Does Grass Fed Beef Have More Irion
Carbon Footprint Comparison Between Grass- and Grain-finished Beef
- Jump To:
- Summary
- Literature Cited
Even though cattle live the majority of their lives on pasture, the type of finishing system even so impacts the carbon footprint of beef. The carbon footprint for beef is all the greenhouse gas emissions produced during the production of beef divided past the total corporeality of beef produced past the system. Beefiness product consists of iii primary phases: moo-cow-calf, stocker/backgrounding and finishing (Figure one). The first phase of the animals' life is spent nursing and grazing on pasture along with its mother. After calves are weaned, they typically spend additional time grazing the crop residue that remains after harvesting grain or grazing forage pastures and grasslands. During this fourth dimension, known as the stocker or backgrounding stage, they gain additional weight as they set up to enter the finishing stage. The finishing phase is the final stage earlier the cattle are sent for harvest. Cattle entering the finishing phase are typically 12 to 16 months sometime, and remain in this phase until they have achieved a level of fatness, or finish, that will provide a positive eating experience for consumers. The master difference in carbon footprints between grass- and grain-finished beef occurs equally a result of the time spent in the finishing phase, the type of feed consumed and the body weight of the cattle at the stop of the finishing phase.
Figure 1. Beefiness cattle life cycle for grass-finished and grain-finished beef in the U.S.
Cattle entering the feedlot for finishing swallow a diet containing corn along with byproducts (such equally distillers grains leftover afterward ethanol production and corn gluten feed after corn fructose production), vitamins and minerals, and small quantities of provender or roughage (such as hay). Grain-finished cattle remain in the feedlot for approximately iv to six months and are sent for harvesting at 14 to 22 months of age. Grain-finished cattle accomplish market weight faster than grass-finished1,2 cattle considering the nutrition received is higher in energy, which results in rapid and efficient weight gain. In dissimilarity, grass-finished cattle gain at a slower rate due to the forage-based diet they eat and typically go to harvest at xx to 26 months of age and at a lower weight than grain-finished animals. Grass-finished cattle may finish either faster or slower than this age range, depending on the forage and grass resources available to the beef producer (eastward.thou., the growing flavor is shorter in northern states, which may shorten the finishing period and lead to lighter weights at harvest). The difference in harvest weights translates into different numbers of U.S. citizens that could be fed per animal (Table ane). Utilizing provender as the main source of feed also contributes to an increased carbon footprint for grass-finished beefiness2, because high forage diets (e.one thousand., grass) produce more methyl hydride emissions (a greenhouse gas 28 times more potent at trapping heat in the world's atmosphere as compared to carbon dioxide3) from the animal'southward digestive tract than higher-free energy, grain-based diets. The combination of consuming a higher-energy, lower-provender diet, shorter time spent on feed during finishing and heavier carcass weights translate into an eighteen.5 to 67.v percent lower carbon footprint for grain-finished beef as compared to grass-finished beefiness1,2.
Tabular array 1. U.S. citizens fed for one year per animate being for grain-finished and grass-finished beef citizens.
| Finishing system | Harvest alive weight, lbs. | Dressing % | Carcass weight per animal, lbs. | U.South. citizens fed per animal* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grass-finished | 1,100 | 0.58 | 638 | viii |
| Grain-finished | 1,300 | 0.64 | 832 | 10.4 |
∗Assuming fourscore.one pounds of carcass weight availability per capita in 2013.
Fifty-fifty though grass-finished beef has a college carbon footprint, it does have some sustainability advantages. Grass-finished animals utilize human inedible foodstuffs as the master source of energy and nutrients for their entire lifetimes. Beef cattle tin employ provender grown on land not suitable for crop production, and thus produce human edible nutrient from a resource non otherwise able to produce food. Additionally, grasslands and pastures tin sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which can help to mitigate global climate modify. Research has shown there is an reward for grass-finished beef production over grain-finished beef product when expressing feed conversion every bit man edible energy returned per unit of homo edible energy consumed past the cattle2,half dozen. Accounting for carbon sequestration of pasture grass-finished beefiness could lower the carbon footprint of grass-finished beef by 42 percentageii. In contrast, approximately 18 percent of feed intake per unit of carcass weight will occur in the feedlot for grain-finished cattle5. Traditionally, the feed consumed by cattle in feedlots was primarily corn. In many modern feedlots, cattle at present consume diets loftier in byproducts feeds, such as corn gluten feed and distillers grains. These byproduct feeds are homo inedible residues from human nutrient and fuel production. Ultimately, there are tradeoffs betwixt the two beef product systems; even so, beef producers using either system can sustainably meet consumer demand for beefiness.
Summary
There are tradeoffs in different aspects of sustainability when comparing grain-finished and grass-finished beef production systems. Grain-finished beef has a lower carbon footprint than grass-finished beefiness due to more efficient utilization of feed in the finishing stage, fewer days on feed and greater corporeality of beefiness produced per animate being. However, grass-finished beefiness contributes to sustainable beef production by utilizing provender resources during finishing to produce food from human being-inedible plants.
Literature Cited
- Capper, J.L. 2012. Is the grass e'er greener? Comparing the environmental touch of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animals. 2:127-143.
- Pelletier, N., R. Pirog, and R. Rasmussen. 2010. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beefiness production strategies in the Upper Midwestern U.s.. Agric. Sys. 103:380-389.
- IPCC. 2013. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the 5th assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge Academy Printing. Cambridge, Great britain.
- USDA. 2014. Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System.
- Rotz, C.A. S. Asem-Hiablie, J. Dillion, and H. Bonifacio. 2015. Cradle-to-farm gate ecology footprints of beef cattle production in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. J. Anim. Sci. 93:2509-2519.
- Wilkinson, J.Thousand. 2011. Re-defining efficiency of feed employ past livestock. Animal. v:1014-1022.
Ashley Broocks
Graduate Student
Emily Andreini
Graduate Educatee
Megan Rolf
Banana Professor
Sara Place
Assistant Professor, Sustainable Beef Cattle Systems
Was this data helpful?
YESNO
Source: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/carbon-footprint-comparison-between-grass-and-grain-finished-beef.html
0 Response to "Does Grass Fed Beef Have More Irion"
Post a Comment