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
  • [31] Economic and environmental impacts of changes in culling parity of cows and diet composition in Japanese beef cow-calf production systems
    Oishi, Kazato
    Kato, Yohei
    Ogino, Akifumi
    Hirooka, Hiroyuki
    AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS, 2013, 115 : 95 - 103
  • [32] Environmental impacts of extensive and intensive beef production systems in Thailand evaluated by life cycle assessment
    Ogino, Akifumi
    Sommart, Kritapon
    Subepang, Sayan
    Mitsumori, Makoto
    Hayashi, Keisuke
    Yamashita, Takahiro
    Tanaka, Yasuo
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 112 : 22 - 31
  • [33] Grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef systems: performance, economic, and environmental trade-offs
    Klopatek, Sarah C.
    Marvinney, Elias
    Duarte, Toni
    Kendall, Alissa
    Yang, Xiang
    Oltjen, James W.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2022, 100 (02)
  • [34] Temperate pasture- or concentrate-beef production systems: steer performance, meat nutritional value, land-use, food-feed competition, economic and environmental sustainability
    Doyle, Peter
    O'Riordan, Edward G.
    McGee, Mark
    Crosson, Paul
    Kelly, Alan K.
    Moloney, Aidan
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, 2023, 161 (05): : 704 - 719
  • [35] Productivity and technical efficiency of suckler beef production systems: trends for the period 1990 to 2012
    Veysset, P.
    Lherm, M.
    Roulenc, M.
    Troquier, C.
    Bebin, D.
    ANIMAL, 2015, 9 (12) : 2050 - 2059
  • [36] Growth-promoting technologies decrease the carbon footprint, ammonia emissions, and costs of California beef production systems
    Stackhouse, K. R.
    Rotz, C. A.
    Oltjen, J. W.
    Mitloehner, F. M.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2012, 90 (12) : 4656 - 4665
  • [37] Comparative environmental analysis of sugar beet production using a solar-driven robot and conventional systems from a sustainability perspective
    Bruciene, Indre
    Savickas, Dainius
    Sarauskis, Egidijus
    CLEANER ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, 2024, 13
  • [38] Analysis of Energy Use and Environmental Impacts of Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) in Conventional and Bio-friendly Production Systems
    Babaeian, Mahdi
    Tavassoli, Abolfazl
    Rastegaripour, Fatemeh
    Rodrigo-Comino, Jesus
    Caballero-Calvo, Andres
    APPLIED FRUIT SCIENCE, 2025, 67 (01)
  • [39] ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL VIABILITY OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN DIFFERENT FEED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE PAMPA BIOME, SOUTHERN BRAZIL
    Ruviaro, Clandio Favarini
    da Costa, Jaqueline Severino
    Rodrigues, Whanderson
    Florindo, Thiago Jose
    Bom de Medeiros, Giovanna Isabelle
    Vasconcelos, Paulo Sergio
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT: BRINGING TOGETHER ENGINEERING AND ECONOMICS, 2015, : 476 - 482
  • [40] Global versus local environmental impacts of grazing and confined beef production systems
    Modernel, P.
    Astigarraga, L.
    Picasso, V.
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2013, 8 (03):