environmental and productive performance of different blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) production regimes: Conventional, organic, an agroecological
    Montalba, Rene
    Vieli, Lorena
    Spirito, Florencia
    Munoz, Edmundo
    SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE, 2019, 256
  • [29] Environmental and economic performance assessment of integrated conventional solar photovoltaic and agrophotovoltaic systems
    Junedi, M. M.
    Ludin, N. A.
    Kathleen, P. R.
    Hamid, N. H.
    Hasila, J.
    Affandi, N. A. Ahmad
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2022, 168
  • [30] Carbon footprint of conventional and organic beef production systems: An Italian case study
    Buratti, C.
    Fantozzi, F.
    Barbanera, M.
    Lascaro, E.
    Chiorri, M.
    Cecchini, L.
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 576 : 129 - 137