IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v103y2010i6p380-389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States

Author

Listed:
  • Pelletier, Nathan
  • Pirog, Rich
  • Rasmussen, Rebecca

Abstract

We used ISO-compliant life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the cumulative energy use, ecological footprint, greenhouse gas emissions and eutrophying emissions associated with models of three beef production strategies as currently practiced in the Upper Midwestern United States. Specifically we examined systems where calves were either: weaned directly to feedlots; weaned to out-of-state wheat pastures (backgrounded) then finished in feedlots; or finished wholly on managed pasture and hay. Impacts per live-weight kg of beef produced were highest for pasture-finished beef for all impact categories and lowest for feedlot-finished beef, assuming equilibrium conditions in soil organic carbon fluxes across systems. A sensitivity analysis indicated the possibility of substantial reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions for pasture systems under conditions of positive soil organic carbon sequestration potential. Forage utilization rates were also found to have a modest influence on impact levels in pasture-based beef production. Three measures of resource use efficiency were applied and indicated that beef production, whether feedlot or pasture-based, generates lower edible resource returns on material/energy investment relative to other food production strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Pelletier, Nathan & Pirog, Rich & Rasmussen, Rebecca, 2010. "Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 380-389, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:6:p:380-389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(10)00039-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryan, Barry M. & Tiffany, Douglas G., 1998. "Minnesota Agricultural Economist 693," Minnesota Applied Economist\Minnesota Agricultural Economist 13200, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Gerbens-Leenes, P. W. & Nonhebel, S., 2002. "Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 185-199, August.
    3. Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006. "Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef production in Ireland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-3), pages 79-98, October.
    4. Goodland, Robert, 1997. "Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 189-200, December.
    5. Thomassen, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & Smits, M.C.J. & Iepema, G.L. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2008. "Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 95-107, March.
    6. Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika & Ekstrom, Marianne Pipping & Shanahan, Helena, 2003. "Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 293-307, March.
    7. Pelletier, N., 2008. "Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 67-73, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pelletier, N., 2008. "Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 67-73, September.
    2. Keyzer, M.A. & Merbis, M.D. & Pavel, I.F.P.W. & van Wesenbeeck, C.F.A., 2005. "Diet shifts towards meat and the effects on cereal use: can we feed the animals in 2030?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 187-202, November.
    3. Hadjikakou, Michalis, 2017. "Trimming the excess: environmental impacts of discretionary food consumption in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 119-128.
    4. Raymond L. Desjardins & Devon E. Worth & Xavier P. C. Vergé & Dominique Maxime & Jim Dyer & Darrel Cerkowniak, 2012. "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Rae, Allan N., 2010. "A Rising Tide of Anti-Animal Consumerism? Issues and Opportunities," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96940, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Vinnari, Markus & Tapio, Petri, 2012. "Sustainability of diets: From concepts to governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 46-54.
    7. Leinonen, Ilkka & Williams, Adrian G. & Waller, Anthony H. & Kyriazakis, Ilias, 2013. "Comparing the environmental impacts of alternative protein crops in poultry diets: The consequences of uncertainty," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 33-42.
    8. Wood, Richard & Lenzen, Manfred & Dey, Christopher & Lundie, Sven, 2006. "A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 324-348, September.
    9. York, Richard & Gossard, Marcia Hill, 2004. "Cross-national meat and fish consumption: exploring the effects of modernization and ecological context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 293-302, March.
    10. Wirsenius, Stefan & Azar, Christian & Berndes, Göran, 2010. "How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 621-638, November.
    11. Vieux, F. & Darmon, N. & Touazi, D. & Soler, L.G., 2012. "Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: Changing the diet structure or consuming less?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 91-101.
    12. Gössling, Stefan & Garrod, Brian & Aall, Carlo & Hille, John & Peeters, Paul, 2011. "Food management in tourism: Reducing tourism’s carbon ‘foodprint’," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 534-543.
    13. White, Robin R., 2016. "Increasing energy and protein use efficiency improves opportunities to decrease land use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 20-29.
    14. Berners-Lee, M. & Hoolohan, C. & Cammack, H. & Hewitt, C.N., 2012. "The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 184-190.
    15. Bartłomiej Bajan & Joanna Łukasiewicz & Agnieszka Poczta-Wajda & Walenty Poczta, 2021. "Edible Energy Production and Energy Return on Investment—Long-Term Analysis of Global Changes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    16. Nigel Key & Gregoire Tallard, 2012. "Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 387-414, May.
    17. Thibert, Joël & Badami, Madhav G., 2011. "Estimating and communicating food system impacts: A case study in Montreal, Quebec," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1814-1821, August.
    18. Michael Huesemann & Joyce Huesemann, 2008. "Will progress in science and technology avert or accelerate global collapse? A critical analysis and policy recommendations," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 787-825, December.
    19. Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2004. "On resource use in food production systems: the value of livestock as 'rest-stream upgrading system'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 221-230, February.
    20. Kim, Brent & Neff, Roni, 2009. "Measurement and communication of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. food consumption via carbon calculators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 186-196, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:6:p:380-389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.