Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Environmental Impact of Beef Production Data

Environmental Impact of Beef Production Data

Post a Comment

WHAT DOES SUSTAINABILITY Hateful FOR DIETS AND THE Food SYSTEM?

Sustainability in our food organisation is a complex topic. It encompasses multiple domains (economical, environmental, social) and long-term time scales (generational impacts). Issues as varied as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, wildlife habitat, rural livelihoods, the affordability of food, nutritional quality, and animal welfare tin all fall under the broader umbrella of sustainability. Further complicating sustainability is the reality that there can exist tradeoffs and interrelationships across domains. For example, brute source foods in general produce more GHG per kilocalorie than plant source foods; however, brute source foods besides tend to provide more of several essential nutrients in bioavailable forms per kilocalorie, such as atomic number 26, calcium, and vitamin B12.1 Finally, the multiple issues that fall under the umbrella of sustainability are field of study to value judgments, cultural differences, and traditions. What is nearly valued by 1 individual may be different for another, which means that sweeping statements about one-size-fits-all dietary communication or generalized public policy recommendations are hard to provide.

Given the complication outlined above, what are some of the definitions of sustainable food systems and diets? The Un' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines a sustainable nutrient organisation as "a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economical, social and environmental bases to generate nutrient security and diet for future generations are not compromised." The same organization defines sustainable diets as "those with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and hereafter generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally adequate, accessible, economically off-white and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources."2

The bottom line is sustainability is a circuitous balancing act full of dash and shades of gray. This article will highlight this complexity and provide practical advice with a food that is frequently in the crosshairs in healthy, sustainable diet discussions: beefiness. The following information on beef production, sustainability, consumption patterns, and food waste will be largely focused on the United States.

Beef CATTLE PRODUCTION IN THE U.s.a.

The U.s.a. beef supply concatenation is one of the well-nigh circuitous of any nutrient. Beef cattle production starts in the U.s.a. on operations chosen cow-calf operations, more commonly known as farms or ranches depending on the region of the country. According to the 2017 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census, there are more than 720 000 beef cow-calf operations in the United states of america, with operations in all l states. This makes beef the single largest segment of the US agriculture, as cow-calf operations represent 36% of U.s.a. farms and ranches. Cattle and calves were the top ranked commodity in US agronomics in 2017, with $77.ii billion in sales.3

Cow-calf product is extensive, meaning that most cows in the The states are housed on pasture or rangeland and spend most of their time grazing and eating forages, such every bit hay. On these operations, a beef cow will accept a dogie ideally once per year (the gestation menstruation of cattle is similar to humans—approximately 285 days), and the cow volition nurse the calf until weaning, which typically occurs when the dogie is six to x months sometime and weighs 450 to 700 lb. Once weaned, cattle may remain on grass and graze for another 2 to 6 months, or the cattle may enter a feedlot, while even so consuming a high-fodder nutrition (>50% of their feed intake). Cattle during this time are referred to as stockers or backgrounders, respectively. The final phase of cattle production is known equally finishing, where cattle will continue to gain lean muscle, but will likewise add a college proportion of fat, in detail intramuscular fat known equally marbling. At the end of finishing, cattle will weigh between 1200 and 1400 lb. Near cattle in the United States (~97%) are finished in feedlots and fed a grain-based nutrition for approximately four to half dozen months before slaughter; however, proportionally, approximately two-thirds of the beast'southward lifetime is spent outside of feedlots. A much smaller proportion of cattle will be finished on grass or by consuming a 100% forage diet (eg, hay, silage, or fermented whole plants such as alfalfa) for approximately 6 to 10 months. In addition, dairy cattle will enter the beef supply, both in terms of culled dairy cows and male dairy calves that are raised every bit steers but equally beef breed cattle (eg, Angus, Herefords). The U.s. veal industry is small (74.5 meg lb of veal production compared with 27.2 billion lb of beef production in 2019) within the United States and concentrated in the Northeastern and Midwest United States.4,five

Most beef cattle in the United States are not in a feedlot at whatsoever given point in time. For example, on Jan 1, 2019, the USDA estimated that at that place were fourteen.4 million cattle in feedlots, with the remaining 82% of the US beef cattle herd located outside feedlots primarily on pasture and rangeland (Figure 1).6 The U.s.a. beef cattle manufacture is a combination of grass-based and grain-based feed intakes, with almost of cattle's lifetimes and feed consumption resulting from grass and other forages.

F1
FIGURE i.:

Cattle inventory and cattle production life bike in the US beef product organization.4,5

HOW BEEF FITS INTO A SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEM

The nature of beefiness cattle production is central to its contributions to a sustainable nutrient system. Most of the land and feed resources used by the Us beef cattle industry are non in direct competition with homo food production, meaning that most of the state used by cattle cannot be cultivated to grow crops we eat straight (eg, fruits and vegetables) and virtually of the feed that cattle eat is inedible to humans. Creature feed–homo food competition is a key topic in sustainable nutrient system discussions as information technology potentially reflects natural resources competition and can influence how many people can be nourished in full from the food organisation.

A multiyear survey of Us cattle farmers and ranchers found that the feed resources required to produce beef are 82% human-inedible forage (eg, grass, hay), 7% byproducts or homo-inedible plant leftovers (eg, dried distillers grains), and 11% grain (eg, field corn, which is different from sugariness corn consumed past people).7 This translates into 2.six kg of grain per kg of beef produced in the United States. Given the almost recent year's beef production, corn yields, and corn acres harvested, corn grain harvested and fed to beef cattle in the United states of america was derived from approximately eight 1000000 acres.viii This is equivalent to 10% of harvested corn acres, two% of cropland acres, and 0.3% of the land area in the United states.9

The feed resources required to produce a pound of beef, or whatever animal source nutrient product, is oft of interest in sustainability assessments equally a reflection of feed-food contest. Oftentimes cited statistics include 6 lb, 3 lb, and 2 lb of feed to brand 1 lb of beef, pork, or chicken, respectively. However, this feed conversion for beef does not business relationship for the other segments of the beef industry outside of the finishing phase (cow-dogie and stocker/backgrounder) and fails to make the stardom betwixt the nutrition limerick consumed by these different species.

Cattle are ruminants, which means their digestive systems are uniquely evolved to apply gristly plant materials (forage) for free energy and nutrients by way of microbes and then that they do not take to depend on high-quality dietary sources of protein to meet their amino acid requirements. The microorganisms within cattle'southward specialized stomach compartments pass on to the animal's gastric stomach compartment (abomasum) and small intestine and are a source of high-quality, readily digestible protein for the animal. Similarly, the microorganisms are sources of essential vitamins such as vitamin B12, which is why ruminant products (beef, lamb, cow's milk, etc) are such excellent sources of vitamin B12 for humans.

Pigs and chickens are similar to humans in that they are monogastric animals and depend upon the dietary intake of loftier-quality protein to run across their daily amino acid requirements. As a result, diets fed to pigs and chickens in the United States typically include soybean meal equally a high-quality protein source. Ultimately, which species is considered virtually efficient at converting feed into human being food depends on how feed conversion efficiency is expressed (Table 1).

Table 1 - Comparison of Feed Conversion Efficiency Expressed iii Unlike Ways

Species Dry Matter Feed Conversion, lb of Feed Dry Affair/lb of Alive Weight Human-Edible Feed Conversion, lb of Potentially Homo Edible Feed (Corn, Soy)a/lb of Live Weight Net Protein Contributionb (Values >1 Mean More than Loftier-Quality Protein Generated Than Used)
United states of america average grain-finished beef for full life bike7 13.ane 1.6 2.66
Broiler chickenx one.six i.4 0.85
Pork11 two.5 ii.0 0.71

This example demonstrates how a determination about which brute production system is about efficient is dependent upon how the sustainability metric is expressed.

aAnimal feedstuffs such every bit corn grain and soybean meal could exist consumed by people and thus are classified as man-edible feeds. Forages similar grass and hay cannot exist consumed past people and thus are classified as human-inedible feeds.

bInternet protein contribution is human-edible protein render * protein quality ratio (PQR). Human-edible protein return is the kilograms of human-edible crude protein in the beefiness, chicken, or pork divided by the respective kilograms of human-edible feed crude protein consumed past the cattle, chickens, or pigs. Protein quality ratio is the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) of beef (111.6), pork (113.9), or craven (108.2) divided by the DIAAS of the fauna'south diet (beefiness cattle, 42.2; pigs and chickens, 60.9). The diets of pigs and chickens take a higher PQR because of the inclusion of soybean meal. Net protein contribution values greater than ane signal more loftier-quality poly peptide generated in the course of meat than the animals consume (ie, adding to the homo food protein supply).12


CONTEXT ON Beef'S GHG EMISSIONS

A quick Cyberspace search of beefiness and GHG emissions volition outcome in a wide range of statistics, and 3 types of conflation typically occur that tin brand understanding which statistic is the most appropriate to employ confusing to a nutrition professional person. Outset, globally relevant statistics are often conflated with US emissions; 2nd, all emissions from livestock production are oftentimes ascribed to beef; and third, direct and life cycle emissions are often used interchangeably without explicit delineation as to what emission sources are or are non included within a percentage.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) GHG emissions inventory, two% of Usa emissions come directly from beefiness cattle (methane from cattle belches, methane and nitrous oxide from managed manure which is generally the manure in feedlots). Total direct emissions from all agricultural production, crops and livestock collectively, were 8.iv% of The states emissions in 2017. Agriculture, country use, country apply change, and forestry combined in the Us are a net sink of CO2 equivalent (COtwoe) emissions, meaning they removed 172 million metric tons of COiie from the temper in 2017.13

Globally, life cycle emissions from livestock product (emissions from feed production to consumer) are estimated to be 14.five% of GHG emissions. Global beefiness life cycle emissions are half dozen% of the world's GHG emissions.14 The disparity between these 2 percentages is the other forms of livestock agriculture deemed for in the 14.5% effigy, such as poultry, pork, and dairy production. Beef cattle practice correspond a higher proportion of total GHG emissions from animal agriculture than monogastric animals like pigs and chickens. This is one example of a sustainability tradeoff: beefiness cattle production has less feed-food competition and beefiness cattle are able to use more nonarable land than pigs and chickens; all the same, considering cattle are ruminant animals, they produce more methane gas (a GHG 28 times more potent at trapping heat over a 100-year timeframe than carbon dioxide) from their digestive tracts.13

In the United States, beefiness cattle production produces 3.vii% of U.s. GHG emissions from a life wheel perspective. This partial life cycle assessment (LCA) guess adds in emissions from feed product (eg, emissions from soil, manure on pasture lands), fuel and electricity utilise, and others, to the 2% estimation from the EPA inventory, hence why an LCA GHG estimate is higher than the EPA's straight emissions from the animals and their managed manure.7 The GHG emissions produced by US beef cattle contribute simply a fraction of the GHG emissions attributed to global beef production, as most cattle in the world are located outside US borders: Us beef cattle product emissions are less than 0.5% of the world's GHG emissions.

Importantly, emissions from cattle and other livestock are not static, and at that place remain many opportunities to reduce emissions further. Both in the United States and around the globe, beefiness production has become more efficient, and GHG emission produced per pound of beef has declined. In the United States, according to United Nations' FAO data, direct GHG emissions from beef cattle take declined 33% from 18 lb of carbon dioxide equivalents in 1975 to 12.1 lb of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2016 per pound of beef produced.xv This reduction in beefiness's carbon emissions is a result of a decline in the size of the US cattle herd. In 1975, the United states had 132 million beefiness and dairy cattle and produced 24 billion lb of beef. In 2016, the Us cattle herd had shrunk to 92 meg heads, but beef production was slightly higher at 25 billion lb.6 The global average carbon emission intensity of beef has declined 20% from 1975 to 2016, falling from 32 to 25.7 lb of carbon dioxide equivalents per pound of beef, respectively.15 The ability to produce more beef with fewer animals means fewer natural resources are required and less GHG emissions are produced to generate homo nourishment. This improvement in efficiency was gained primarily through improvements in animal genetics, brute nutrition, and husbandry practices. Standing improvement in these areas of beef cattle production can further reduce environmental impacts inside the United states and around the world.

Research and extension and adoption of new knowledge are a continuous process that delivers on incremental improvements in reducing beef cattle production's resource employ and environmental impacts. Advancements in grazing country management, brute convenance decision making enhanced by genomic information, marsh gas inhibitors, integrated crop-livestock systems, water recycling technology, and manure composting are just a few of the examples of new technologies being deployed and tested that volition further enhance the sustainability of U.s.a. beef production in the years ahead. These efforts are being driven by private businesses inside the beef supply chain, public entities similar Country Grant Universities and the USDA, and multistakeholder groups such as the U.s. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

THE SUSTAINABILITY-Diet CONNECTION

Defining a Sustainable Nutrition

Equally referenced previously, the FAO'due south definition of sustainable diets makes clear that many dietary patterns tin exist sustainable. The definition also presents the complexities involved in determining whether a dietary pattern is sustainable. Ane must consider many factors, including location, climate, culture, economics, nutritional capability, and available natural and homo resource. A sustainable diet in one function of the world may non be in another role of the world or even a given state.

People, Planet, and Profit Considerations

In considering the defining variables of a sustainable diet, the triple bottom line is an accounting framework that evaluates its affect on people, planet, and turn a profit.16,17 This framework can so be used to determine the impact of a particular dietary pattern and ascertain if that dietary pattern meets the criteria for a sustainable diet.

Evaluating Affect on People

As shown in the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, there are many dietary patterns that are nutritionally acceptable, providing plenty calories and essential nutrients.eighteen Nutritional capability is fundamental to healthy, sustainable diets. Human biology allows for flexibility with food choice regarding meeting food requirements and achieving optimal diets, which is particularly fortunate considering lifestyle, culture, tradition, and values are frequently more than powerful daily drivers of food option than the quest for adequate or optimal food intake.

There are many cultural factors that will influence food intakes, including ethnicity, race, and faith. The term "food civilization" historically has referred to where people live and the traditional dietary patterns of that region or expanse (eg, Mediterranean food culture). More recently, research has focused on the bear on of dietary patterns on an individual'southward food culture.

Costa and colleagues19 looked at how young women choosing to eat a vegan diet do non consider it a nutrition to follow but rather a lifestyle to live. This finding starts to blur the lines between considerations of culture and lifestyle. Nutrition practitioners need to non only empathise the nutrition implications of various dietary patterns but as well the lifestyle implications. When a dietary blueprint becomes part of a person'southward identity rather than just a mode of eating, recommendations to alter the nutrition can have a profound bear on on a person's sense of self, well-being, and confidence.

Other factors to consider when evaluating a dietary blueprint include lifestyle. A sustainable dietary pattern for a adult female with iii young children who works ii jobs, lives in an urban food desert, relies on public transportation, and is at adventure of food insecurity is very different from that of an educated, upper center course woman with no children who works at home, lives in the suburbs, orders home meal kits, joyfully cooks each evening during the week, and dines out with friends and family on the weekend.

Over the by ten years, much as been published on the negative impacts of "food elitism," the practice of making food, beverage, or diet recommendations that require more money and/or more time like recommending fresh fruit and vegetables over processed forms including frozen or canned. Lawrence and colleaguestwenty write of marketers that target LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) consumers who "have a strong involvement in health, fitness, personal development, and social justice, and put a high value on sustainability and environmental protection." These marketers hope college quality and accuse premium prices. Although their marketing is targeted, their messages are often far reaching, imparting feelings of fear or failure for consumers who believe their messaging merely cannot afford their prices or exercise non have admission to their products.

Huang and colleagues21 reported the negative impact of organic marketing on low-income shoppers and their fruit and vegetable purchases. Messaging about production methods (eg, organic and conventional production) and pesticide residues in 12 fruits and vegetables highlighted past the Ecology Working Group "Dirty Dozen" study resulted in shoppers reporting they were less likely to buy any fruits and vegetables. If nutrition professionals believe fruits and vegetables are an of import office of sustainable diets, efforts must be made to communicate in means to motivate people to buy and consume more fruits and vegetables versus less. The aforementioned applies to messages about beef production. Production data that creates a negative perception of a food's nutritional value is not helpful; nutrition professionals should strive to provide data about the office of beef in healthful diets that allow patients and clients to make informed non fear-based choices.

Evaluating Impact on the Planet

Dietary choices may take an impact on soil, air, and water as well as GHG emissions and their potential bear on on climate change. Dietary choices also accept an impact on other natural resource like fossil fuel utilize for production, processing, distribution, and storage. When considering the touch on of a specific dietary blueprint or individual food, it is critically important to evaluate LCA information and not focus solely on individual measurements or metrics. Many refer to an LCA assay every bit a "cradle-to-grave" assessment from the birth or beginning of a food product to its final use or when it becomes waste. According to Satpute and colleagues,22 "LCA enables the interpretation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life bicycle." Readers interested in learning more about how LCAs employ to foods can read Cucurachi and colleagues'23 "Life Wheel Assessment of Food Systems" primer and Halpern and colleagues'24 opinion slice "Putting All Foods on the Aforementioned Table: Achieving Sustainable Food Systems Requires Full Accounting."

Although it is tempting to compare foods based on a unmarried metric like water use, doing and then does not tell the full story of environmental touch. As well, sharing information on global averages is not a fair and counterbalanced utilise of the information. For instance, nigh 45% of GHG emissions in Ethiopia come from enteric fermentation from livestock.25 Meanwhile, in the United States, GHG emission from livestock is 4%.13 Yet, when GHG information are reported, many will report a global average that makes the impact of US livestock production expect worse than it is.26 Mayhap ane of the biggest challenges facing nutrition professionals today is the fact that nutrition scientific discipline is a relatively new field and we have much to learn. Coupled with that, our colleagues in environmental science work in an fifty-fifty younger discipline with less than 20 years of robust peer-reviewed literature. Equally a event, nosotros need to be mindful that we currently know much more about healthful dietary patterns than we practise almost the environmental impact of our food choices.

Evaluating Impact on Profits

Subcontract and ranch families contain less than 2% of the United states of america population. Meanwhile, equally a outcome of the productivity and efficiency of these U.s.a. farmers and ranchers, people in the United states of america have access to an arable, affordable, and safety food supply.27 As with any business performance, a farmer's or a rancher's ability to make a profit is function of his/her sustainability story; no farm or ranch tin be environmentally sustainable without also being financially sustainable. It is therefore critically important for farmers and ranchers to be able to operate in ways that maximize their ability to produce a turn a profit while protecting natural resources.

In the United States, near two-thirds of land for agriculture cannot be used to abound crops.28 The soil quality may be also poor, topsoil depth too shallow, state too rocky, slope too steep, or trees too dense to successfully abound crops. Farmers and ranchers with this blazon of pasture, range, or forestland tin use it to produce food past grazing livestock on it. Proceeds from the sale of livestock contribute to the overall economic viability of the farming or ranching operation with marginal land that cannot support crops.

And then how does the financial sustainability of farmers and ranchers affect consumers? When US farmers and ranchers are productive, efficient, and financially stable, they tin can proceed to produce food for the 98% of the population non involved in agriculture. If nosotros lose farmers and ranchers, we lose food security, relying on producers in other parts of the world to feed the states, which can affect food quality, availability, and cost.

TRANSLATING THE Evidence

The Function of Animal Poly peptide in Sustainable Diets

If nosotros go dorsum to the FAO definition of sustainable diets and evaluate what "nutritionally adequate" ways, we must look at both macronutrient and micronutrient needs. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines included a Healthy Vegetarian Eating Design showing that we tin can get acceptable poly peptide from a variety of establish-based foods also as dairy products and eggs.18 But in that location are certain micronutrients like choline, heme atomic number 26, zinc, and the essential fatty acid EPA that are easier to swallow in adequate amounts when beast-based foods are included in healthful dietary patterns. According to the USDA National Nutrient Database, the top sources of each of these nutrients are animal-based products like eggs (choline), oysters (iron), beef (zinc), and salmon (EPA).29

Beef is an example of a food-rich food that can contribute significant nutrients with relatively few calories. According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, individuals anile 19 to 50 years consume i.seven oz of beef per mean solar day; adults older than 50 years consume slightly less beef per day (ane.three oz).thirty In this same assay, lean beefiness contributed less than 5% total fat and less than four% total saturated fat. A separate analysis shows that beefiness contributes approximately v% of total calories to Americans' diets while contributing more than 5% of these essential nutrients: potassium (6.i%), phosphorus (seven.3%), iron (8%), vitamin B6 (9.2%), niacin (9.9%), protein (15.two%), zinc (23.one%), and vitamin B12 (25%).31 Teaching patients and clients how to cull lean beef helps them obtain optimal poly peptide and micronutrient benefits while limiting total fat, saturated fat, and calories from beef. The USDA defines "lean" beef as 100 one thousand (3.5 oz) of uncooked beef with less than 10 1000 of fat, 4.5 g or less of saturated fatty, and less than 95 mg of cholesterol.32 Counseling patients and clients to cull food-rich foods like lean beefiness is a powerful role nutrition professionals can play when it comes to helping individuals and populations overcome nutrient deficiencies.

In addition to food adequacy, nosotros must also address and respect food preferences and cultural food patterns. Many people like the taste, texture, mouthfeel, aroma, and other sensory properties of animal-based foods like milk, cheese, chicken, pork, and beef. All these foods can be included in healthful, balanced dietary patterns that are as well sustainable.

The Mediterranean dietary pattern is an example of a cultural food pattern that has been widely adopted because of both flavor and health benefits. A recent study past O'Connor and colleagues33 demonstrated the benefits of including lean beef in a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern. In this randomized, controlled feeding trial with 41 overweight or obese adult subjects, participants in the blood-red-meat group who consumed 500 thousand (18 oz) of lean, unprocessed beef or pork each week had greater reductions in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with participants in the control group, who ate 200 grand (7 oz) of lean, unprocessed beef or pork each week along with other poly peptide-rich foods. Patients who enjoy lean beef tin be encouraged to consume it every bit part of healthful dietary blueprint, like the Mediterranean diet, that includes other nutrient-rich foods more unremarkably associated with healthy, sustainable diets.

The Need to Reduce Food Waste matter

Food waste material is one of the biggest opportunities to accost when it comes to promoting sustainable diets. In the United States, we currently waste 30% to 40% of available food.34 Food waste occurs throughout our nutrient organisation, starting in agriculture (sixteen%) and food processing (<2%), moving to losses in restaurants and retail (40%), and finally to in-home losses (43%).35 Meat, poultry, and fish are the top wasted foods in the habitation based on value.35,36 Teaching patients and clients how to properly store, handle, freeze and thaw, cook, and/or reheat these foods can reduce nutrient waste in the home.

The environmental impact of food waste material ranges from the extensive losses of natural resources that get into producing nutrient (eg, land and water for crops; land, feed, h2o for animals; fossil fuels for machinery; etc) to the production of methyl hydride every bit wasted food in landfills decomposes through the work of methyl hydride-producing microorganisms. Municipal solid waste matter landfills are the 3rd largest emitter of methane in the United States.37 Reducing the amount of wasted food that goes into landfills is an important and effective strategy for enhancing food security while reducing GHG emissions.

Practical Awarding OF THE Science

The Part of the Nutrition Professional

Although the consequence of sustainability is undoubtedly complex, the office of the diet professional in promoting sustainable diets is clear. Scientific discipline- and evidence-based data that motivates our patients and clients to prefer healthful eating patterns should exist used every bit the foundation of our recommendations, while recognizing and respecting that at that place are different ways for our patients and clients to achieve healthy, sustainable dietary patterns. In that location are environmental, social, financial, and health benefits to including nutrient dense, creature-based foods in a healthful dietary design; further, the inclusion of these foods may improve adherence to a healthful dietary blueprint if our patients and clients enjoy them. Finally, beefiness tin can fit into a sustainable food organisation to deliver skilful nutrition because it is responsibly produced, affordable, attainable, adequate, and nutrient-rich. With good judgment and good science applied to creature husbandry, it is possible to feed people beef in a sustainable way.

REFERENCES

1. Drewnowski A, Rehm CD, Martin A, Verger EO, Voinnesson M, Imbert P. Energy and food density of foods in relation to their carbon footprint. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:184–191.

two. UN FAO. 2018. Sustainable nutrient systems: concept and framework. http://www.fao.org/three/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2019.

  • Cited Here

iii. U.s. Department of Agronomics National Agronomical Statistics Service. 2017 Census of agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php. Accessed October 2, 2019.

  • Cited Here

iv. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beefiness Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Printing. https://doi.org/ten.17226/19014.

  • Cited Here

v. The states Section of Agronomics Economic Enquiry Service. Livestock & meat domestic information. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-information/livestock-meat-domestic-data/. Accessed Feb x, 2020.

  • Cited Here

6. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cattle inventory. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Cattle_Inventory/. Accessed October two, 2019.

  • Cited Hither

vii. Rotz CA, Asem-Hiablie S, Place Southward, Thoma Yard. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the Us. Agric Sys. 2019;169(Feb.):1–thirteen.

  • Cited Here

8. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. Quick stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov. Accessed Oct 2, 2019.

  • Cited Here

9. United states Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Major land uses. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses/. Accessed October 2, 2019.

  • Cited Hither

11. Wilkinson JM. Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal. 2011;5(7):1014–1022.

12. Ertl P, Knaus Due west, Zollitsch Westward. An approach to including poly peptide quality when assessing the cyberspace contribution of livestock to human nutrient supply. Animal. 2016;ten(eleven):1883–1889.

thirteen. U.s.a. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.South. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2017. https://world wide web.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-u.s.a.-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2017. Accessed Oct six, 2019.

  • Cited Hither

14. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, et al. Tackling Climatic change Through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome, Italy: Nutrient and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2013.

  • Cited Here

15. Un Food and Agriculture Organisation. FAOSTAT: emissions intensities. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EI. Accessed February 10, 2020.

  • Cited Here

16. Burlingame B, Dernin S, eds. Sustainable diets and biodiversity. Direction and solutions for policy, research and activity. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger; November 3–five, 2010; Rome, Italy. FAO, 2012. http://world wide web.fao.org/three/i3004e/i3004e.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2019.

  • Cited Here

17. Academy of Wisconsin Sustainable Management. The Triple Bottom Line. https://sustain.wisconsin.edu/sustainability/triple-bottom-line/. Accessed February 5, 2020.

  • Cited Here

xviii. United states Department of Wellness and Human Services and The states Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 2005. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. Accessed August 27, 2019.

  • Cited Hither

xix. Costa I, Gill PR, Morda R, Ali 50. "More than a diet": a qualitative investigation of young vegan women'south relationship to nutrient. Appetite. 2019;143:104418. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104418.

xx. Lawrence G, Lyons K, Wallington T. Food Security, Diet and Sustainability. London: Earthscan; 2010.

  • Cited Hither

21. Huang Y, Edirisinghe I, Burton-Freeman BM. Low income shoppers and fruits and vegetables: what do they call up?Nutr Today. 2016;51(5):242–250. doi:10.1097/NT.0000000000000176.

22. Satpute MS, Lamdande AG, Kadam VD, Garud SR. Life bike assessment of food. Int J Agric Eng. 2013;half dozen(2):558–563.

  • Cited Here

23. Cucurachi S, Scherer L, Guinfe J, Tukker A. Life cycle cess of nutrient systems. One Earth. 2019;1(iii):292–297.

24. Halpern BS, Cottrell RS, Blanchard JL, et al. Putting all foods on the aforementioned table: achieving sustainable food systems requires full accounting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(37):18152–18156.

26. US Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of green house gas emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed September nine, 2019.

  • Cited Here

27. American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture. Food and farm facts book (2019 edition). https://www.fb.org/newsroom/fast-facts. Accessed Oct 30, 2019.

  • Cited Here

28. Bigelow D. A primer on country use in the U.s.a.. USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/dec/a-primer-on-land-use-in-the-united-states/. Accessed September 9, 2019.

  • Cited Here

29. The states Department of Agronomics. USDA food limerick databases nutrient lists. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/index. Accessed September ix, 2019.

  • Cited Here

30. US Department of Health and Human Services and US Section of Agriculture. 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Eighth Edition. December 2015. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/.

  • Cited Here

31. Zanovec M, O'Neil CE, Keast DR, Fulgoni VL 3rd, Nicklas TA. Lean beefiness contributes meaning amounts of fundamental nutrients to the diets of Us adults: National Health and Diet Examination Survey 1999–2004. Nutr Res. 2010 Jun;30(6):375–381.

32. U.s.a. Department of Agronomics Food Safety and Inspection Service. Beefiness from farm to table. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/c33b69fe-7041-4f50-9dd0-d098f11d1f13/Beef_from_Farm_to_Table.pdf?Modernistic=AJPERES. Accessed February 5, 2020.

  • Cited Hither

33. O'Connor LE, Paddon-Jones D, Wright AJ, et al. A Mediterranean-style eating pattern with lean, unprocessed ruby-red meat has cardiometabolic benefits for adults who are overweight or obese in a randomized, crossover, controlled feeding trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 108(i):33–40.

  • Cited Hither

34. US Department of Agronomics. Food waste FAQs. https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs. Accessed September 10, 2019.

  • Cited Here

35. ReFED. An economical assay of nutrient waste solutions. https://world wide web.refed.com/. Accessed September 10, 2019.

  • Cited Hither

36. USDA Economic Research Service. Economic Information Message Number 121. Feb 2014. https://world wide web.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf. Accessed Feb five, 2020.

  • Cited Here

37. US Environmental Protection Bureau. Basic data about landfill gas. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/bones-information-about-landfill-gas. Accessed September ten, 2019.

  • Cited Here
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published past Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

gibbsprome1956.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/fulltext/2020/09000/beef_production__what_are_the_human_and.7.aspx

Post a Comment for "Environmental Impact of Beef Production Data"