Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems
Open accessAbstract
This study compared the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per 1.0 × 109 kg of hot carcass weight beef in conventional (CON), natural (NAT) and grass-fed (GFD) production systems. Production systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics and production data from U.S. beef production systems. Increased productivity (slaughter weight and growth rate) in the CON system reduced the cattle population size required to produce 1.0 × 109 kg of beef compared to the NAT or GFD system. The CON system required 56.3% of the animals, 24.8% of the water, 55.3% of the land and 71.4% of the fossil fuel energy required to produce 1.0 × 109 kg of beef compared to the GFD system. The carbon footprint per 1.0 × 109 kg of beef was lowest in the CON system (15,989 × 103 t), intermediate in the NAT system (18,772 × 103 t) and highest in the GFD system (26,785 × 103 t). The challenge to the U.S beef industry is to communicate differences in system environmental impacts to facilitate informed dietary choice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several life cycle assessment studies have concluded that grass-finished beef systems have greater greenhouse gas intensities than feedlot-finished beef systems.
“Using life cycle analysis (LCA), several studies have concluded that grass-finished beef systems have greater GHG intensities than feedlot-finished (FL) beef systems.”
From Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems (2018) · cites this paper as Capper, 2012
The Results and Discussion (page unavailable) report a 67.5% higher carbon footprint per unit of beef for the grass-fed system than for the conventional feedlot-finished system. The same section cites one earlier partial life-cycle assessment with a similar grass-versus-feedlot conclusion. Our copy does not establish that several LCA studies reached that specific GHG-intensity conclusion; the paper describes its own analysis as a deterministic whole-system model. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAverage finishing weights for the feedlot steers were similar to those reported by others.
“Average finishing weights for the FL steers (Table 2) were similar to those reported by others”
From Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems (2018) · cites this paper as Capper, 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185383 · Cited by 11,943 · see citing works
Johnson, K. A., & Johnson, D. E. (1995) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/1995.7382483x · Cited by 2,714 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Baxa, T.J.; Hutcheson, J.P.; Miller, M.F.; Brooks, J.C.; Nichols, W.T.; Streeter, M.N.; Yates, D.A.; Johnson, B.J. Additive effects of a steroidal implant and zilpaterol hydrochloride on feedlot performance, carcass characteristics, and skeletal muscle messenger ribonucleic acid abundance in finishing steers.”
MethodInfluentialGRASSLAND MANAGEMENT AND CONVERSION INTO GRASSLAND: EFFECTS ON SOIL CARBON
Conant, R. T., Paustian, K., & Elliott, E. T. (2001) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0343:gmacig]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,365 · see citing works
Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers
Garnett, T. (2009) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.006 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- [3]Tilman D. Cassman K.G. Matson P.A. Naylor R. Polasky S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices Nature 2002 418 671 677 10.1038/nature01014 12167873 · DOI · Paper page
- [4]Xue H. Mainville D. You W. Nayga R.M. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for grass-fed beef: Empirical evidence from in-store experiments Food Quality Preference 2010 21 857 866 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.004 · DOI
- [5]Capper J.L. The environmental impact of United States beef production: 1977 compared with 2007 J. Anim. Sci. 2011 89 4249 4261 10.2527/jas.2010-3784 21803973 · DOI
- [7]Capper J.L. Hayes D.J. The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from United States beef production J. Anim. Sci. 2012 submitted 22665660
- [8]MacArthur Clark J.A. Pottera M. Hardinga E. The welfare implications of animal breeding and breeding technologies in commercial agriculture Livest. Sci. 2006 103 270 281 10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.015 · DOI
- [9]Fraser D. Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008 113 330 339 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.011 · DOI
- [10]Anderson S.A. Yeaton Woo R.W. Crawford L.M. Risk assessment of the impact on human health of resistant Campylobacter jejuni from fluoroquinolone use in beef cattle Food Control 2001 12 13 25 10.1016/S0956-7135(00)00014-1 · DOI
- [11]Harrington L.M.B. Lu M. Beef feedlots in southwestern Kansas: Local change, perceptions, and the global change contex Global Environ. Change 2002 12 273 282 10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00041-9 · DOI
- [15]Beckett J.L. Oltjen J.W. Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States J. Anim. Sci. 1993 71 818 826 8478283
- [16]Meyer U. Stahl W. Flachowsky G. Investigations on the water intake of growing bulls Livest. Sci. 2006 103 186 191 10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.009 · DOI
- [17]Moe P.W. Tyrrell H.F. Methane production in dairy cows J. Dairy Sci. 1979 62 1583 1586 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(79)83465-7 · DOI
- [18]Kaspar H.F. Tiedje J.M. Dissimilatory reduction of nitrate and nitrite in the bovine rumen: Nitrous oxide production and effect of acetylene Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1981 41 705 709 7224631 PMC243764
- [23]West T.O. Marland G. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: Comparing tillage practices in the United State Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002 91 217 232 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00233-X · DOI · Paper page
- [29]Cederberg C. Stadig M. System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production Int. J. LCA. 2003 8 350 356 10.1007/BF02978508 · DOI
- [30]Capper J.L. Cady R.A. Bauman D.E. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007 J. Anim. Sci. 2009 87 2160 2167 10.2527/jas.2009-1781 19286817 · DOI
- [31]Sprott L.R. Goehring T.B. Beverly J.R. Corah L.R. Effects of ionophores on cow herd production: A review J. Anim. Sci. 1988 66 1340 1346 3294223
- [32]Perrett T. Wildman B.K. Jim G.K. Vogstad A.R. Fenton R.K. Hannon S.L. Schunicht O.C. Abutarbush S.M. Booker C.W. Evaluation of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Melengestrol Acetate in feedlot heifer calves in Western Canada Vet. Ther. 2008 9 223 240 19003783
- [34]Scramlin S.M. Platter W.J. Gomez R.J. Choat W.T. McKeith F.T. Killefer J. Comparative effects of ractopamine hydrochloride and zilpaterol hydrochloride on growth performance, carcass traits, and longissimus tenderness of finishing steers J. Anim. Sci. 2010 88 1823 1829 10.2527/jas.2009-2405 20042550 · DOI
- [35]Montgomery J.L. Krehbiel C.R. Cranston J.J. Yates D.A. Hutcheson J.P. Nichols W.T. Streeter M.N. Bechtol D.T. Johnson E. TerHune T. Montgomery T.H. Dietary zilpaterol hydrochloride. I. Feedlot performance and carcass traits of steers and heifers J. Anim. Sci. 2009 87 1374 1383 19098247
- [36]Montgomery J.L. Krehbiel C.R. Cranston J.J. Yates D.A. Hutchseon J.P. Nichols W.T. Streeter M.N. Swingle R.S. Montgomery T.H. Effects of dietary zilpaterol hydrochloride on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of beef steers fed with and without monensin and tylosin J. Anim. Sci. 2009 87 1013 1023 18997069
- [37]Elam N.A. Vasconcelos J.T. Hilton G.G. VanOverbeke D.L. Lawrence T.E. Montgomery T.H. Nichols W.T. Streeter M.N. Hutcheson J.P. Yates D.A. Galyean M.L. Effect of zilpaterol hydrochloride duration of feeding on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle J. Anim. Sci. 2009 87 2133 2141 19251916
- [39]Schroeder A.L. Polser D.M. Laudert S.B. Vogel G.J. Ripberger T. Van Koevering M.T. The Effect of Optaflexx on Growth Performance and Carcass Traits of Steers and Heifers Proceedings of the 19th Annual Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference Tempe, AZ, USA 24–25 February 2004 65 81
- [41]Abney C.S. Vasconcelos J.T. McMeniman J.P. Keyser S.A. Wilson K.R. Vogel G.J. Galyean M.L. Effects of ractopamine hydrochloride on performance, rate and variation in feed intake, and acid-base balance in feedlot cattle J. Anim. Sci. 2007 85 3090 3098 10.2527/jas.2007-0263 17609477 · DOI
- [42]Gruber S.L. Tatum J.D. Engle T.E. Mitchell M.A. Laudert S.B. Schroeder A.L. Platter W.J. Effects of ractopamine supplementation on growth performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers differing in biological type J. Anim. Sci. 2007 85 1809 1815 17431043
- [45]Baxa T.J. Hutcheson J.P. Miller M.F. Brooks J.C. Nichols W.T. Streeter M.N. Yates D.A. Johnson B.J. Additive effects of a steroidal implant and zilpaterol hydrochloride on feedlot performance, carcass characteristics, and skeletal muscle messenger ribonucleic acid abundance in finishing steers J. Anim. Sci. 2010 88 330 337 19783693
- [47]Pelletier N. Pirog R. Rasmussen R. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States Agr. Syst. 2010 103 380 389 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009 · DOI · Paper page
- [48]Bauman D.E. Capper J.L. Future Challenges and Opportunities in Animal Nutrition Proceedings of 26th Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Tempe, AZ, USA 24 February 2011
- [51]Pimentel D. Pimentel M. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003 78 660S 663S 12936963
- [53]Wilkinson J.M. Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock Animal 2011 5 1014 1022 10.1017/S175173111100005X 22440097 · DOI
- [55]Harta M.R. Quin B.F. Nguyen M.L. Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land and direct fertilizer effects: A review J. Environ. Qual. 2004 33 1954 1972 10.2134/jeq2004.1954 15537918 · DOI
- [57]Beauchemin K.A. Janzen H.H. Little S.M. McAllister T.A. McGinn S.M. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada—Evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment An. Feed. Sci. Tech. 2011 166-167 663 677 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.047 · DOI · Paper page
- [59]Peters G.M. Rowley H.V. Wiedemann S. Tucker R. Short M.D. Schultz M.S. Red meat production in Australia: Life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010 44 1327 1332 20067280
- [60]Ridoutt B.G. Sanguansri P. Harper G.S. Comparing carbon and water footprints for beef cattle production in Southern Australia Sustainability 2011 3 2443 2455 10.3390/su3122443 · DOI
- [63]Pinares-Patiño C.S. Waghorn G.C. Hegarty R.S. Hoskin S.O. Effects of intensification of pastoral farming on greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand N. Z. Vet. J. 2009 57 252 261 10.1080/00480169.2009.58618 19802038 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: a review of life cycle assessments
de Vries, M., van Middelaar, C. E., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2015) · Livestock Science · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.06.020 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S., & Hamm, M. W. (2018) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
“…methane (CH4) emissions (due to microbial ruminal fermentation), attributed to the more fibrous diet and longer finishing times, and lower overall carcass weights (Capper, 2012; Desjardins et al., 2012; Lupo et al., 2013; Pelletier et al., 2010; Stackhouse-Lawson et al., 2012; Swain et al., 2018).”
BackgroundResultEnvironmental impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for durability
Gerber, P. J., Mottet, A., Opio, C. I., Falcucci, A., & Teillard, F. (2015) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.013 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Capper, J. L., & Bauman, D. E. (2013) · Annual Review of Animal Biosciences · doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-031412-103727 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Self-citationEcosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System
Rowntree, J. E., Stanley, P. L., Maciel, I. C. F., Thorbecke, M., Rosenzweig, S. T., Hancock, D. W., Guzman, A., & Raven, M. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
“, 2013) or determine the amount of animals necessary to produce a certain amount of beef (Capper, 2012).”
BackgroundAn assessment of individual foodprints attributed to diets and food waste in the United States
Birney, C. I., Franklin, K. F., Davidson, F. T., & Webber, M. E. (2017) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8494 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Berton, M., Agabriel, J., Gallo, L., Lherm, M., Ramanzin, M., & Sturaro, E. (2017) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.005 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Capper, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Washington State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Capper, Judith L.
- ORCID
- Capper, Judith L.
- Venue
- Animals
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2012-04-10
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 127-143
- ISSN
- 2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4494320
- OpenAlex
- W1965447542
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 8.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Livestock Farming and Management
- Keywords
- beef production systems, grass-fed beef, environmental impact, carbon footprint, resource inputs, water consumption, land use, fossil energy, food choice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
