Effects of type of ration and allocation methods on the environmental impacts of beef-production systems

Nguyen, Thi Tuyet Hanh; Werf, Hayo M.G. van der; Eugène, Maguy; Veysset, Patrick; Devun, Jean; Chesneau, Guillaume; Doreau, M.

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2012.02.010

Cited by 73 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Description of baseline of beef production system The baseline beef production system (corresponding to system St-MS described in Nguyen et al (2012a)) comprised a cow-calf herd and a bull-fattening herd. The cow-calf herd included 70 cows that produced 62 weaned calves each year.…”

Section: System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The grassland area consisted of 88% permanent and 12% temporary pastures. One LU is defined as an animal that consumes 5 t dry matter (DM)/year (Nguyen et al, 2012a). We assumed that permanent grassland did not require tilling and sowing operations.…”

Section: System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The carcass yields of fattened bulls, the breeding bull, finished heifers and finished cull cows were 59%, 57%, 56% and 54%, respectively. Methods used to produce feed Practices and land use to reduce beef farm impacts ingredients were described in Nguyen et al (2012a) and were summarised in supporting information Table S1.…”

Section: System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Emissions estimates, including effect of LULUC on soil C balance Methods for estimating farm emissions were described in Nguyen et al (2012a). In brief, enteric CH 4 emissions were estimated for each class of cattle according to Vermorel et al (2008), using animals' net energy requirements, converted into metabolisable energy intake (MEI) and conversion factors from MEI to CH 4 energy.…”

Section: System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The baseline beef production scenario, described by Nguyen et al (2012a), reflected current farm characteristics and management practices by farmers of Charolais beef cattle in France. Alternative land use was assessed by assuming that any permanent grassland becoming available because of more efficient farming practices was converted to even-aged forest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effect of farming practices for greenhouse gas mitigation and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems

Nguyen

Doreau

Eugène

et al. 2013

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated effects of farming practice scenarios aiming to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of a beef cattle production system using the life cycle assessment approach. The baseline scenario includes a standard cow-calf herd with finishing heifers based on grazing, and a standard bull-fattening herd using a diet mainly based on maize silage, corresponding to current farm characteristics and management by beef farmers in France. Alternative scenarios were developed with changes in farming practices. Some scenarios modified grassland management (S1: decreasing mineral N fertiliser on permanent grassland; S2: decreasing grass losses during grazing) or herd management (S3: underfeeding of heifers in winter; S4: fattening female calves instead of being reared at a moderate growth rate; S5: increasing longevity of cows from 7 to 9 years; S6: advancing first calving age from 3 to 2 years). Other scenarios replaced protein sources (S7: partially replacing a protein supplement by lucerne hay for the cow-calf herd; S8: replacing soya bean meal with rapeseed meal for the fattening herd) or increased n-3 fatty acid content using extruded linseed (S9). The combination of compatible scenarios S1, S2, S5, S6 and S8 was also studied (S10). The impacts, such as climate change (CC, not including CO 2 emissions/sequestration of land use and land-use change, LULUC), CC/LULUC (including CO 2 emissions of LULUC), cumulative energy demand, eutrophication (EP), acidification and land occupation (LO) were expressed per kg of carcass mass and per ha of land occupied. Compared with the baseline, the most promising practice to reduce impacts per kg carcass mass was S10 (all reduced by 13% to 28%), followed by S6 (by 8% to 10%). For other scenarios, impact reduction did not exceed 5%, except for EP (up to 11%) and LO (up to 10%). Effects of changes in farming practices (the scenarios) on environmental impacts varied according to impact category and functional unit. For some scenarios (S2, S4, S6 and S10), permanent grassland area and LO per kg of carcass decreased by 12% to 23% and 9% to 19%, respectively. If the 'excess' permanent grassland was converted to fast-growing conifer forest to sequester carbon in tree and soil biomass, CC/LULUC per kg of carcass could be reduced by 20%, 25%, 27% and 48% for scenarios S2, S4, S6 and S10, respectively. These results illustrate the potential of farming practices and forest as an alternative land use to contribute to short-and mid-term GHG mitigation of beef cattle production systems.

show abstract

Section: System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: System Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effect of farming practices for greenhouse gas mitigation and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems

Nguyen

Doreau

Eugène

et al. 2013

Animal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Sustainability Challenges, Human Diet and Environmental Concerns

Reynolds

Buckley

Weinstein

et al. 2017

Sustainability Challenges in the Agrofood Sector

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a global context, 'sustainability' has been defined as 'the ability to accomplish the needs of our present generation by ensuring that the desires of the future generation remain uncompromised'. According to Asheim (1994), sustainability is expressed as a requirement of the present generation to manage its resources in such a way that the current average quality of life can potentially be enjoyed by all future generations. Sustainability is from the Latin (sustinere) and means to 'hold up' , 'support' or 'maintain. ' However, according to Phillis and Andriantiatsaholiniaina (2001), sustainability is very difficult to define or to be measured as it is an ambiguous and complex concept about which there is no consensus as to its definition or on how it is to be measured. And so Phillis and Andriantiatsaholiniaina developed the Sustainability Assessment by Fuzzy Evaluation model, which provided a reliable mechanism to measure sustainability development that considers both ecological and human inputs. Before we look at sustainability issues in any depth and the various challenges the world is facing now, a few basic questions need to be answered. For example: Why sustainability? Does sustainability matter? If it does matter, then to whom? Why do we

show abstract