Growth-promoting technologies decrease the carbon footprint, ammonia emissions, and costs of california beef production systems

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 90, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 4656-4665

  Stackhouse, K R ^a   Rotz, C A ^b   Oltjen, J W ^a   Mitloehner, F M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ammonia; Beef cattle; Carbon footprint; Farm simulation; Greenhouse gas; Mitigation

Indexed keywords

AMMONIA; CARBON DIOXIDE; GROWTH PROMOTOR; HORMONE;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CARBON FOOTPRINT; CATTLE; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECONOMICS; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; MEAT; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

AMMONIA; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; CALIFORNIA; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON FOOTPRINT; CATTLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; GROWTH SUBSTANCES; HORMONES; MEAT; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84882667227     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: 15253163     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2011-4654     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. ARS-USDA. 2011. Integrated Farm System Model. Accessed May 12, 2011. https://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=8519.
2. Avendano-Reyes, L., V. Torres-Rodriguez, F. J. Meraz-Murillo, C. Perez-Linares, F. Figueroa-Saavedra, and P. H. Robinson. 2006. Effects of two beta-adrenergic agonists on fi nishing performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of feedlot steers. J. Anim. Sci. 84:3259-3265.
3. Berthiaume, R., I. Mandell, L. Faucitano, and C. Lafreniere. 2006. Comparison of alternative beef production systems based on forage fi nishing or grain-forage diets with or without growth promotants: 1. Feedlot performance, carcass quality, and production costs. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 2168-2177.
4. Boadi, D., C. Benchaar, J. Chiquette, and D. Masse. 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 319-335.
5. Capper, J. L., R. A. Cady, and D. E. Bauman. 2009. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. J. Anim Sci. 87: 2160-2167.
6. Capper, J. L., E. Castaneda-Gutierrez, R. A. Cady, and D. E. Bauman. 2008. The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbst) use in dairy production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105:9668-9673.
7. Dhuyvetter, K. C., and M. Langemeier. 2009. Finishing Beef. Livestock 16, Report No. MF-592. Kansas State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. and Coop. Ext. Serv., Manhattan.
8. Elam, N. A., J. T. Vasconcelos, G. Hilton, D. L. VanOverbeke, T. E. Lawrence, T. H. Montgomery, W. T. Nichols, M. N. Streeter, J. P. Hutcheson, D. A. Yates, and M. L. Galyean. 2009. Effect of zilpaterol hydrochloride duration of feeding on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 87:2133-2141.
9. Fernandez, M. I., and B. W. Woodward. 1999. Comparison of conventional and organic beef production systems I. Feedlot performance and production costs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 61:213-223.
10. Forero, L.C., G. A. Nader, K. M. Klonsky, and R. L. De Moura. 2008. Sample costs for beef cattle cow-calf production. 300 head. Sacramento Valley. Univ. of California Coop. Ext. BF-SV-08R. Accessed month day, year. http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/BeefSV2008Rev.pdf
11. Mersman, H. J. 1998. Overview of the effects of beta-adrenergic receptor agonists on animal growth including mechanisms of action. J. Anim. Sci. 76:160-172.
12. Monteny, G. J., A. Bannink, and D. Chadwick. 2006. Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112:163-170.
13. Nader, G. A., L.C. Forero, D. Drake, S. Larson, K. M. Klonsky, and R. L. De Moura. 2005. Sample costs for beef cattle yearlings/ stocker production. Sacramento Valley. Report BF-SV-05 (revised). Univ. of California Cooperative Extension, Davis.
14. Neil, S., J. A. Unruth, T. T. Martson, J. R. Jaeger, M. C. Hunt, and J. J. Higgins. 2009. Effects of implanting and feeding zilpaterol hydrochloride on performance, carcass characteristics, and sub-primal beef yields of fed cows. J. Anim. Sci. 87:704-710.
15. Rotz, C. A., D. R. Buckmaster, and J. W. Comerford. 2005. A beef herd model for simulation feed intake, animal performance, and manure excretion in farm systems. J. Anim. Sci. 38:231-242.
16. Rotz, C. A., M. S. Corson, D. S. Chianese, F. Montes, S. D. Haf-ner, R. Jarvis, and C. U. Coiner. 2011. Integrated farm system model: Reference manual, version 3.4. Accessed Mar. 10, 2011. https://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/19020000/if-smreference.pdf.
17. Rotz, C. A., L. M. Johnson, and J. H. Harrison. 1999. Economics of corn silage processing on North American dairy farms. Appl. Eng. Agric. 15:411-421.
18. Rotz, C. A., G. H. Kamphius, H. D. Karsten, and R. D. Weavers. 2007. Organic dairy production systems in Pennsylvania: A case study evaluation. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3961-3979.
19. Rotz, C. A., F. Montes, and D. S. Chianese. 2010. The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. J. Dairy Sci. 93:1266-1282.
20. Stackhouse, K. R., C. A. Rotz, J. W. Oltjen, and F. M. Mitloehner. 2012. Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems. J. Anim. Sci. 90:4629-4644.
21. Strydom, P. E., L. Frylink, J. L. Motgomery, and M. F. Smith. 2009. The comparison of three b-agonists for growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of feedlot cattle. Meat Sci. 81:557-564.
22. Wileman, B. W., D. U. Thomson, C. D. Reinhardt, and D. G. Renter. 2009. Analysis of modern technologies commonly used in beef cattle production: Conventional beef production versus nonconventional production using meta-analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 87:3417-3426.