How advances in animal efficiency and management have affected beef cattle's water intensity in the United States: 1991 compared to 2019.

Updating the static model by Beckett and Oltjen (1993), we determined that from 1991 to 2019, U.S. beef cattle blue water consumption per kg of beef decreased by 37.6%. Total water use for the U.S. cattle herd decreased by 29%. As with the 1993 model, blue water use included direct water intake by animals, water applied for irrigation of crops that were consumed by beef cattle, water applied to irrigated pasture, and water used to process animals at marketing. Numbers of cattle, crop production, and irrigation data were used from USDA census and survey data. On 1 January 2019, a total of 31.7-million beef cows and 5.8-million replacement heifers were in U.S. breeding herds, and 26-million animals were fed annually. In total, the U.S. beef cattle herd (feedlot and cull cows) produced 7.7-billion kg of boneless beef, an increase of 10% since 1991. Beef cattle directly consumed 599-billion L of water per year. Feedlot cattle were fed various grain and roughage sources corresponding to the regions in which they were fed. Feeds produced in a state were preferentially used by cattle in that state with that state's efficiency; any additional feedstuffs required used water at the national efficiency. Irrigation of crop feedstuffs for feedlot cattle required 5,920-billion L of water. Irrigated pasture for beef cattle production required an additional 4,121-billion L of water. Carcass processing required 91-billion L of water. The model estimated that in the U.S. 2,275 L of blue water was needed to produce 1 kg of boneless meat. As with the previous model, the current model was most sensitive to changes in the dressing percentage and the percentage of boneless yield in carcasses of feedlot cattle (62.8 and 65, respectively). In conclusion, with more beef, fewer cows, and lower rates of irrigation, beef cattle's water intensity has decreased at an annual rate of 1.34% over a 28-yr period.

In 1993, Beckett and Oltjen published an innovative model that evaluated beef cattle's blue water (ground water and surface water) use in the United States. The model stated that to produce one lb. of boneless beef, 440 gallons of blue water were required. Although this model shifted the prevailing acumen regarding beef cattle's water use and became the fifth most cited Journal of Animal Science article in popular press, with today's vast changes in cattle genetics, animal management, and irrigation practices, the value generated in this model has become obsolete. By updating Beckett and Oltjen (1993) with today's agricultural inputs, the present model was the first to use an "apples to apples" strategy to compare beef cattle's blue water use over time. Utilizing USDA irrigation and cattle inventory datasets along with expertise from university extension, the current model determined that over a 28-yr period beef cattle's water intensity per one lb. of boneless beef was 275 gallons, a decrease of 38%. In addition, total water use for the U.S. beef production system decreased by 29%. The principal reasons for these decreases were due to the decrease in water used to irrigate crops and pasture, increased meat per carcass, and improved efficiencies in cattle management and nutrition. Despite these decreases in water use and intensity, water will continue to be a concern for beef cattle production, particularly in the west where surface and ground water are rapidly depleting. The beef industry has made great strides in water reduction but will need to continue to decrease blue water use, for if there is no water, beef cannot be produced.

Evaluating the Shelf Life and Sensory Properties of Beef Steaks from Cattle Raised on Different Grass Feeding Systems in the Western United States.

Consumer interest in grass-fed beef has been steadily rising due to consumer perception of its potential benefits. This interest has led to a growing demand for niche market beef, particularly in the western United States. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the impact of feeding systems on the change in microbial counts, color, and lipid oxidation of steaks during retail display, and on their sensory attributes. The systems included: conventional grain-fed (CON), 20 months-grass-fed (20GF), 25-months-grass-fed (25GF) and 20-months-grass-fed + 45-day-grain-fed (45GR). The results indicate that steaks in the 20GF group displayed a darker lean and fat color, and a lower oxidation state than those in the 25GF group. However, the feeding system did not have an impact on pH or objective tenderness of beef steaks. In addition, consumers and trained panelist did not detect a difference in taste or flavor between the 20GF or 25GF steaks but expressed a preference for the CON and 45GR steaks, indicating that an increased grazing period may improve the color and oxidative stability of beef, while a short supplementation with grain may improve eating quality.

Grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef systems: performance, economic, and environmental trade-offs.

Between increasing public concerns over climate change and heightened interest of niche market beef on social media, the demand for grass-fed beef has increased considerably. However, the demand increase for grass-fed beef has raised many producers' and consumers' concerns regarding product quality, economic viability, and environmental impacts that have thus far gone unanswered. Therefore, using a holistic approach, we investigated the performance, carcass quality, financial outcomes, and environmental impacts of four grass-fed and grain-fed beef systems currently being performed by ranchers in California. The treatments included 1) steers stocked on pasture and feedyard finished for 128 d (CON); 2) steers grass-fed for 20 mo (GF20); 3) steers grass-fed for 20 mo with a 45-d grain finish (GR45); and 4) steers grass-fed for 25 mo (GF25). The data were analyzed using a mixed model procedure in R with differences between treatments determined by Tukey HSD. Using carcass and performance data from these systems, a weaning-to-harvest life cycle assessment was developed in the Scalable, Process-based, Agronomically Responsive Cropping Systems model framework, to determine global warming potential (GWP), consumable water use, energy, smog, and land occupation footprints. Final body weight varied significantly between treatments (P < 0.001) with the CON cattle finishing at 632 kg, followed by GF25 at 570 kg, GR45 at 551 kg, and GF20 478 kg. Dressing percentage differed significantly between all treatments (P < 0.001). The DP was 61.8% for CON followed by GR45 at 57.5%, GF25 at 53.4%, and GF20 had the lowest DP of 50.3%. Marbling scores were significantly greater for CON compared to all other treatments (P < 0.001) with CON marbling score averaging 421 (low-choice ≥ 400). Breakeven costs with harvesting and marketing for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were $6.01, $8.98, $8.02, and $8.33 per kg hot carcass weight (HCW), respectively. The GWP for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 4.79, 6.74, 6.65, and 8.31 CO2e/kg HCW, respectively. Water consumptive use for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 933, 465, 678, and 1,250 L/kg HCW, respectively. Energy use for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 18.7, 7.65, 13.8, and 8.85 MJ/kg HCW, respectively. Our results indicated that grass-fed beef systems differ in both animal performance and carcass quality resulting in environmental and economic sustainability trade-offs with no system having absolute superiority.

Between the influence of the "food elite" on social media and increasing public concerns over climate change, consumer demand for grass-fed beef has increased considerably. Although many consumers perceive grass-fed beef as more environmentally friendly than grain-fed beef, there is a dearth of research available to address these consumer claims. In order to answer both consumer and producer concerns, we performed an experiment that evaluated the environmental footprint (i.e., water, land, greenhouse gasses, and energy), beef quality, and economic outcome of four beef cattle production systems on the West coast. The four systems included conventional beef finished on grain for 128 d, steers grass-fed for 20 mo, steers grass-fed for 20-mo with a 45-d grain finish, and steers grass-fed for 25 mo. We found that varying grass-fed and grain-fed production systems resulted in different environmental effects. The conventional system produced the lowest greenhouse gas footprint but required the highest energy input. The grass-fed for 20 mo used the least amount of water but produced the greatest greenhouse gas. In conclusion, this study illustrated the complexities underpinning beef sustainability; no system resulted in absolute economic, meat quality, and environmental superiority.