Impacts
In a study by Asem-Hiablie et al. (1), they assessed the relative environmental impacts of the different processes along the beef production chain. The processes they measured were feed, cow-calf, finish, packing, case ready, retail, consumer, and restaurant. They found that the feed and cattle phases had the highest environmental impact for 10 of the 12 environmental metrics they measured. In particular, the feeding phase had the highest environmental impacts in the following categories:
-Cumulative energy demand
-Consumptive water use
-Absolute consumptive water use
-Human toxicity potential
-Land use
-Photochemical ozone creation potential
-Water emissions
In addition, when comparing the two most popular cattle diets, grain and forage, it was found that forage-based diets produce more methane emissions than grain-based diets. This is problematic because in a study on the impact of cattle diet on nutritional value of beef (9), they found that grass-fed beef has healthier fatty acids, less total fat, less cholesterol, and more. Since grass-fed beef was concluded to be healthier to humans than grain-fed, people will be more inclined to choose grass-fed beef, increasing methane emissions.
(1)(5)(9)
Solutions
Many ways to make cattle feed more sustainable for the environment is by dietary supplements and partial replacements. A study was done by Salami et al., (4) that investigated the impact of supplementing cattle diet with slow-release urea, which can be a partial replacement of vegetable rumen degradable protein. They found that slow-release urea increased the weight gain and feed efficiency of cattle. Higher feed efficiency leads to improved environmental footprint and economic sustainability, meaning that slow-release urea can improve the environmental impacts and profitability of the beef industry.
Another study done by Suriyapha et al., (6) found that citric waste fermented yeast waste (CWYW) can be a replacement for soybean meal. They discuss how CWYW can increase feed consumption, speed up digestion, increase ruminal bacteria, and reduce feed costs. In addition, they found that CWYW did not negatively impact the cattle’s energy consumption. Thus, CWYW can be an alternative protein source for cattle that is cheaper and zero waste.
(4)(6)
Create Your Own Website With Webador