E. Boonstra, I. Aboagye, T. McAllister, G. Legesse, G. Mengistu, D. L. Fulawka, Marcos R. C. Cordeiro, G. Ribeiro, E. McGeough, K. Ominski
{"title":"模拟加拿大饲养场取消提高生产力技术对环境的影响:一个案例研究","authors":"E. Boonstra, I. Aboagye, T. McAllister, G. Legesse, G. Mengistu, D. L. Fulawka, Marcos R. C. Cordeiro, G. Ribeiro, E. McGeough, K. Ominski","doi":"10.1139/cjas-2022-0132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions, land and water use associated with feedlot cattle (n = 40 hd treatment−1 trial−1) treated with or without productivity-enhancing technologies were modelled for a multiyear study (n = 4). Heifers (H) were assigned to the following treatments: (1) implanted (HTBA); (2) provided with melengestrol acetate (HMGA); (3) nonimplanted control, weight-adjusted (CON_Adj) to achieve the same final carcass weight (CW) as 1 (HCON_AdjTBA); or (4) CON_Adj to achieve the CW as 2 (HCON_AdjMGA). Steers (S) were assigned as follows: (1) implanted (STBA); (2) implanted and provided with ractopamine hydrochloride (SRAC; conducted in the last 2 years); (3) CON_Adj to achieve the same CW as 1 (SCON_AdjTBA); or (4) CON_Adj to achieve the same CW as 2 (SCON_AdjRAC). The GHG and NH3 emissions from HTBA, HMGA, STBA, and SRAC were 3.8%, 3.0%, 10.1%, and 8.5% lower and 4.3%, 2.9%, 7.4%, and 7.6% lower, respectively, than the respective control cattle. The land required to produce feed was also reduced by 6.6%, 4.8%, 9.9%, and 10.9%, while water use was reduced by 6.4%, 4.8%, 10.1%, and 11.1% for HTBA, HMGA, STBA, and SRAC, respectively. This modelling study clearly demonstrates that conventional beef production systems have a lower environmental footprint than nonconventional systems.","PeriodicalId":9512,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Animal Science","volume":"103 1","pages":"249 - 261"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modelling environmental impacts associated with the removal of productivity-enhancing technologies from Canadian feedlots: a case study\",\"authors\":\"E. Boonstra, I. Aboagye, T. McAllister, G. Legesse, G. Mengistu, D. L. Fulawka, Marcos R. C. Cordeiro, G. Ribeiro, E. McGeough, K. Ominski\",\"doi\":\"10.1139/cjas-2022-0132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions, land and water use associated with feedlot cattle (n = 40 hd treatment−1 trial−1) treated with or without productivity-enhancing technologies were modelled for a multiyear study (n = 4). Heifers (H) were assigned to the following treatments: (1) implanted (HTBA); (2) provided with melengestrol acetate (HMGA); (3) nonimplanted control, weight-adjusted (CON_Adj) to achieve the same final carcass weight (CW) as 1 (HCON_AdjTBA); or (4) CON_Adj to achieve the CW as 2 (HCON_AdjMGA). Steers (S) were assigned as follows: (1) implanted (STBA); (2) implanted and provided with ractopamine hydrochloride (SRAC; conducted in the last 2 years); (3) CON_Adj to achieve the same CW as 1 (SCON_AdjTBA); or (4) CON_Adj to achieve the same CW as 2 (SCON_AdjRAC). The GHG and NH3 emissions from HTBA, HMGA, STBA, and SRAC were 3.8%, 3.0%, 10.1%, and 8.5% lower and 4.3%, 2.9%, 7.4%, and 7.6% lower, respectively, than the respective control cattle. The land required to produce feed was also reduced by 6.6%, 4.8%, 9.9%, and 10.9%, while water use was reduced by 6.4%, 4.8%, 10.1%, and 11.1% for HTBA, HMGA, STBA, and SRAC, respectively. This modelling study clearly demonstrates that conventional beef production systems have a lower environmental footprint than nonconventional systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Animal Science\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"249 - 261\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2022-0132\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2022-0132","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Modelling environmental impacts associated with the removal of productivity-enhancing technologies from Canadian feedlots: a case study
Abstract Greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions, land and water use associated with feedlot cattle (n = 40 hd treatment−1 trial−1) treated with or without productivity-enhancing technologies were modelled for a multiyear study (n = 4). Heifers (H) were assigned to the following treatments: (1) implanted (HTBA); (2) provided with melengestrol acetate (HMGA); (3) nonimplanted control, weight-adjusted (CON_Adj) to achieve the same final carcass weight (CW) as 1 (HCON_AdjTBA); or (4) CON_Adj to achieve the CW as 2 (HCON_AdjMGA). Steers (S) were assigned as follows: (1) implanted (STBA); (2) implanted and provided with ractopamine hydrochloride (SRAC; conducted in the last 2 years); (3) CON_Adj to achieve the same CW as 1 (SCON_AdjTBA); or (4) CON_Adj to achieve the same CW as 2 (SCON_AdjRAC). The GHG and NH3 emissions from HTBA, HMGA, STBA, and SRAC were 3.8%, 3.0%, 10.1%, and 8.5% lower and 4.3%, 2.9%, 7.4%, and 7.6% lower, respectively, than the respective control cattle. The land required to produce feed was also reduced by 6.6%, 4.8%, 9.9%, and 10.9%, while water use was reduced by 6.4%, 4.8%, 10.1%, and 11.1% for HTBA, HMGA, STBA, and SRAC, respectively. This modelling study clearly demonstrates that conventional beef production systems have a lower environmental footprint than nonconventional systems.
期刊介绍:
Published since 1957, this quarterly journal contains new research on all aspects of animal agriculture and animal products, including breeding and genetics; cellular and molecular biology; growth and development; meat science; modelling animal systems; physiology and endocrinology; ruminant nutrition; non-ruminant nutrition; and welfare, behaviour, and management. It also publishes reviews, letters to the editor, abstracts of technical papers presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science, and occasionally conference proceedings.