Abstruse

Between increasing public concerns over climatic change and heightened involvement of niche market beef on social media, the need for grass-fed beefiness has increased considerably. Withal, the demand increase for grass-fed beefiness has raised many producers' and consumers' concerns regarding product quality, economic viability, and ecology impacts that have thus far gone unanswered. Therefore, using a holistic approach, nosotros investigated the performance, carcass quality, financial outcomes, and environmental impacts of four grass-fed and grain-fed beef systems currently existence performed by ranchers in California. The treatments included i) steers stocked on pasture and feedyard finished for 128 d (CON); 2) steers grass-fed for 20 mo (GF20); 3) steers grass-fed for 20 mo with a 45-d grain finish (GR45); and four) steers grass-fed for 25 mo (GF25). The data were analyzed using a mixed model process in R with differences betwixt treatments adamant by Tukey HSD. Using carcass and performance information from these systems, a weaning-to-harvest life cycle assessment was developed in the Scalable, Process-based, Agronomically Responsive Cropping Systems model framework, to make up one's mind global warming potential (GWP), consumable water use, energy, smog, and land occupation footprints. Final body weight varied significantly between treatments (P < 0.001) with the CON cattle finishing at 632 kg, followed past GF25 at 570 kg, GR45 at 551 kg, and GF20 478 kg. Dressing percentage differed significantly between all treatments (P < 0.001). The DP was 61.viii% for CON followed by GR45 at 57.5%, GF25 at 53.4%, and GF20 had the lowest DP of 50.3%. Marbling scores were significantly greater for CON compared to all other treatments (P < 0.001) with CON marbling score averaging 421 (low-option ≥ 400). Breakeven costs with harvesting and marketing for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were $6.01, $8.98, $eight.02, and $8.33 per kg hot carcass weight (HCW), respectively. The GWP for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were four.79, 6.74, 6.65, and 8.31 CO2due east/kg HCW, respectively. H2o consumptive employ for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 933, 465, 678, and ane,250 50/kg HCW, respectively. Energy utilisation for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 18.7, 7.65, 13.8, and viii.85 MJ/kg HCW, respectively. Our results indicated that grass-fed beef systems differ in both animal performance and carcass quality resulting in environmental and economic sustainability trade-offs with no system having absolute superiority.

Lay Summary

Betwixt the influence of the "food elite" on social media and increasing public concerns over climate alter, consumer demand for grass-fed beefiness has increased considerably. Although many consumers perceive grass-fed beef as more environmentally friendly than grain-fed beefiness, there is a dearth of enquiry available to address these consumer claims. In guild to answer both consumer and producer concerns, we performed an experiment that evaluated the ecology footprint (i.due east., h2o, state, greenhouse gasses, and energy), beef quality, and economic outcome of iv beef cattle production systems on the West coast. The four systems included conventional beef finished on grain for 128 d, steers grass-fed for xx mo, steers grass-fed for 20-mo with a 45-d grain finish, and steers grass-fed for 25 mo. We plant that varying grass-fed and grain-fed production systems resulted in different ecology furnishings. The conventional system produced the lowest greenhouse gas footprint but required the highest free energy input. The grass-fed for xx mo used the to the lowest degree corporeality of water but produced the greatest greenhouse gas. In conclusion, this study illustrated the complexities underpinning beef sustainability; no system resulted in absolute economic, meat quality, and environmental superiority.

© The Writer(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Social club of Fauna Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail service: journals.permissions@oup.com.

© The Writer(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please eastward-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

You exercise not currently have access to this article.