Comparing Carbon and Water Footprints for Beef Cattle Production in Southern Australia

Ridoutt, Bradley G.; Sanguansri, Peerasak; Harper, Gregory S.

doi:10.3390/su3122443

Cited by 54 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The model predicted water use at 1281 L/kg HCW beef which was in the range of previous studies estimating water use. This value was greater than some previous estimates of beef water use in the U.S. or Australia (Table 8; Capper, 2011Capper, , 2012Ridoutt et al, 2011) likely because of irrigated pasture use. A different water foot printing methodology estimated substantially more water use attributable to beef (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007) because different water sources (i.e.…”

Section: Least-cost Diet Optimization Outputs and Comparison To Measucontrasting

confidence: 49%

“…rainwater) were considered by Hoekstra and 6 Up f ;p Intake of particular animal groups was constrained to ensure practical diets. Constraints (UP f,p and LOW f,p ) listed in Table 6 36 BVcos t þ WTP P PVcos t Diet cost increases over baseline in environmental scenarios were constrained to less than consumers WTP Ridoutt et al, 2011). Given the variability in efficiency between these systems, carbon footprints differing by 20-25% were expected between regions.…”

Section: Least-cost Diet Optimization Outputs and Comparison To Measumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

White

Brady

Capper³

et al. 2014

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSystem 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.

show abstract

Section: Least-cost Diet Optimization Outputs and Comparison To Measucontrasting

confidence: 49%

Section: Least-cost Diet Optimization Outputs and Comparison To Measumentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

White

Brady

Capper³

et al. 2014

Agricultural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They have been reported to account for 55% [14] to 92% [15] of the carbon footprint, with the majority of the CH 4 emissions arising from enteric fermentation. Depending on a suite of factors including feed quality, management practices, animal activity, and animal genetics, 3% [11] to 9.5% [16] of the energy consumed by cattle is lost as CH 4 .…”

Section: Carbon Footprint Of Beef Cattlementioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle

Desjardins

Worth

Vergé³

et al. 2012

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The carbon footprint of beef cattle is presented for Canada, The United States, The European Union, Australia and Brazil. The values ranged between 8 and 22 kg CO 2 e per kg of live weight (LW) depending on the type of farming system, the location, the year, the type of management practices, the allocation, as well as the boundaries of the study. Substantial reductions have been observed for most of these countries in the last thirty years. For instance, in Canada the mean carbon footprint of beef cattle at the exit gate of the farm decreased from 18.2 kg CO 2 e per kg LW in 1981 to 9.5 kg CO 2 e per kg LW in 2006 mainly because of improved genetics, better diets, and more sustainable land management practices. Cattle production results in products other than meat, such as hides, offal and products for rendering plants; hence the environmental burden must be distributed between these useful products. In order to do this, the cattle carbon footprint needs to be reported in kg of CO 2 e per kg of product. For example, in Canada in 2006, on a mass basis, the carbon footprint of cattle by-products at the exit gate of the slaughterhouse was 12.9 kg CO 2 e per kg of product. Based on an economic allocation, the carbon OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2012, 4 3280 footprints of meat (primal cuts), hide, offal and fat, bones and other products for rendering were 19.6, 12.3, 7 and 2 kg CO 2 e per kg of product, respectively.

show abstract

“…The aims of these analyses could be the comparison between the overall impacts of different food chains, as well as the comparison between single phases. Different researches have been investigated regarding the method used to verify the sustainability of the food system [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and, in particular, about the school food systems [18][19][20].…”

Section: Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies and Tools for Eco-Efficient Local Food Supply Scenarios

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considering the wide demand for daily meals, the issue of the institutional food system has become very important in highly developed societies and, also, how it affects the flow of energy and matter within a territory. This research originates from a wide multi-disciplinary project aimed at developing a self-sufficient approach to improve the institutional food system in an area of Northern Italy. Thus, the aim of this research is to give some guidelines to implement ideal scenarios of food production, processing, consumption, and waste management at the local level. To that end, the organization of the supply and demand within the local institutional food system is inquired. A methodology has been developed to analyze the main energy flows and matter related to this catering, and to outline possible optimal scenarios. This methodology also allows to analyze case studies and to formulate improvements in order to reduce their energy consumption while exploring all the steps of the supply chain (considering the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach). The use of quantitative indicators allows a comparison of the impacts related to the different steps characterizing the suggested scenarios. This paper presents results related to a test in the context of institutional catering in public schools.

show abstract

Comparing Carbon and Water Footprints for Beef Cattle Production in Southern Australia

Cited by 54 publications

References 43 publications

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production

Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle

Strategies and Tools for Eco-Efficient Local Food Supply Scenarios

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About