+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

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

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

Animals 2(2): 127-143

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 × 10⁸ 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 × 10⁸ 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 × 10⁸ kg of beef compared to the GFD system. The carbon footprint per 1.0 × 10⁸ 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.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058170382

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26486913

DOI: 10.3390/ani2020127

Related references

Comparison of feeding systems: feed cost, palatability and environmental impact among hay-fattened beef, consistent grass-only-fed beef and conventional marbled beef in Wagyu (Japanese Black cattle). Animal Science Journal 82(2): 352-359, 2011

Quality of retail beef from two grass-based production systems in comparison with conventional beef. Meat Science 73(2): 351-361, 2006

The environmental impact of corn-fed vs. grass-fed beef finishing systems. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 686-686, 2010

Life cycle environmental consequences of grass-fed and dairy beef production systems in the Northeastern United States. Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 1619-1628, 2017

A comparison of silages made from red clover grass white clover grass and high nitrogen grass swards for beef production. Animal Production 40(2): 267-278, 1985

Quality of beef from grass-based production systems compared with beef from intensive production systems. Land use systems in grassland dominated regions Proceedings of the 20th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Luzern, Switzerland, 21-24 June 2004: 1151-1153, 2004

Feed costs and returns from beef calves produced under 2 different forage regimes grain sorghum m silage orchard grass m winter oats m sudan grass m bermuda grass m johnson grass m lespedeza d. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Report Series (177): 1-68, 1969

Comparing methods of grass utilisation for beef production. Agriculture in Northern Ireland: 47 (7) 226-231, 1972

Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. Journal of Animal Science 86(12): 3575-3585, 2008

Comparing aquatic and terrestrial grazing ecosystems is the grass really greener?. Oikos 122(2), 2013

Grass-clover vs grass-nitrogen forage systems for spring-calving beef cows. Louisiana Agriculture 37(5): 12-15, 1994

An economic assessment of the potential benefits of replacing grass by grass clover mixtures for 18 month beef systems. Grass & Forage Science 38(4): 273-282, 1983

Grassland systems and products with quality labels. III. Beef production on grass: what is the outlet for French beef cattle?. Fourrages ( 152): 409-416, 1997

Comparing experimental production systems under risk criteria: a legume based beef pasture system versus a nitrogen fertilizer grass based system. Dissertation AbstRacts International, A Humanities and Social Sciences 49(3): p.563, 1988

Grass and grass-alfalfa mixtures for beef production in Eastern Washington. WASHINGTON Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull, 444, 24, 1944