- Biography – Jude Capper, PhD ARAgS Jude L. Capper, PhD ARAgS is an independent Livestock Sustainability Consultant b... moreBiography – Jude Capper, PhD ARAgS
Jude L. Capper, PhD ARAgS is an independent Livestock Sustainability Consultant based in Oxfordshire, UK, who undertook her BSc (Agriculture with Animal Science) and PhD (Ruminant Nutrition and Behaviour) at Harper Adams University College (UK), followed by post-doctoral research at Cornell University (USA) and a faculty position at Washington State University (USA).
Jude's research focuses on modeling the sustainability of livestock production systems, specifically dairy and beef, including quantifying changes made by improving productivity or adopting differing management practices. She is also currently working on projects relating to the impacts of medicines use on UK beef farms and the national and global impacts of livestock health and welfare on system sustainability.
Jude’s professional goal is to communicate the importance of factors affecting livestock industry sustainability to enhance the knowledge and understanding of food production stakeholders from the farmer through to the retailer, policy-maker and consumer. She has an active social media presence and spends a considerable amount of time de-bunking some of the more commonly-heard myths relating to livestock production. To this end, she was awarded the Women in Dairy “Dairy Industry Woman of the Year 2017” and the Farmers Guardian “Farming Hero of the Year 2018” awards, and was awarded Associate Membership of the Royal Agricultural Society in 2018.edit
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Meat Science, Science Communication, Dairy Science, Vegetarianism, Sex Hormones, and 15 moreVegetarian diets, Dairy Science and Technology, Dairy Nutrition, Ethical veganism, Veganism, Beef Consumption, Hormones, Beef production, Meat Production, Dairy, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Beef Cattle, Dairy Products, Feed Efficiency, and Feeding Efficiency
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Local food, Consumer Behavior, Brazil, Sex Hormones, Environmental Sustainability, and 14 moreLocal and regional food systems, Veganism, Animal Feed, Rainforests, Beef Consumption, Hormones, Beef production, Meat Production, Dairy, Soybean, Environmental Impact, Beef Cattle, Dairy Products, and Consumer Behaviour
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Meat Science, Dairy Science, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, and 15 moreDairy Nutrition, Beef Consumption, Beef production, Methane, Meat Production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Environmental Impact, Dairy cattle nutrition, Beef Cattle, Milk production, Dairy Products, Meat Science and Technology, and Milk production systems
Research Interests: Environmental Science, Meat Science, Dairy Science, Food and Nutrition, Food Production, and 22 moreAgriculture, Environmental Impact Assessment, Vegetarianism, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Ethical veganism, Sustainable Food Systems, Veganism, Beef Consumption, Vegan, Beef production, Meat Production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Beef Cattle, Climate change and sustainable food production, Dairy Products, Meatless Mondays and other myths, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Science Communication, Dairy Science, Animal Welfare, Farm Animal Welfare, Antibiotic Resistance, and 13 moreDairy Science and Technology, Dairy Nutrition, Dairy Technology &Food Technology, Animal health, Dairy, Dairy Calves, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Antibiotics, Dairy Technology, Dairy cattle nutrition, Artificial insemination, Dairy Products, and Somatic Cell Count
Research Interests: Science Communication, Dairy Science, Consumer Behavior, Sex Hormones, Environmental Sustainability, and 13 moreDairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Hormones, Beef production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Beef Cattle, Milk production, Dairy Products, and Consumer Behaviour
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Environmental Science, Communication, Meat Science, Science Communication, Dairy Science, and 21 moreConsumer Behavior, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Scientific and Technical Communication, Beef Consumption, Scientific Communication, Hormones, Beef production, Methane, Meat Production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Beef Cattle, Milk production, Dairy Products, Meat Science and Technology, and Consumer Behaviour
Research Interests: Science Communication, Dairy Science, Food Production, Agriculture, Vegetarianism, and 17 moreDairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Food Systems, Veganism, Hormones, Beef production, Methane, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Environmental Impact, Dairy cattle nutrition, Beef Cattle, Dairy Products, Plant based nutrition, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Environmental Science, Science Communication, Dairy Science, Vegetarianism, Sex Hormones, and 16 moreEnvironmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Food Systems, Myths, Veganism, Hormones, Dairy, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Cattle, Milk production, Climate change and sustainable food production, Dairy Products, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Water resources, Dairy Science, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, and 9 moreDairy Nutrition, Land Use, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Environmental Impact, Dairy cattle nutrition, Dairy Sustainability, and Dairy Products
Research Interests: Dairy Science, Consumer Behavior, Agriculture, Vegetarianism, Environmental Sustainability, and 17 moreDairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Food Systems, Veganism, Consumer Buying Behaviour, Beef production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Dairy Calves, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Beef Cattle, Milk production, Dairy Products, Sustainable Food & Farming, and Consumer Behaviour
Research Interests: Water, Dairy Science, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, and 12 moreDairy Nutrition, Hormones, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Environmental Impact, Dairy cattle nutrition, Cattle, Milk production, Greenhouse gases, Dairy Cattle, Dairy Products, and Meatless Monday
Research Interests: Dairy Science, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, and 11 moreSustainable Food Systems, Hormones, Meat Production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Sustainble Food Production, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Environmental Impact, Dairy cattle nutrition, Dairy Products, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Sustainable agriculture, Sustainable Development, Dairy Science, Consumer Behavior, Consumer Culture, and 12 moreEnvironmental Sustainability, Consumer Research, Antimicrobials, Antibiotic Resistance, Antimicrobial drug resistance, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Food Systems, Dairy, Antimicrobial, Antibiotics, Sustainable Food & Farming, and Consumer Behaviour
Research Interests: Dairy Science, Food and Nutrition, Agriculture, Environmental Sustainability, Carbon Footprint, and 15 moreWater Footprint, Sustainable Food Systems, Beef, Agriculture, Sustainability, Hormones, Beef production, Sustainable Dairying, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Sustainable beef production, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Cattle, Beef Cattle, Dairy Sustainability, Dairy Cattle, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Communication, Sustainable agriculture, Dairy Science, Consumer Behavior, Environmental Sustainability, and 12 moreConsumer Research, Carbon Footprint, Sustainable Food Systems, Hormones, Beef production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Cattle, Beef Cattle, Food and Environment, Sustainable Food & Farming, and Consumer Behaviour
Research Interests: Environmental Science, Water resources, Dairy Science, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, and 11 moreCarbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Hormones, Land Use, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Soybean, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Milk production, and Dairy Products
Research Interests: Environmental Science, Water, Food Security and Insecurity, Dairy Science, Consumer Behavior, and 12 moreAgriculture, Environmental Sustainability, Food Security, Beef production, Dairy, Environmental Impact, Beef Cattle, Dairy Cattle, Dairy Products, Factory Farming, Sustainable Food & Farming, and Consumer Behaviour
Research Interests: Water, Dairy Science, Sustainable Water Resources Management, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, and 17 moreCarbon Footprint, Sustainable Food Systems, Beef, Agriculture, Sustainability, Hormones, Beef production, Methane, Sustainable Dairying, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Sustainable beef production, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Environmental Impact, Dairy cattle nutrition, Cattle, Beef Cattle, Dairy Products, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Climate Change, Water, Sustainable agriculture, Water resources, Dairy Science, and 17 moreFood and Nutrition, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Sustainable Crops Production, Sustainable Food Systems, Animal Feed, Beef Consumption, Hormones, Beef production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Beef Cattle, Climate change and sustainable food production, Dairy Products, Sustainable Food & Farming, and Sustainability
Research Interests: Climate Change, Sustainable agriculture, Dairy Science, Environmental Impact Assessment, Sex Hormones, and 17 moreEnvironmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Food Systems, Beef Consumption, Beef, Agriculture, Sustainability, Hormones, Beef production, Dairy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Food Security, Sustainable beef production, Dairy cattle nutrition, Beef Cattle, Dairy Products, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Water quality, Dairy Science, Environmental Impact Assessment, Sustainable Water Resources Management, Environmental Sustainability, and 8 moreDairy Science and Technology, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Dairying, Dairy, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Dairy Sustainability, and Dairy Products
Research Interests: Sustainable agriculture, Water quality, Dairy Science, Sustainable Water Resources Management, Environmental Sustainability, and 13 moreSustainable Agriculture (Environment), Sustainable Agriculture (Sustainability), Dairy Science and Technology, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Food Systems, Hormones, Sustainable Dairying, Dairy, Sustainble Food Production, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Dairy Products, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Sustainable agriculture, Water quality, Dairy Science, Sustainable Water Resources Management, Environmental Sustainability, and 13 moreSustainable Agriculture (Environment), Sustainable Agriculture (Sustainability), Dairy Science and Technology, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Food Systems, Hormones, Sustainable Dairying, Dairy, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Dairy Sustainability, Dairy Products, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Sustainable agriculture, Dairy Science, Environmental Impact Assessment, Energy and Environment, Environmental Sustainability, and 14 moreDairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, Water Footprint, Dairy Nutrition, Sustainable Food Systems, Land Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Ruminant nutrition and Dairy science, Dairy cattle nutrition, Dairy Products, Agroecology and Sustainble Agriculture, Sustainable Food & Farming, Efficient Practices In Dairying, and Dairy Environmental Impact
Research Interests: Environmental Impact Assessment, Sustainable Water Resources Management, Environmental Sustainability, Carbon Footprint, Sustainable Food Systems, and 10 moreBeef, Agriculture, Sustainability, Hormones, Beef production, Meat Production, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Sustainable beef production, Beef Cattle, Meatless Mondays and other myths, Water Consumption, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Consumer Behavior, Environmental Sustainability, Carbon Footprint, Sustainable Food Systems, Consumer Buying Behaviour, and 12 moreSustainable Dairying, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Dairy cattle managment, Environmental Impact, Dairy cattle nutrition, Dairy cows, Dairy Sustainability, Dairy Cattle, Consumer Buying Behavior, Dairy production, Sustainable Food & Farming, and Consumer Behaviour
Research Interests: Environmental Sustainability, Carbon Footprint, Sustainable Food Systems, Greenhouses Gases and Agriculture, Land Use, and 10 moreBeef production, Meat Production, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Sustainable beef production, Feedlot, More sustainable beef, Beef production systems, Agriculture and beef cattle production, Sustainable Food & Farming, and Feedlot Cattle
Research Interests: Meat Science, Dairy Science, Environmental Sustainability, Dairy Science and Technology, Carbon Footprint, and 9 moreSustainable Food Systems, Carbon footprinting, Sustainable Dairying, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Environmental Impact, Dairy cattle nutrition, Dairy Sustainability, Dairy Cattle, and Sustainable Food & Farming
Research Interests: Meat Science, Environmental Sustainability, Sustainable Food Systems, Beef, Agriculture, Sustainability, Sustainable beef production, and 7 moreEnvironmental Impact, Beef Cattle, Climate change and sustainable food production, More sustainable beef, Meatless Mondays and other myths, Sustainable Food & Farming, and Beef Cattle Farming
Research Interests:
All stakeholders within the livestock industry face a considerable challenge in achieving a balance between economic viability, environmental responsibility and social acceptability; and thus maintaining sustainable food production. This... more
All stakeholders within the livestock industry face a considerable challenge in achieving a balance between economic viability, environmental responsibility and social acceptability; and thus maintaining sustainable food production. This is exacerbated by information about farming practices and management systems that accentuate consumer concerns and lead to confusion as to the roles of productivity, efficiency and animal health in modern agriculture. The suggestions that intensive farms or large-scale herds have negative effects on cattle health; that we can assess cattle welfare by applying anthropomorphic philosophies; and that extensive systems are inherently beneficial to the environment, appear to be intuitively correct. Yet these suppositions are not as simple as they are often presented in mass media articles aimed at the consumer and lead to a multitude of other questions. Although it is tempting to try and overcome these issues by providing factual information, we cannot overcome negative publicity simply by supplying data and statistics. As an industry, we need to combine improved communication mechanisms with a better understanding of how consumer food-buying decisions are made to ensure future social acceptability and sustainability.
Research Interests: Organic agriculture, Productivity, Consumer Behavior, Food and Nutrition, Agriculture, and 26 moreAnimal Welfare, Vegetarianism, Environmental Sustainability, Social sustainability, Antimicrobials, Farm Animal Welfare, Antibiotic Resistance, Antimicrobial drug resistance, Ethical veganism, Organic Farming, Consumer Behavior and Food Choice, Sustainable Food Systems, Veganism, Consumer Buying Behaviour, Animal health, Economic Sustainability, Antimicrobial resistance, Antibiotics, Dairy cattle nutrition, Cattle, Beef Cattle, Dairy Cattle, Factory Farming, Sustainable Food & Farming, Consumer Behaviour, and Sustainability
Research Interests:
Optimizing efficiency in the cow-calf sector is an important step toward improving beef sustainability. The objective of the study was to use a model to identify the relative roles of reproductive, genetic, and nutritional management in... more
Optimizing efficiency in the cow-calf sector is an important step toward improving beef sustainability. The objective of the study was to use a model to identify the relative roles of reproductive, genetic, and nutritional management in minimizing beef production systems' environmental impact in an economically viable, socially acceptable manner. An economic and environmental diet optimizer was used to identify ideal nutritional management of beef production systems varying in genetic and reproductive technology use. Eight management scenarios were compared to a least cost baseline: average U.S. production practices (CON), CON with variable nutritional management (NUT), twinning cattle (TWN), early weaning (EW), sire selection by EPD using either on-farm bulls (EPD-B) or AI (EPD-AI), decreasing the calving window (CW), or selecting bulls by EPD and reducing the calving window (EPD-CW). Diets to minimize land use, water use, and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were optimized under each scenario. Increases in diet cost attributable to reducing environmental impact were constrained to less than stakeholder willingness to pay for improved efficiency and reduced environmental impact. Baseline land use, water use, and GHG emissions were 188 m, 712 L, and 21.9 kg/kg HCW beef. The NUT scenario, which assessed opportunities to improve sustainability by altering nutritional management alone, resulted in a simultaneous 1.5% reduction in land use, water use, and GHG emissions. The CW scenario improved calf uniformity and simultaneously decreased land use, water use, and GHG emissions by 3.2%. Twinning resulted in a 9.2% reduction in the 3 environmental impact metrics. The EW scenario allowed for an 8.5% reduction in the 3 metrics. The EPD-AI scenario resulted in an 11.1% reduction, which was comparable to the 11.3% reduction achieved by EPD-B in the 3 metrics. Improving genetic selection by using AI or by purchasing on-farm bulls based on their superior EPD demonstrated clear opportunity to improve sustainability. When genetic and reproductive technologies were adopted, up to a 12.4% reduction in environmental impact was achievable. Given the modeling assumptions used in this study, optimizing nutritional management while concurrently improving genetic and reproductive efficiency may be promising avenues to improve productivity and sustainability of U.S. beef systems.
Research Interests:
System sustainability balances environmental impact, economic viability and social acceptability. Assessment methods to investigate impacts of enterprise management and consumer decisions on sustainability of beef cattle operations are... more
System sustainability balances environmental impact, economic viability and social acceptability. Assessment methods to investigate impacts of enterprise management and consumer decisions on sustainability of beef cattle operations are critically needed. Tools of this nature are especially important given the predictions of climate variability and the dependence of beef production systems on forage availability. A model optimizing nutritional and pasture management was created to examine the environmental impact of beef production. The model integrated modules calculating cradle-to-farm gate environmental impact, diet cost, pasture growth and willingness to pay (WTP). Least-cost diet and pasture management options served as a baseline to which environmental-impact reducing scenarios were compared. Economic viability was ensured by a constraint limiting change in diet cost to less than consumer WTP. Increased WTP was associated with improved social acceptability. Model outputs were evaluated by comparing to published data. Sensitivity analysis of the WTP constraint was conducted. A series of scenarios then examined how forecasted changes in precipitation patterns might alter forage supply and opportunities to reduce environmental impact in three regions in the United States. On a national scale, single-objective optimization indicated individual reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG), land use and water use of 3.6%, 5.4% and 4.3% were possible by changing diets. Multi-objective optimization demonstrated that GHG, land and water use could be simultaneously reduced by 2.3%. To achieve this change, cow–calf diets relied on grass hay, continuously- or rotationally-grazed irrigated and fertilized pasture as well as rotationally-grazed pasture. Stocker diets used rotationally-grazed, irrigated and fertilized pasture and feedlot diets used grass hay as a forage source. The model was sensitive to consumer WTP. When alternative precipitation patterns were simulated, opportunities to decrease the environmental impact of beef production in the Pacific Northwest and Texas were reduced by precipitation changes; whereas opportunities in the Midwest improved. Economic viability, rather than biological limitations, reduced the potential to improve environmental impact under future precipitation scenarios. Decreased spring rainfall resulted in lower pasture yields and required greater use of stored forages. Related increases in diet cost reduced opportunities to appropriate funds toward investment in environmental-impact reducing pasture management strategies. The model developed in this study is a robust tool that can be used to assess the impacts of enterprise management and consumer decisions on beef production sustainability.
Research Interests:
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is the preferred methodology to assess carbon footprint per unit of milk. The objective of this case study was to apply an LCA method to compare carbon footprints of high-performance confinement and grass-based... more
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is the preferred methodology to assess carbon footprint per unit of milk. The objective of this case study was to apply an LCA method to compare carbon footprints of high-performance confinement and grass-based dairy farms. Physical performance data from research herds were used to quantify carbon footprints of a high-performance Irish grass-based dairy system and a top-performing United Kingdom (UK) confinement dairy system. For the US confinement dairy system, data from the top 5% of herds of a national database were used. Life-cycle assessment was applied using the same dairy farm greenhouse gas (GHG) model for all dairy systems. The model estimated all on- and off-farm GHG sources associated with dairy production until milk is sold from the farm in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) and allocated emissions between milk and meat. The carbon footprint of milk was calculated by expressing GHG emissions attributed to milk per tonne of energy-corrected milk (ECM). The comparison showed that when GHG emissions were only attributed to milk, the carbon footprint of milk from the Irish grass-based system (837 kg of CO2-eq/t of ECM) was 5% lower than the UK confinement system (884 kg of CO2-eq/t of ECM) and 7% lower than the US confinement system (898 kg of CO2-eq/t of ECM). However, without grassland carbon sequestration, the grass-based and confinement dairy systems had similar carbon footprints per tonne of ECM. Emission algorithms and allocation of GHG emissions between milk and meat also affected the relative difference and order of dairy system carbon footprints. For instance, depending on the method chosen to allocate emissions between milk and meat, the relative difference between the carbon footprints of grass-based and confinement dairy systems varied by 3 to 22%. This indicates that further harmonization of several aspects of the LCA methodology is required to compare carbon footprints of contrasting dairy systems. In comparison to recent reports that assess the carbon footprint of milk from average Irish, UK, and US dairy systems, this case study indicates that top-performing herds of the respective nations have carbon footprints 27 to 32% lower than average dairy systems. Although differences between studies are partly explained by methodological inconsistency, the comparison suggests that potential exists to reduce the carbon footprint of milk in each of the nations by implementing practices that improve productivity.
Research Interests:
The objective of this study was to use a precision nutrition model to simulate the relationship between diet formulation frequency and dairy cattle performance across various climates. Agricultural Modeling and Training Systems (AMTS)... more
The objective of this study was to use a precision nutrition model to simulate the relationship between diet formulation frequency and dairy cattle performance across various climates. Agricultural Modeling and Training Systems (AMTS) CattlePro diet-balancing software (Cornell Research Foundation, Ithaca, NY) was used to compare 3 diet formulation frequencies (weekly, monthly, or seasonal) and 3 levels of climate variability (hot, cold, or variable). Predicted daily milk yield (MY), metabolizable energy (ME) balance, and dry matter intake (DMI) were recorded for each frequency-variability combination. Economic analysis was conducted to calculate the predicted revenue over feed and labor costs. Diet formulation frequency affected ME balance and MY but did not affect DMI. Climate variability affected ME balance and DMI but not MY. The interaction between climate variability and formulation frequency did not affect ME balance, MY, or DMI. Formulating diets more frequently increased MY, DMI, and ME balance. Economic analysis showed that formulating diets weekly rather than seasonally could improve returns over variable costs by $25,000 per year for a moderate-sized (300-cow) operation. To achieve this increase in returns, an entire feeding system margin of error of <1% was required. Formulating monthly, rather than seasonally, may be a more feasible alternative as this requires a margin of error of only 2.5% for the entire feeding system. Feeding systems with a low margin of error must be developed to better take advantage of the benefits of precision nutrition.
Research Interests:
Within the next 40 years, the global livestock industry will have to considerably increase production in order to supply the population with animal-source foods, yet the industry must concurrently improve the three metrics of... more
Within the next 40 years, the global livestock industry will have to considerably increase production in order to supply the population with animal-source foods, yet the industry must concurrently improve the three metrics of sustainability – economic viability, environmental stewardship and social responsibility. Environmental stewardship is currently the area for which animal agriculture is under the most scrutiny, as many consumers perceive that animal-source foods have an unacceptable environmental cost. These concerns are intensified by activist group campaigns propounding that reducing meat consumption will have significant environmental mitigation effects. Animal-source foods have been shown to be essential dietary components for improving health of inhabitants in developing regions, for whom such foods are often economically unavailable. Moreover, reducing meat consumption in developed countries has a negligible effect upon national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and leads to further questions with regards to the implications for use of animal and plant by-products, and the difficulty of producing human food crops on grazed pasturelands. Improving livestock productivity has positive sustainability implications as it reduces resource use and GHG emissions whilst improving economic viability, yet it is often difficult to attain consumer acceptance of modern best practices and technologies. Productivity metrics that enhance sustainability include milk and meat yield, growth rates, feed efficiency, calving rate, parasite control and use of growth-enhancing technologies.
Research Interests:
The global livestock industry is charged with providing sufficient animal source foods to supply the global population while improving the environmental sustainability of animal production. Improved productivity within dairy and beef... more
The global livestock industry is charged with providing sufficient animal source foods to supply the global population while improving the environmental sustainability of animal production. Improved productivity within dairy and beef systems has demonstrably reduced resource use and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food over the past century through the dilution of maintenance effect. Further environmental mitigation effects have been gained through the current use of technologies and practices that enhance milk yield or growth in ruminants; however, the social acceptability of continued intensification and use of productivity-enhancing technologies is subject to debate. As the environmental impact of food production continues to be a significant issue for all stakeholders within the field, further research is needed to ensure that comparisons among foods are made based on both environmental impact and nutritive value to truly assess the sustainability of ruminant products.
Research Interests:
The objective of this study was to quantify the environmental and economic impact of withdrawing growth-enhancing technologies (GET) from the U.S. beef production system. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient... more
The objective of this study was to quantify the environmental and economic impact of withdrawing growth-enhancing technologies (GET) from the U.S. beef production system. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per 454 × 106 kg of beef. Two production systems were compared: one using GET (steroid implants, in-feed ionophores, in-feed hormones, and beta-adrenergic agonists) where approved by FDA at current adoption rates and the other without GET use. Both systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics, and production data from U.S. beef systems. The economic impact and global trade and carbon implications of GET withdrawal were calculated based on feed savings. Withdrawing GET from U.S. beef production reduced productivity (growth rate and slaughter weight) and increased the population size required to produce 454 × 10^6 kg beef by 385 × 103 animals. Feedstuff and land use were increased by 2,830 × 10^3 t and 265 × 10^3 ha, respec- tively, by GET withdrawal, with 20,139 × 10^6 more liters of water being required to maintain beef production. Manure output increased by 1,799 × 10^3 t as a result of GET withdrawal, with an increase in carbon emissions of 714,515 t/454 × 10^6 kg beef. The projected increased costs of U.S. beef produced without GET resulted in the effective implementation of an 8.2% tax on beef production, leading to reduced global trade and competitiveness. To compensate for the increase in U.S. beef prices and maintain beef supply, it would be necessary to increase beef production in other global regions, with a projected increase in carbon emissions from deforestation, particularly in Brazil. Withdrawing GET from U.S. beef production would reduce both the economic and environmental sustainability of the industry.
The objective of this study was to assess environmental impact, economic viability and social acceptability of three beef production systems with differing levels of efficiency. A deterministic model of United States (U.S.) beef... more
The objective of this study was to assess environmental impact, economic viability and social acceptability of three beef production systems with differing levels of efficiency. A deterministic model of United States (U.S.) beef production was used to predict the number of animals required to produce 1 x 10(9) kg hot carcass weight (HCW) beef. Three production treatments were compared, one representing average U.S. production (control), one with a 15% increase in average daily gain (ADG) and one with a 15% increase in finishing weight (FW). For each treatment, various socioeconomic scenarios were compared to account for uncertainty in producer and consumer behavior. Environmental impact metrics included feed consumption, land use, water use, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) and N and P excretion. Feed cost, animal purchase cost, animal sales revenue and income over costs (IOVC) were used as metrics of economic viability. Willingness to pay (WTP) was used to identify improvements or reductions in social acceptability. When ADG improved, feedstuff consumption, land use and water use decreased by 6.4%, 3.2% and 12.3% respectively, compared to the control. Carbon footprint decreased 11.7%, and N and P excretion were reduced by 4% and 13.8% respectively. When FW improved, decreases were seen in feedstuff consumption (12.1%), water use (9.2%) and land use (15.5%); total GHGe decreased 14.7%; and N and P excretion decreased by 10.1% and 17.2% compared to the control. Changes in IOVC were dependent on socioeconomic scenario. When the ADG scenario was compared to the control, changes in sector profitability ranged from 51% to 117% (cow-calf), -38% to 157% (stocker), and 37% to 134% (feedlot). When improved FW was compared, changes in cow-calf profit ranged from 67% to 143%, stocker profit ranged from -41% to 155% and feedlot profit ranged from 37% to 136%. When WTP was based on marketing beef being more efficiently produced, WTP improved by 10% thus social acceptability increased. When marketing was based on production efficiency and consumer knowledge of growth-enhancing technology use, WTP decreased by 12% leading to a decrease in social acceptability. Results demonstrated that improved efficiency also improved environmental impact, but impacts on economic viability and social acceptability are highly dependent on consumer and producer behavioral responses to efficiency improvements.
Research Interests:
"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... more
"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 × 109 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 × 109 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 × 109 kg of beef compared to the GFD system. The carbon footprint per 1.0 × 109 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."
impacts to facilitate informed dietary choice."
Contemporary animal agriculture is increasingly criticized on ethical grounds. Consequently, current policy and legislative discussions have become highly controversial as decision makers attempt to reconcile concerns about the impacts of... more
Contemporary animal agriculture is increasingly criticized on ethical grounds. Consequently, current policy and legislative discussions have become highly controversial as decision makers attempt to reconcile concerns about the impacts of animal production on animal welfare, the environment, and on the efficacy of antibiotics required to ensure human health with demands for abundant, affordable, safe food. Clearly, the broad implications for US animal agriculture of what appears to be a burgeoning movement relative to ethical food production must be understood by animal agriculture stakeholders. The potential effects of such developments on animal agricultural practices, corporate marketing strategies, and public perceptions of the ethics of animal production must also be clarified. To that end, it is essential to acknowledge that people’s beliefs about which food production practices are appropriate are tied to diverse, latent value systems. Thus, relying solely on scientific information as a means to resolve current debates about
animal agriculture is unlikely to be effective. The problem is compounded when scientific information is used inappropriately or strategically to advance a political agenda. Examples of the interface between science and ethics in regards to addressing currently contentious aspects of food animal production (animal welfare, antimicrobial use, and impacts of animal production practices on the environment) are reviewed. The roles of scientists and science in public debates about animal agricultural practices are also examined. It is suggested that scientists have a duty to contribute to the development of sound policy by providing clear and objectively presented information, by clarifying misinterpretations of science, and by recognizing the differences between presenting data vs. promoting their own value judgments in regard to how and which data should be used to establish policy. Finally, the role of the media in shaping public opinions on key issues pertaining to animal agriculture is also discussed.
animal agriculture is unlikely to be effective. The problem is compounded when scientific information is used inappropriately or strategically to advance a political agenda. Examples of the interface between science and ethics in regards to addressing currently contentious aspects of food animal production (animal welfare, antimicrobial use, and impacts of animal production practices on the environment) are reviewed. The roles of scientists and science in public debates about animal agricultural practices are also examined. It is suggested that scientists have a duty to contribute to the development of sound policy by providing clear and objectively presented information, by clarifying misinterpretations of science, and by recognizing the differences between presenting data vs. promoting their own value judgments in regard to how and which data should be used to establish policy. Finally, the role of the media in shaping public opinions on key issues pertaining to animal agriculture is also discussed.
Consumers often perceive that the modern beef production system has an environmental impact far greater than that of historical systems, with improved efficiency being achieved at the expense of greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of... more
Consumers often perceive that the modern beef production system has an environmental impact far greater than that of historical systems, with improved efficiency being achieved at the expense of greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of this study was to compare the environmental impact of modern (2007) US beef production with production practices characteristic of the US beef system in 1977. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per billion kilograms of beef. Both the modern and historical production systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics, and production data from US beef systems. Modern beef production requires considerably fewer resources than the equivalent sys- tem in 1977, with 69.9% of animals, 81.4% of feedstuffs, 87.9% of the water, and only 67.0% of the land required to produce 1 billion kg of beef. Waste outputs were similarly reduced, with modern beef systems producing 81.9% of the manure, 82.3% CH4, and 88.0% N2O per billion kilograms of beef compared with production systems in 1977. The C footprint per billion kilograms of beef produced in 2007 was reduced by 16.3% com- pared with equivalent beef production in 1977. As the US population increases, it is crucial to continue the improvements in efficiency demonstrated over the past 30 yr to supply the market demand for safe, affordable beef while reducing resource use and mitigating environmental impact.
Research Interests:
The objective of this study was to compare the environmental impact of Jersey or Holstein milk production sufficient to yield 500,000 t of cheese (equivalent cheese yield) both with and without recombinant bovine somatotropin use. The... more
The objective of this study was to compare the environmental impact of Jersey or Holstein milk production sufficient to yield 500,000 t of cheese (equivalent cheese yield) both with and without recombinant bovine somatotropin use. The deterministic model used 2009 DairyMetrics (Dairy Records Management Systems, Raleigh, NC) population data for milk yield and com- position (Jersey: 20.9 kg/d, 4.8% fat, 3.7% protein; Holstein: 29.1 kg/d, 3.8% fat, 3.1% protein), age at first calving, calving interval, and culling rate. Each population contained lactating and dry cows, bulls, and herd replacements for which rations were formulated according to DairyPro (Agricultural Modeling and Training Systems, Cornell, Ithaca, NY) at breed- appropriate body weights (BW), with mature cows weighing 454 kg (Jersey) or 680 kg (Holstein). Resource inputs included feedstuffs, water, land, fertilizers, and fossil fuels. Waste outputs included manure and green- house gas emissions. Cheese yield (kg) was calculated according to the Van Slyke equation. A yield of 500,000 t of cheese required 4.94 billion kg of Holstein milk compared with 3.99 billion kg of Jersey milk—a direct consequence of differences in milk nutrient density (fat and protein contents) between the 2 populations. The reduced daily milk yield of Jersey cows increased the population size required to supply sufficient milk for the required cheese yield, but the differential in BW between the Jersey and Holstein breeds reduced the body mass of the Jersey population by 125 × 103 t. Consequently, the population energy requirement was reduced by 7,177 × 106 MJ, water use by 252 × 109 L, and cropland use by 97.5 × 103 ha per 500,000 t of cheese yield. Nitrogen and phosphorus excretion were reduced by 17,234 and 1,492 t, respectively, through the use of Jersey milk to yield 500,000 t of Cheddar cheese. The carbon footprint was reduced by 1,662 × 103 t of CO2-equivalents per 500,000 t of cheese in Jersey cows compared with Holsteins. Use of recombinant bovine somatotropin reduced resource use and waste output in supplemented populations, with decreases in carbon footprint equivalent to 10.0% (Jersey) and 7.5% (Hol- stein) compared with non-supplemented populations. The interaction between milk nutrient density and BW demonstrated by the Jersey population overcame the reduced daily milk yield, thus reducing resource use and environmental impact. This reduction was achieved through 2 mechanisms: diluting population maintenance overhead through improved milk nutrient density and reducing maintenance overhead through a reduction in productive and nonproductive body mass within the population.
Research Interests:
A common perception is that pasture based, low-input dairy systems characteristic of the 1940s were more conducive to environmental stewardship than modern milk production systems. The objective of this study was to compare the... more
A common perception is that pasture based, low-input dairy systems characteristic of the 1940s were more conducive to environmental stewardship than modern milk production systems. The objective of this study was to compare the environmental impact of modern (2007) US dairy production with historical production practices as exemplified by the US dairy system in 1944. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the dairy herd was used to estimate resource inputs and waste outputs per billion kg of milk. Both the modern and historical production systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, herd population dynamics, and production data from US dairy farms. Modern dairy practices require considerably fewer resources than dairying in 1944 with 21% of animals, 23% of feedstuffs, 35% of the water, and only 10% of the land required to produce the same 1 billion kg of milk. Waste outputs were similarly reduced, with modern dairy systems producing 24% of the manure, 43% of CH4, and 56% of N2O per billion kg of milk compared with equivalent milk from historical dairying. The carbon footprint per billion kilograms of milk produced in 2007 was 37% of equivalent milk production in 1944. To fulfill the increasing requirements of the US population for dairy products, it is essential to adopt management practices and technologies that improve productive efficiency, allowing milk production to be increased while reducing resource use and mitigating environmental impact.
Implications • As the global population increases, more animal protein needs to be produced using fewer resources (land, water and energy) and with a smaller carbon footprint • Improved productivity has considerably reduced the carbon... more
Implications
• As the global population increases, more animal protein needs to be produced using fewer resources (land, water and energy) and with a smaller carbon footprint
• Improved productivity has considerably reduced the carbon footprint of dairy and beef production over the past century
• Extensive systems intuitively appear to be more environmentally-friendly, yet scientific analysis demonstrates that intensive systems reduce resource use, waste output and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food
• As livestock production systems continue to make productivity gains, sustainability should be assessed on the basis of environmental, economic and social issues.
• As the global population increases, more animal protein needs to be produced using fewer resources (land, water and energy) and with a smaller carbon footprint
• Improved productivity has considerably reduced the carbon footprint of dairy and beef production over the past century
• Extensive systems intuitively appear to be more environmentally-friendly, yet scientific analysis demonstrates that intensive systems reduce resource use, waste output and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food
• As livestock production systems continue to make productivity gains, sustainability should be assessed on the basis of environmental, economic and social issues.
Research Interests:
Abstract Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) supplementation increases dairy cow milk yield by an average of 4.5 kg/day. Fewer lactating cows are thus required to meet the market demand for milk and the number of associated... more
Abstract Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) supplementation increases dairy cow milk yield by an average of 4.5 kg/day. Fewer lactating cows are thus required to meet the market demand for milk and the number of associated non‐lactating and replacement animals in the population are also reduced. Through “dilution of maintenance,” resource use and waste output per unit of milk are reduced by rbST use, mitigating the environmental impact of dairy production.
UK PubMed Central (UKPMC) is an archive of life sciences journal literature.
To produce animal products in sufficient quantities and of the quality desired, humans keep animals in production systems. The driving force for development of production systems in the last century has been to develop systems that... more
To produce animal products in sufficient quantities and of the quality desired, humans keep animals in production systems. The driving force for development of production systems in the last century has been to develop systems that produce quality products at the lowest possible cost. In real current dollars, animal meats are less expensive today than they were years ago. The cost of production, for example, for pigs and poultry was higher in 1950 than it is today.
ABSTRACT The global livestock industry is charged with providing sufficient animal source foods to supply the global population while improving the environmental sustainability of animal production. Improved productivity within dairy and... more
ABSTRACT The global livestock industry is charged with providing sufficient animal source foods to supply the global population while improving the environmental sustainability of animal production. Improved productivity within dairy and beef systems has demonstrably reduced resource use and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food over the past century through the dilution of maintenance effect.
Abstract The environmental impact of using recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) in dairy production was examined on an individual cow, industry-scale adoption, and overall production system basis. An average 2006 US milk yield of 28.9... more
Abstract The environmental impact of using recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) in dairy production was examined on an individual cow, industry-scale adoption, and overall production system basis. An average 2006 US milk yield of 28.9 kg per day was used, with a daily response to rbST supplementation of 4.5 kg per cow. Rations were formulated and both resource inputs (feedstuffs, fertilizers, and fuels) and waste outputs (nutrient excretion and greenhouse gas emissions) calculated.
More earth-friendly dairy farming 23% More affordable milk 21% More efficient milk production methods 15% More environmentally friendly milk production tools 15% More innovation in dairy farming 8% More sustainable milk 7% More land... more
More earth-friendly dairy farming 23% More affordable milk 21% More efficient milk production methods 15% More environmentally friendly milk production tools 15% More innovation in dairy farming 8% More sustainable milk 7% More land available to grow other foods 6% More land set aside for parks and recreational use 4%
SUMMARY• Use of sustainable agriculture practices that maximize efficiency and produce more food with fewer resources is critical to balance present and future needs. Related areas for the dairy industry are productive efficiency,... more
SUMMARY• Use of sustainable agriculture practices that maximize efficiency and produce more food with fewer resources is critical to balance present and future needs. Related areas for the dairy industry are productive efficiency, environmental issues, and dairy products as food.• Remarkable gains in productivity efficiency (milk output per resource input) have occurred with the annual milk/cow increasing over 400% since 1944.
Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) are the most common pathogens associated with intramammary infections (IMI) in dairy cows. We hypothesized that postmilking teat disinfection would reduce mi- crobial colonization of the teat canal... more
Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) are the most common pathogens associated with intramammary infections (IMI) in dairy cows. We hypothesized that postmilking teat disinfection would reduce mi- crobial colonization of the teat canal and thus reduce the prevalence of IMI caused by certain CNS species. The efficacy of iodine postmilking teat dip was tested against CNS colonization of the teat canal, and incidence of IMI was measured. Using an udder-half model, 43 Holstein cows at the Washington State University Dairy were enrolled in the trial; postmilking teat dip was applied to one udder-half, treatment (TX), and the remaining half was an undipped control (CX). Teat ca- nal swabbing and mammary quarter milk samples were taken in duplicate once a week for 16 wk for microbial culture. Isolates from agar cultures were presumptively identified as CNS and then speciated using PCR-RFLP and agarose gel electrophoresis. Colonization of the teat canal and IMI by CNS were assessed. Thirty CNS IMI were diagnosed and the number of new IMI in CX quarters (21) was significantly greater than that in TX mammary quarters (9). The majority of CNS IMI were caused by Staphylococcus chromogenes (30%) and Staphylococcus xylosus (40%), and the latter were appreciably reduced by teat dip. Except for S. xylosus, an association was observed between teat canal colonization and IMI by all CNS species in this study, in which the majority of IMI were preceded by teat canal colonization. The total number of CNS IMI was greater for CX group cows compared with TX group cows. However, the effect of disinfection on IMI did not appear to be the same for all CNS species.
Research Interests:
As the global population increases, more milk, meat and eggs need to be produced using fewer resources and with a lower environmental impact. Over the past century, improving productivity has considerably reduced the carbon footprint of... more
As the global population increases, more milk, meat and eggs need to be produced using fewer resources and with a lower environmental impact. Over the past century, improving productivity has considerably reduced the carbon footprint of dairy and beef production, yet consumers often perceive extensive, ‘traditional’ systems to have a low carbon footprint. Scientific analysis shows that intensive animal production systems have a lower carbon footprint than extensive systems - improved education of consumers, retailers and media is therefore required to overcome popular misconceptions relating to the carbon footprint of animal agriculture.
Research Interests:
The global dairy industry faces the challenge of providing sufficient animal protein to fulfill requirements of the growing population while reducing environmental impact per unit of dairy product. A deterministic model based on the... more
The global dairy industry faces the challenge of providing sufficient animal protein to fulfill requirements of the growing population while reducing environmental impact per unit of dairy product. A deterministic model based on the nutrient requirements and metabolism of dairy cows was used to assess the environmental impact (resource use and waste output) per kg of milk produced by the U.S. dairy industry in 1944 compared to 2007. Advances in nutrition, genetics and management facilitated an increase in annual milk yield from 2,074 kg to 9,193 kg over this time period, resulting in 21% of the animals, 23% of the feed, 35% of the water and 10% of the land being required to produce one kg of milk in 2007 compared to 1944. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were reduced by 63% per kg milk. A similar model evaluating the use of recombinant bovine somatrotropin (rbST) to increase milk yield per cow by an average of 4.5 kg/d demonstrated that milk could be produced with a 9% decrease in overall environmental impact. It is clear that improved productivity provides a means to reduce environmental impact through the dilution of maintenance effect, whereby the proportion of the total daily nutrient requirement attributed to maintenance is reduced. Strategies to reduce the daily maintenance cost by using smaller bodyweight animals would also be predicted to mitigate environmental impact providing that productivity was not unduly affected. Deterministic modeling of Cheddar cheese production from Jersey cows (454 kg bodyweight, 20.9 kg milk at 4.8% fat and 3.7% protein) compared to Holstein cows (680 kg bodyweight, 29.1 kg milk at 3.8% fat and 3.1% protein) demonstrated that the interaction between bodyweight and milk composition compensated for a reduction in milk yield, with reductions of 11% land and 32% water and 20% GHG emissions per kg cheese produced. To improve the environmental sustainability of dairy cows it is crucial to consider animal productivity and efficiency metrics, rather than focusing on productivity alone.
Research Interests:
Sustainability encompasses environmental, economic and social issues. As the global population increases, livestock industries face a challenge in producing animal protein that is economically affordable, has a low environmental impact... more
Sustainability encompasses environmental, economic and social issues. As the global population increases, livestock industries face a challenge in producing animal protein that is economically affordable, has a low environmental impact and meets consumers’ social expectations. US consumers often perceive sustainable agriculture as being confined to extensive low-input:low-output systems and thus regard conventional agricultural systems as being less sustainable. Animal proteins are considered staple foods, yet concern over the perceived sustainability of conventional animal production may threaten future social license to operate. Antibiotics, ionophores and hormones may be used within conventional US beef and dairy systems to improve growth, feed efficiency, milk production and reproductive efficiency. Improved efficiencies bestowed by these productivity-enhancing technologies (PET) confer financial advantages to the producer in terms of profit over expenses that can be passed onto the consumer, thus improving economic sustainability. Environmental sustainability is also improved by PET use – results from a deterministic model based on beef cattle nutrition and metabolism showed that energy use was reduced by 15.0%, land use by 18.4%, water use by 15.4% and the carbon footprint by 15.0% per kg of beef in conventional systems using PET. Nonetheless, the social sustainability issues relating to PET use are considerable. The majority of US consumers purchase food based on price, convenience and taste, however a growing group of consumers regard PET as having significant human health implications ranging from endocrine imbalances to antibiotic resistance. These concerns have led to retailers demanding the withdrawal of PET from their supply chains in order to gain market advantage. The contribution of PET to two of the three pillars of sustainability (economic and environmental) is without question, however, overcoming the social issues involved with PET use within the livestock industry remains a significant concern.
Research Interests:
The objective of this study was to assess different post-production beef meat distribution systems for their associated CO2 emissions. Nine distribution scenarios were developed for beef meat sold to consumers in the Northeastern United... more
The objective of this study was to assess different post-production beef meat distribution systems for their associated CO2 emissions. Nine distribution scenarios were developed for beef meat sold to consumers in the Northeastern United States: (1) bulk ½ carcass (125-kg) from farmer; (2) bulk share (25-kg) from community supported agriculture program; (3) 2-kg from farmers’ market (FM); (4) 2-kg from a supermarket distributed within Pennsylvania by truck; (5) 2-kg from supermarket shipped to Pennsylvania from Midwestern U.S. (MWUS) by truck; (6) 2-kg from online retailer (OR) shipped from MWUS by overnight air (OA); (7) 10-kg from OR shipped from MWUS by OA; (8) 2-kg shipped transcontinental by OA; and (9) 10-kg shipped transcontinental by OA. Standard shipping capacity and CO2 emissions data for the distribution types, and distances traveled, were used to calculate potential CO2 emissions (kg) per kg of beef for each distribution scenario. Among ground transportation, bulk purchasing beef had the least (0.1-0.3 kg CO2/kg beef), bulk truck distribution was intermediate (1.1-1.2 kg CO2/kg beef), and FM had the greatest (2.8 kg CO2/kg beef) possible emissions. Excepting scenario 7 (1.68 kg CO2/kg beef), OA shipping can generate far greater (3.4-9.9 kg CO2/kg beef) emissions for beef distribution than ground shipping. Beef products are marketed by OR and FM increasingly for their perceived sustainability advantages, which can be negated by associated shipping costs. Bulk purchasing and bulk shipping contribute positively to the sustainability of meat consumption.
Research Interests:
The livestock industry faces the challenge of providing sufficient safe, affordable, nutritious animal protein to feed the growing population while maintaining environmental stewardship. Ruminant production systems have been criticized... more
The livestock industry faces the challenge of providing sufficient safe, affordable, nutritious animal protein to feed the growing population while maintaining environmental stewardship. Ruminant production systems have been criticized for their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet US beef and dairy systems have considerably reduced resource use and carbon emissions over time. Advances in nutrition, genetics and management allowed dairy cow productivity to increase four-fold between 1944 and 2007, with 21% of the animals, 23% of the feed, 35% of the water and 10% of the land required to produce one kg of milk in 2007 compared to 1944. Similar advances in the US beef industry facilitated a 31% increase in beef yield per animal and 124-d reduction in the time period from birth to slaughter between 1977 and 2007. Feedstuff use was thus reduced by 19%, water use by 14%, land use by 34% and the carbon footprint was 18% lower per kg of beef in 2007. Environmental gains result from a combination of improved productivity and reduced resource requirements within the non-productive sector of the supporting population. Individual cow and herd data records suggest that the dairy industry may continue to considerably improve milk yield before a plateau is reached. Further gains may be made by reducing population body mass – producing cheddar cheese from Jersey cows (454 kg mature weight) with increased milk component concentrations (4.8% fat and 3.7% protein) compared to their Holstein cohorts (680 kg mature weight; 3.8% fat and 3.1% protein) reduced the carbon footprint per kg of cheese by 20% despite the greater Holstein milk yield (29.1 kg/d vs. 20.9 kg/d). Within the beef industry, desirable slaughter weight appears to have plateaued at an average of 590 kg, yet resource use and waste output may be mitigated by improving growth rate. Indeed, growth-enhancing technology use within conventional beef production reduced land use by 45% and carbon emissions by 42% per kg of beef compared to grass-finished systems. To improve future environmental sustainability it is crucial to maintain access to management practices and technologies that improve productivity.
Research Interests:
Today’s consumer has a heightened awareness of environmental issues relating to animal production. All foods have an environmental impact, yet the desire to “know where your food comes from” and idealistic views of “traditional” or... more
Today’s consumer has a heightened awareness of environmental issues relating to animal production. All foods have an environmental impact, yet the desire to “know where your food comes from” and idealistic views of “traditional” or “natural” production systems have led to product differentiation based on environmental claims. Various niche markets have reported that extensive systems are more environmentally sustainable. This exacerbates the challenge faced by the conventional livestock industry in providing sufficient milk, meat and eggs to feed the growing population while maintaining environmental stewardship. Yet low productivity within extensive systems significantly increases resource use per kg of milk or meat produced. For example, grass-based beef finishing systems require 77% more animals, 83% more land, 326% more water and emit 74% more greenhouse gases (GHG) per kg beef than corn-based systems using modern technologies. Scientific results are also being inappropriately used to further the agendas of anti-animal agriculture groups. A recent report from the FAO concluded that improved productivity and intensification are necessary to reduce livestock’s environmental impact, yet these recommendations were overshadowed by the widely-reported (and since disproved) conclusion that animal agriculture accounts for 18% of global GHG emissions. This figure has since been incorrectly applied as representative of animal agriculture’s impact in all regions, regardless of variations in efficiency. International averages have also been used to represent regional systems in media reports of comparative water use for animal production, leading to misinformation and consumer confusion. The popular assumption that transportation is a major contributor to the environmental impact of food production has furthered interest in “local food” and “food miles”, despite the increased fuel costs of individual vs. mass food transport. Scientific principles and logic must be used to communicate with the consumer and improve their understanding of environmental issues, while maintaining respect for social and personal belief systems.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The objective of this study was to assess the variability of qualitative attributes associated nationally available grass-fed beef, including: product cost, distance traveled, distribution CO_{2}_ emissions, uncooked color for different... more
The objective of this study was to assess the variability of qualitative attributes associated nationally available grass-fed beef, including: product cost, distance traveled, distribution CO_{2}_ emissions, uncooked color for different bloom times, and cooked color and tenderness at different endpoint temperatures. Frozen ground beef (GB, 1000 g per vendor) and beef <i>longissimus lumborum</i> steaks (LL, 4 per vendor) were purchased from online grass-fed beef vendors (n=15) from the United States and shipped to the Penn State Meats Laboratory via air freight. Only beef from vendors willing to provide postmortem aging information supplied beef for this study (14-21 d). Sample cost per kg and shipping container dimensions were recorded, and samples were stored at -20°C until all samples were collected. Standard cargo volume, fuel economy, and emissions data were used to calculate possible CO_{2}_ emissions associated with product shipment. GB and LL steaks thawed overnight at 2°C. GB patties (113.4-g) were made with a hand mold. Instrumental color (<i>L*,a*,b*</i>) was measured after GB patties and LL steaks bloomed for 0, 30, and 60 min at 20°C. GB patties and LL steaks (4 per vendor) were cooked using clamshell-style grills to 60, 65.5, 71, and 76.6°C, allowed to rest for 10 min, then internal cooked color was measured. Warner-Bratzler shear force was conducted on four 1.27-cm cores taken parallel with the muscle fiber of each LL steak, and on two 2.5-cm thick strips from each cooked patty. LL steak retail price was $50.3±16.7/kg and GB retail price was $13.4±2.8/kg. Beef was shipped 1904.5±1098.4 km with potential CO_{2}_ emissions of up to 9.9 kg CO2/kg beef. The <i>a*</i> values after 0, 30, and 60 min of bloom time of uncooked LL steaks were 11.4±2.5, 15.6±3.2, and 16.6±3.2, and of uncooked GB patties were 20.6±5.6, 22.6±3.5, and 21.9±3.5, respectively. The <i>a*</i> values after cooking to 60, 65.5, 71, and 76.6°C for LL steaks were 13.5±3.5, 12.2±3.8, 9.5±2.3, and 7.9±1.8, and for GB patties were 19.7±4.1, 18.8±2.9, 18.4±3.1, 18.7±3.8, respectively. The WBSF values for endpoint temperatures of 60, 65.5, 71, and 76.6°C for LL steaks were 6.7±1.2, 8.0±2.6, 7.5±1.6, and 8.5±3.5 kg, and for GB patties were 10.2±2.5, 10.1±4.0, 9.5±2.3, 9.1±2.3 kg, respectively. Survey data indicate that online-purchased grass-fed LL steaks and GB are considerably more expensive per kg than conventional counterparts. CO_{2}_ emissions per kg of beef if shipped overnight can be ≥200% more than conventional counterparts shipped by truck. Proponents of grass-fed beef report that it cooks differently than grain-fed beef; however, this survey reveals considerable variation of cooked color and tenderness among grass-fed products. Food miles and CO_{2}_ emissions are emergent food qualities, neither of which are supported by products shipped via air. Grass-fed beef introduces more variation into a beef system that targets product consistency and uniformity.
Research Interests:
A 20-year assessment was run on a simulated pasture on a dairy to analyze the effect of various harvesting techniques on nitrogen removal from the system. The aim was to find a combination of treatments that caused the greatest uptake of... more
A 20-year assessment was run on a simulated pasture on a dairy to analyze the effect of various harvesting techniques on nitrogen removal from the system. The aim was to find a combination of treatments that caused the greatest uptake of nitrogen by plant matter thereby diminishing loss through runoff. Mowing, grazing and planting were thought to stimulate a grass density increase that would inhibit water flow from the system while pruning and burning plants were thought to stimulate growth and increase nutrient uptake from the soil. These hypothesis were tested via five treatments, The simulated area contained 100 square meters with three plant communities; grass, shrubs and trees. These three types were parameterized to function as they would in a riparian system with grass serving to diffuse water to allow absorption by soil and shrubs and trees functioning as the main nutrient absorbing plants. The pasture was located next to a dairy and dairy runoff inputs, as calculated by IFSM, were inputted as nitrogen, carbon and water sources. Other inputs into the system were historical data for monthly rainfall, temperature and soil characteristics. The output was given as N runoff from the soil profile. The model was run over 20 years to view the long term consequences of management decisions. A total of 4.335 kg N was calculated to runoff during the 20-year time period. Annual planting in October, annual burning before year 5 and annual pruning after year 3 were all found to significantly decrease N runoff. When grazing at a stocking rate of 1AUM/acre during the spring, N runoff increased to 5.16 kg; however, when the same stocking rate was applied during the winter, runoff did not significantly increase. Mowing did not significantly change N runoff. The most effective reduction resulted from annual fires in the first 5 years, pruning annually in August starting in year 7, and grazing cattle annually at 1AUM/acre starting in year 6 with yearly planting of grass in October. This resulted in a runoff reduction to 1.09 kg N, a nearly 75% reduction. This shows that good pasture management, even while being utilized by cattle, can significantly reduce runoff from dairies.
Research Interests:
Take Home Message • US dairy industry sustainability is increasingly important as producers are challenged with increasing dairy product supply to meet the demands of the growing population, while maintaining the tradition of... more
Take Home Message
• US dairy industry sustainability is increasingly important as producers are challenged with increasing dairy product supply to meet the demands of the growing population, while maintaining the tradition of environmental stewardship
• Advances in nutrition, management and genetics resulted in a four-fold improvement in milk yield between 1944 and 2007. This allowed the US dairy industry to produce 59% more milk using 64% fewer cows and conferred considerable reductions in feed (77%), land (90%) and water (65%) use per gallon of milk. The carbon footprint of the entire US dairy industry was reduced by 41% over the same period.
• The global livestock industry is thought to contribute 18% of greenhouse gases worldwide. However, this global average does not address variability between systems. Differences in system productivity demonstrate the considerable variation in environmental impact between dairy regions.
• As dairy industries worldwide pledge to reduce total greenhouse gases emissions, attention should be focused on a whole-system approach rather than a ‘magic bullet’ solution that may confer negative trade-offs.
• Improving productivity has the greatest potential to reduce the environmental impact of dairy production, regardless of system characteristics.
• US dairy industry sustainability is increasingly important as producers are challenged with increasing dairy product supply to meet the demands of the growing population, while maintaining the tradition of environmental stewardship
• Advances in nutrition, management and genetics resulted in a four-fold improvement in milk yield between 1944 and 2007. This allowed the US dairy industry to produce 59% more milk using 64% fewer cows and conferred considerable reductions in feed (77%), land (90%) and water (65%) use per gallon of milk. The carbon footprint of the entire US dairy industry was reduced by 41% over the same period.
• The global livestock industry is thought to contribute 18% of greenhouse gases worldwide. However, this global average does not address variability between systems. Differences in system productivity demonstrate the considerable variation in environmental impact between dairy regions.
• As dairy industries worldwide pledge to reduce total greenhouse gases emissions, attention should be focused on a whole-system approach rather than a ‘magic bullet’ solution that may confer negative trade-offs.
• Improving productivity has the greatest potential to reduce the environmental impact of dairy production, regardless of system characteristics.
Research Interests:
Extensive livestock production systems are commonly perceived to be inherently more environmentally sustainable than conventional beef production systems. A deterministic model was used to compare the environmental impact of the 1977 and... more
Extensive livestock production systems are commonly perceived to be inherently more environmentally sustainable than conventional beef production systems. A deterministic model was used to compare the environmental impact of the 1977 and 2007 US beef industries. The model integrated resource inputs and waste outputs from animal nutrition and metabolism, herd population dynamics and cropping parameters using a modified life cycle assessment approach. System boundaries extended from the cow-calf operation to arrival at the slaughter plant. The beef population required to produce one unit of beef in 2007 was reduced by 30% compared to 1977. This difference was conferred both by improved productivity and by dairy calves entering the beef production chain, thus reducing the number of support animals required. Between 1977 and 2007, total land area and water use per unit of beef were reduced by 34% and 13% respectively. Comparative methane and nitrous oxide emissions per unit of beef produced were reduced by 20% and 11% respectively. The carbon footprint was therefore reduced by 18% in 2007 compared with 1977. The same model was used to analyze the environmental impact of corn-fed beef finishing systems with or without technology (conventional vs. natural), compared to grass-fed systems. Improved productivity in the conventional system resulted in 2.6 total animals (growing animals plus supporting population) being required to produce 363 kg of beef, compared to 3.0 and 4.5 animals in the natural and grass-fed systems. Land area per 363 kg beef was increased from 1.95 ha in the conventional system to 2.40 ha in the natural system and 3.58 ha in the grass-fed system. Conventional beef production used the equivalent of 0.44 US households supply of water per carcass (166,676 liters), while the natural and grass-fed systems used the equivalents of 0.51 and 1.85 US households’ water supply. The carbon footprint of the conventional system was 5,596 kg CO2-equivalents per 363 kg beef, equivalent to annual emissions from 1.11 average US cars, compared to 1.30 cars (natural system) and 1.92 cars (grass-fed system). These analyses clearly demonstrate that advances in US beef industry productivity considerably reduce the environmental impact of modern beef production.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Improving productivity demonstrably reduces the environmental impact of animal agriculture; yet extensive beef production systems are often cited as being more environmentally sustainable than conventional systems. This study modeled the... more
Improving productivity demonstrably reduces the environmental impact of animal agriculture; yet extensive beef production systems are often cited as being more environmentally sustainable than conventional systems. This study modeled the environmental impact of three beef production systems: conventional (feedlot finishing system with 100% adoption of growth-enhancing technologies); natural (feedlot finishing system without growth-enhancing technologies); and grass-fed (all animals fed on a 100% forage diet from birth to slaughter). Growth-enhancing technologies included ionophores, hormone implants, in-feed hormones and beta-agonists. The deterministic model integrated resource inputs and waste outputs from animal nutrition and metabolism, herd population dynamics and cropping parameters using a modified life cycle assessment approach with a functional unit of 363 kg beef carcass. Rations were formulated using a commercially-accepted animal nutrition model (AMTS Cattle.Pro) for growing animals (steers, heifers) and the supporting population (cows, bulls, herd replacements) according to bodyweight and production (growth, pregnancy, lactation). Animals were slaughtered after equivalent days on feed or once an appropriate slaughter weight was reached. System boundaries extended from the cow-calf operation to arrival at the slaughter plant, thus all operations and transport within these limits were included. Improved productivity within the conventional system resulted in a total of 2.6 animals (growing animals plus supporting population) required to produce one 363 kg carcass, compared to 3.0 animals in the natural system and 4.5 animals in the grass-fed system. A combination of the decrease in population size and improved productivity conferred by growth-enhancing technology use reduced total feedstuff use per 363 kg carcass in the conventional system by 1.58 metric tonnes compared to natural beef production, and by 6.58 metric tonnes compared to grass-fed beef production. Total land area required per 363 kg carcass was lowest in the conventional system (1.95 ha), intermediate in the natural system (2.37 ha) and highest in the grassfed system (3.58 ha). The conventional system used the equivalent of 0.44 US
households supply of water per carcass (166,676 liters), while the natural and grass-fed systems used the equivalents of 0.51 and 1.85 US households’ water supply. The carbon footprint of the conventional system was 11,248 kg CO2-equivalents per
carcass, equivalent to annual emissions from 2.22 average US cars, compared to 2.55 cars (natural system) and 3.80 cars (grass-fed system). The analysis clearly demonstrates that improved productivity conferred by growth-enhancing technology within intensive production systems considerably reduces natural resource use and the environmental impact of US beef production.
households supply of water per carcass (166,676 liters), while the natural and grass-fed systems used the equivalents of 0.51 and 1.85 US households’ water supply. The carbon footprint of the conventional system was 11,248 kg CO2-equivalents per
carcass, equivalent to annual emissions from 2.22 average US cars, compared to 2.55 cars (natural system) and 3.80 cars (grass-fed system). The analysis clearly demonstrates that improved productivity conferred by growth-enhancing technology within intensive production systems considerably reduces natural resource use and the environmental impact of US beef production.