Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Livestock Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci

Review article

Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems:

A review of life cycle assessments
M. de Vries, C.E. van Middelaar n, I.J.M. de Boer
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Livestock production, and especially beef production, has a major impact on the environment. En-
Received 24 February 2015 vironmental impacts, however, vary largely among beef systems. Understanding these differences is
Received in revised form crucial to mitigate impacts of future global beef production. The objective of this research, therefore, was
12 June 2015
to compare cradle-to-farm-gate environmental impacts of beef produced in contrasting systems. We
Accepted 23 June 2015
reviewed 14 studies that compared contrasting systems using life cycle assessment (LCA). Systems
studied were classified by three main characteristics of beef production: origin of calves (bred by a dairy
Keywords: cow or a suckler cow), type of production (organic or non-organic) and type of diet fed to fattening calves
Cattle ( o50% (roughage-based) or Z 50% (concentrate-based) concentrates). This review yielded lower global
Greenhouse gas
warming potential (GWP; on average 41% lower), acidification potential (41% lower), eutrophication
Emission
potential (49% lower), energy use (23% lower) and land use (49% lower) per unit of beef for dairy-based
Grazing
Suckler compared with suckler-based systems. In suckler-based systems, maintaining the mother cow is the
Dairy dominant contributor to all impacts, which is attributable to the low reproductive rate of cattle and the
fact that all emissions are allocated to the production of beef. GWP was slightly lower (on average 7%) for
organic compared with non-organic systems, whereas organic systems showed higher eutrophication
potential, acidification potential and land use (36%, 56%, and 22% higher), and lower energy use (30%
lower) per unit of beef produced. Except for GWP, however, these results should be interpreted with care
because impacts were compared in few studies. Lower GWP (on average 28% lower), energy use (13%
lower) and land use (41% lower) per unit of beef were found for concentrate-based compared with
roughage-based systems, whereas no clear pattern was found for acidification and eutrophication po-
tential. An LCA comparison of beef systems that differ in type of diet, however, is limited because current
LCA methodology does not account for the competition for land between humans and animals. To en-
hance future food supply, grassland less suitable for crop production, therefore, might be preferred over
high productive cropland for direct production of animal feed. Furthermore, studies included in our
review did not include all relevant impact categories, such as loss of biodiversity or water use. We
concluded that beef production from dual-purpose cows or dairy cows inseminated with beef breeds
show largest potential to mitigate environmental impacts of beef. Marginal grasslands unsuitable for
dairy farming may be used for production of suckler-based beef to contribute to availability and access to
animal-source food.
& 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
2. Material and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
2.1. Beef production systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
2.2. Life cycle assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
2.3. Selection of LCA studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
2.4. Classification of systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
2.5. Comparison of systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marion.devries@wur.nl (M. de Vries), corina.vanmiddelaar@wur.nl (C.E. van Middelaar), imke.deboer@wur.nl (I.J.M. de Boer).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.06.020
1871-1413/& 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.
280 M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288

3. Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

3.1. Origin of calves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
3.2. Type of production method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
3.3. Type of diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
3.4. Mitigating environmental impacts of future beef production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

1. Introduction environmental impact of beef production. To our knowledge,

Beef has become an important protein source in human diets,
especially in industrialized countries. Around 58% of the protein
content of an average diet in OECD (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development) countries consists of livestock
products, of which about 12% is beef (FAOSTAT, 2013). The global
demand for beef is expected to further increase due to population
growth, rising incomes and urbanization, especially in developing
countries (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012).
Beef production, however, has a major impact on the environ-
ment. It is responsible for about 41% of the global emission of
greenhouse gases from livestock (Opio et al., 2013), and one of the
drivers of land degradation and deforestation (Cederberg et al.,
2011). The environmental impact of beef as published in scientific
literature, however, shows a large variation (De Vries and De Boer,
2010). Expressed per kg of edible beef, for example, De Vries and
De Boer (2010) found that land use varied from 27 to 49 m2,
whereas emissions of greenhouse gases varied from 14 to 32 kg
CO2 equivalents.
This variation in environmental impact between studies partly
results from differences in methodological choices, but might also
partly reflect fundamental differences among beef production
systems (De Vries and De Boer, 2010). Beef production systems
differ, for example, in the origin of the calves, i.e. beef calves can be
bred by dairy cows or suckler cows, and the type of feed used
during fattening of beef calves, i.e. roughage-based or concentrate-
based.
Quantifying these differences in impact among beef production
systems is crucial to mitigate impacts of future global beef pro-
duction systems. To this end, a systematic overview of impacts
between contrasting systems is needed. Such an assessment re-
quires a quantification of the resource use and emissions to air,
water and soil during the entire life cycle of that product. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) is a generally accepted method to evaluate the
environmental impact during the life cycle of a product (Guinée
et al., 2002). Many studies have used LCA to assess the
however, no scientific overview has been published that compared
environmental impacts of contrasting beef production systems.
The objective of this research, therefore, was to compare en-
vironmental impacts for beef produced in contrasting systems. We
reviewed all scientific reports and peer-reviewed publications that
used LCA to assess the environmental impact of beef production.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Beef production systems
Beef can be produced in systems that fundamentally differ in
their interaction with milk production systems. In many systems,
production of milk and meat is interrelated: (dairy) cows produce
milk and meat, and surplus calves are fattened for meat produc-
tion. Specialized beef production systems, however, produce only
meat from beef cows and their calves. Another large difference in
beef production systems concerns the feeding of the mother cow
and her calves. In Brazil, for example, most beef cows and their
calves are raised on pastures or rangelands (Dick et al., 2015),
whereas in the USA, beef calves are commonly finished on fee-
dlots, and this fattening phase is based mainly on concentrates
(Pelletier et al., 2010). These fundamental differences in beef
production might influence the environmental impact of beef.
2.2. Life cycle assessment
The environmental impact of food products is increasingly
quantified using LCA. In an LCA of beef, resource use and emissions
from all production stages (Fig. 1) are quantified, assigned to en-
vironmental impact categories and related to the main output of
the system, e.g. 1 kg of live weight, slaughter weight or edible beef.
Environmental impacts generally considered in LCAs of animal-
source food are use of fossil energy, land, water, global warming
potential (GWP), acidification potential and eutrophication

Fig. 1. Stages in the beef production chain.

 M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288
potential (De Vries and De Boer, 2010).
There are two ways of performing an LCA: consequential and
attributional (Thomassen et al., 2008a). Consequential LCA studies
aim at quantifying environmental consequences of a change in a
production system, or a change in product demand. The majority
of LCA studies on livestock products use attributional LCA, which
aims at quantifying the environmental impact of the main product
of a system, e.g. beef, in a status quo situation. A production sys-
tem or a process in that system, however, might yield more than
one output. In these multiple-output situations, the environmental
impact of the production system or process has to be divided
between the various outputs by means of allocation or system
expansion. Important processes with multiple outputs related to
beef production are the production of feed (e.g. soybean meal and
soybean oil), and, in dairy-based systems, the production of milk
and meat. Four main methods exist to handle a multiple output
process (ISO, 2006): process subdivision, system expansion, phy-
sical allocation (e.g. mass allocation) and economic allocation
(methods are presented in order of the decision hierarchy of the
ISO). The most commonly used method in LCA studies of livestock
products is economic allocation (De Vries and De Boer, 2010). In
the case of economic allocation, the environmental impact of a
production system or process is allocated to its multiple outputs
based on their relative economic value.
There are other important methodological choices and as-
sumptions that can influence results of LCA studies about beef
production, regarding, e.g., manure handling, diet calculations,
slaughter age and weight, and construction and maintenance of
capital goods. Because results of LCA studies often cannot be
compared directly due to differences in these methodological
choices, environmental impacts of contrasting beef production
systems were compared within studies only. Furthermore, differ-
ences in methodological choices between studies were considered
as possible factors explaining differences in results. Besides the
criteria to compare beef systems within and not across studies, we
defined several selection criteria for inclusion of studies in our
review.
2.3. Selection of LCA studies
We found 41 studies from peer-reviewed scientific journals and
scientific reports that assessed the environmental impact of beef
using LCA. To enable a comparison of environmental impacts of
beef produced in contrasting production systems, we defined
three selection criteria for inclusion of studies in our review:
system boundaries were defined at least from cradle-to-farm-
gate;
main function of the production system was to produce edible
products (i.e. beef and milk);
study evaluated at least two distinct beef production systems
based on the classification method in the present study (see Sec-
tion 2.4).
Ideally, an LCA evaluates the environmental impact of a product
over its entire life cycle, i.e. from cradle-to-grave. The majority of
the LCA studies on beef, however, evaluated only the production
stages until the farm-gate, and left out succeeding stages, such as
live animal transport, slaughter, meat processing, retail and
household. We included studies, therefore, that evaluated at least
all production stages until the farm-gate. For studies that analyzed
more production stages, results were recalculated to cradle-to-
farm-gate boundaries (Peters et al., 2010; Alig et al., 2012). Results
of the study of Capper (2012) were not recalculated because pro-
cesses after the farm-gate concerned transport to slaughterhouse
only. This process contributed less than 0.24% to the total carbon
footprint and was the same across systems in this study.
An LCA relates the environmental impact to the main function
281
of a production system. Cattle, however, can have multiple func-
tions rather than producing beef only, such as producing milk,
providing draught power, serving as capital asset or producing
manure for fertilization (Udo and Cornelissen, 1998). Multi-func-
tionality of livestock production systems complicates allocation of
impacts to the various outputs and thus a systematic comparison
of LCA results (Ripoll-Bosch et al., 2013; Weiler et al., 2014).
Whereas milk and meat have a market value, other functions of
livestock, e.g. use for dowry, are not easy to quantify in economic
terms. We selected only those studies or systems within studies,
therefore, in which the main function of the evaluated production
system was to produce edible products, i.e. beef or milk. From the
study of Opio et al. (2013), for example, continents with beef
production systems employing draught power and manure as fuel
were not included in this review.
Absolute results of an LCA can differ largely among studies that
evaluate a similar type of production system. Pelletier et al. (2010),
for example, reported that production of 1 kg of live weight of US
roughage-based beef resulted in an emission of greenhouse gases
of 19 kg CO2-equivalants, whereas Capper (2012) reported an
emission of 27 kg CO2-equivalants per kg carcass weight of US
roughage-based beef. Assuming a dressed percentage of 57.5% (LEI,
2008), the GWP found by Pelletier et al. (2010) is 33 kg CO2-
equivalants per kg carcass weight. This is 22% higher than the
value found by Capper (2012). Such differences in absolute GWPs
among studies evaluating similar systems might occur because of
differences in methodological choices made in an LCA, such as
differences in system delineation, method of allocation, or method
used to compute methane emission (i.e. IPCC Tier 1, 2 or 3). A
direct comparison of absolute results of different systems between
LCA studies, therefore, is not possible at this moment, and requires
further international standardization of the LCA method (De Vries
and De Boer, 2010). We therefore compared relative differences in
environmental impacts among beef production systems within
studies, which also bypasses the need to harmonize the functional
unit. The focus of this review, however, was on environmental
impacts per unit of product (e.g., kg live weight, kg carcass
weight), rather than on impacts per unit of area. We assumed,
furthermore, that differences in methodological choices, such as
allocation method, would not affect a relative comparison of sys-
tems within a study.
Based on these criteria, we included 14 studies that assessed
the environmental impact of beef production in OECD countries
using LCA (Table 1) and excluded 27 studies (Phetteplace et al.,
2001; Ogino et al., 2004, 2007; Vergé et al., 2008; Cederberg et al.,
2009; Edwards-Jones et al., 2009; Beauchemin et al., 2010, 2011;
Eady et al., 2011; Foley et al., 2011; Capper and Hayes, 2012;
Nguyen et al., 2012; Ridoutt et al., 2012; Zehetmeier et al., 2012;
Bonesmo et al., 2013; Oishi et al., 2013; Roer et al., 2013; Rotz et al.,
2013; White and Capper, 2013; Hünerberg et al., 2014; Picasso
et al., 2014; Ridoutt et al., 2014; Veysset et al., 2014; White et al.,
2014; Zonderland-Thomassen et al., 2014; Dick et al., 2015; Ru-
viaro et al., 2015). Because systems in the study of Williams et al.
(2006) were not the same as systems evaluated in our review,
original data in this study were recalculated using a more recent
version of the model (Adrian Williams, personal communication,
January 13, 2015).
2.4. Classification of systems
To enable a systematic comparison of impacts of beef produc-
tion systems, we classified systems in the selected studies ac-
cording to three main characteristics of management practices, i.e.
the origin of the calves, organic or conventional production
method, and the type of diet fed to calves (Table 1). With regard to
the origin of calves we distinguished between calves bred by dairy
 282
Table 1
Characteristics (functional unit, original classification of systems, global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), land use (LU), and energy use (EU)) of included studies, and new
classification of systems according to criteria defined in the present study.

Original classification New classification

a
Study (country) FU Description Origin calves Organic Diet GWP (kg CO2- AP (unit) EP (unit) LU (unit) EU (MJ)
e)

Pelletier et al., 2010 kg LW Feedlot (HGPb) Suckler No Concentrate 14.8 0.104 kg PO4-e 38.2
(USA) Pasture (no HGP) Suckler No Roughage 19.2 0.142 kg PO4-e 48.4
Backgrounding/feedlot (HGP) Suckler No Roughage 16.2 0.119 kg PO4-e 45.0
Peters et al., 2010c kg CW NSW grain-finished Suckler No Concentrate 8.6
(Australia) NSW grass-finished Suckler No Roughage 10.6
Organic VIC 2004 Suckler Yes Roughage 10.1
Nguyen et al., 2010 kg CW Suckler cow–calf Suckler No Roughage 27.3 0.210 kg SO2-e 1.651 kg NO3-e 42.9 m2 year 59.2
(European Union) Bull calves (slaughter at 12 months) Dairy No Concentrate 16.0 0.101 kg SO2-e 0.622 kg NO3-e 16.5 m2 year 41.3
Bull calves (slaughter at 16 months) Dairy No Roughage 17.9 0.131 kg SO2-e 0.737 kg NO3-e 16.7 m2 year 41.7
Steers (slaughter at 24 months) Dairy No Roughage 19.9 0.173 kg SO2-e 1.140 kg NO3-e 22.7 m2 year 48.2
Williams et al., 2006 kg CW Non-organic 100% dairy Dairy No N.A. 61% 34% kg SO2-e 31% kg PO4-e 48% ha 77%
(updated results; UK)c,d

M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288

Non-organic 100% suckler (ref.) Suckler No N.A. 100% 100% kg SO2-e 100% kg PO4-e 100% ha 100%
Organic 100% dairy Dairy Yes N.A. 56% 59% kg SO2-e 47% kg PO4-e 57% ha 42%
Organic 100% suckler Suckler Yes N.A 97% 155% kg SO2-e 140% kg PO4-e 122% ha 57%
Casey and Holden, 2006a kg CW Conventional Suckler No Roughage 13.0
(Ireland) Organic Suckler Yes Roughage 11.1
Casey and Holden, 2006b
(Ireland) kg LW Beef-bred males in intensive indoor feedlot Suckler No Concentrate 10.8
Typical Irish beef-suckler system Suckler No Roughage 11.3
Dairy-bred males in an intensive indoor feedlot Dairy No Concentrate 7.6
Dairy-bred system Dairy No Roughage 9.8
Capper, 2012
(USA) kg CW Conventional (HGP) Suckler No Concentrate 16.0 54.6 m2 8.8
(87.1%)
2
Natural (no HGP) Suckler No Concentrate 18.8 66.8 m 10.3
(87.1%)
Grass-fed (no HGP) Suckler No Roughage 26.8 98.7 m2 12.3
Opio et al., 2013 kg CW North America dairy meat Dairy N.A. N.A. 11.2
North America beef Suckler N.A. N.A. 35.2
Western Europe dairy meat Dairy N.A. N.A. 12.9
Western Europe beef Suckler N.A. N.A. 31.0
Eastern Europe dairy meat Dairy N.A. N.A. 8.0
Eastern Europe beef Suckler N.A. N.A. 29.1
Oceania dairy meat Dairy N.A. N.A. 8.5
Oceania beef Suckler N.A. N.A. 34.7
Stackhouse-Lawson et al., kg CW Angus (with stocker phase) Suckler No Roughage 22.6
2012
Angus (no stocker phase) Suckler No Concentrate 21.3
Holstein Dairy No Concentrate 10.7
Cederberg and Darelius, 2000 kg BM Conventional dairy-bred bulls fattened on forage/grain Dairy No Concentrate 17.0 0.004 kg mol Hþ- 3.4 kg O2-e 32.5 m2 34.9
e
(Sweden) Conventional dairy-bred bulls fattened on mainly Dairy No Concentrate 16.2 0.004 kg mol Hþ- 3.6 kg O2-e 34.6 m2 34.7
concentrates e
Organic dairy-bred bulls Dairy Yes Roughage 16.9 0.010 kg mol Hþ- 5.9 kg O2-e 47.2 m2 20.4
e
þ 2
Organic suckler-bred calves Suckler Yes Roughage 20.1 0.013 kg mol H - 7.5 kg O2-e 70.7 m 24.8
e
Alig et al., 2012 kg LW Bull-fattening Dairy No Roughage 8.8 1.7 m2 92.3 g PO4-e 12.1 m2 year 36.1
(Switzerland) Suckler cow Suckler No Roughage 15.3 3.0 m2 184.4 g PO4-e 26.9 m2 year 46.3
Organic suckler cow Suckler Yes Roughage 14.8 4.2 m2 214.9 g PO4-e 34.1 m2 year 45.6
 M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288 283

Original data in the study of Williams et al. (2006) were adjusted for the purpose of this review, based on a more recent model version. Results shown are relative to the environmental impact of the non-organic suckler-based

Results were expressed in potential marine (g N eq.) and freshwater (g P eq.) eutrophication in the original study. For the present study, results were converted to a single eutrophication potential (g PO4-e) using weighting
cows (i.e. dairy-based system) and calves bred by suckler cows (i.e.
suckler-based system). When a system included calves from both
origins (Capper, 2012), the system was classified according to the
origin of the majority of calves. As a second classification of sys-
tems, we distinguished between certified organic and non-organic
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
m2
beef production systems. As a third classification of systems, we
155.2
111.2

distinguished between calves fattened on a diet with an average

46.2

75.0
10.3
93.1

20.1
57.5
17.3
11.5

9.4
proportion of less than 50% (i.e. roughage-based) or at least 50%
concentrates (i.e. concentrate-based) on a dry matter basis in the
PO4-e
PO4-e
PO4-e
PO4-e

weaning to slaughter period. If a study specified diets on a lifetime

basis, the same threshold of 50% was used for classifying systems
g
g
g
g

since the amount of feed consumed pre-weaning is often similar

44.9e
40.9e

39.8e
35.1e

among systems in the same study and relatively low compared to

total consumption (about 8%; Lupo et al., 2013). Therefore, the pre-
weaning stage contributes little to total environmental impacts
SO2-e
SO2-e
SO2-e
SO2-e

and, consequently, to differences between systems. In case the

proportion of concentrates could not be derived from the study,
g
g
g
g

diet specifications were requested from the authors. Diet specifi-

cations could not be obtained, however, for the studies of Peters
328
364

299
319

et al. (2010) and Williams et al. (2006; updated results). Therefore,

systems in the study of Peters et al. (2010) described as ‘grass-
finished’ and ‘organic’ were classified into roughage-based diets,
and the system described as ‘grain-finished’ was classified into
23.0

22.9

29.7

25.4
16.6
23.1

23.1
24.1

31.5
21.7

17.0

concentrate-based diets. For Williams et al. (2006; updated re-

11.5
8.9
9.0

9.0

sults), we assumed diet classification was the same for all systems.
Concentrate
Concentrate
Concentrate

Concentrate

Concentrate
Concentrate

Concentrate
Concentrate
Roughage

Roughage
Roughage
Roughage

Roughage
Roughage

Roughage

2.5. Comparison of systems

Diet classification based on an assumption because dietary information was not available in the study or from the authors.

For each study, LCA results of the previously classified systems

were expressed on a relative basis. For example, emissions from
each dairy-based system in a study were expressed relative to
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

emissions from each suckler-based system in that study. Classified

systems were compared only if the other classification character-
istics did not differ between these systems. For example, en-
Suckler
Suckler
Suckler
Suckler
Suckler
Suckler
Suckler
Suckler

Suckler

vironmental impacts of dairy-based and suckler-based systems

Dairy
Dairy
Dairy

Dairy
Dairy
Dairy

were compared only when these systems were both organic or

both conventional, and when the same type of diet was used.
Furthermore, environmental impacts of systems were compared
only if they were evaluated in at least two studies. Freshwater
consumption, for example, was not compared because it was
Swedish bull calves (slaughter at 9.0 months)

evaluated in only one LCA study for origin of calves and production
Danish bull calves (slaughter at 9.4 months)

method (Alig et al., 2012) and in one LCA study for type of diet
(Capper, 2012).
Swedish bull calves (19.0 months)
Danish bull calves (11.5 months)

Swedish steers (25.4 months)

Swedish beef breed intensive
kg CW Danish beef breed extensive

Danish steers (25.0 months)

3. Results and discussion

Danish beef breed intensive
Fast track backgrounding

Increased use of forages

CW ¼carcass weight, LW ¼ live weight, BM ¼ bonefree meat.

Based on their original differentiation of systems, the 14 se-

lected LCA studies included 2–9 beef production systems (Table 1).
kg CW Normal operation

kg CW Baseline scenario

All 14 studies used attributional LCA to evaluate global warming

Early weaning

potential, whereas fewer studies evaluated land use (7 studies),

Grassfed

energy use, eutrophication potential (6 studies), and acidification

potential (5 studies). Beef production systems included in our
factors 3.06 and 0.42 for N and P, respectively.

comparison were located in Europe (Cederberg and Darelius,

2002; Casey and Holden, 2006b, 2006a; Nguyen et al., 2010;
Hormonal Growth Promotants.

Williams et al., 2006 (updated results); Alig et al., 2012; Opio et al.,
2013; Mogensen et al., 2015), North America (Pelletier et al., 2010;
Beauchemin et al., 2011; Capper, 2012; Stackhouse-Lawson et al.,
2012; Lupo et al., 2013) and Oceania (Peters et al., 2010). Besides
Beauchemin et al., 2011

Mogensen et al., 2015

differences related to the classification of systems in the present

(Denmark/Sweden)

study, systems in selected studies differed in many other char-

production system.
Lupo et al., 2013

acteristics of beef production. For example, in some systems beef

cattle were receiving hormonal growth promotants (e.g. Pelletier
(Canada)

et al. 2010; Capper, 2012). Also, in some systems calves with

(USA)

concentrate-based diets were first maintained on pasture or ran-

d
b

e
a

gelands before going to the feedlot, whereas in other systems

284 M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288
Fig. 2. Environmental impacts (%) per unit of product of dairy-based relative to suckler-based beef production systems (GWP ¼global warming potential; AP¼ acidification
potential; EP ¼eutrophication potential).
calves were directly sent to an indoor or outdoor feedlot after
weaning (e.g. Capper, 2012; Casey and Holden, 2006b).
The following paragraphs describe the influence of origin of
calves, type of production method (i.e. organic vs non-organic),
and type of diet on the environmental impact of beef production.
3.1. Origin of calves
Eight LCA studies compared systems that differed in origin of
calves (Cederberg and Darelius, 2002; Casey and Holden, 2006b;
Nguyen et al., 2010; Alig et al., 2012; Stackhouse-Lawson et al.,
2012; Williams et al. 2006 (updated results); Opio et al., 2013;
Mogensen et al., 2015). Environmental impacts per unit of product
were consistently lower for dairy-based systems compared with
suckler-based systems (Fig. 2). On average, dairy-based systems
showed 41% lower GWP (range 13–76%), 41% lower acidification
potential (18–66%), 49% lower eutrophication potential (21–69%),
23% lower energy use (18–30%) and 49% lower land use compared
with suckler-based systems. Land use per unit of product was
higher in a dairy-based system than in a suckler-based system in
the study of Mogensen et al. (2015; Fig. 2) due to a large area of
semi-natural pasture for steers in this dairy-based system. In
suckler-based systems, maintaining the mother cow is the domi-
nant contributor to all impacts, which is attributable to the low
reproductive rate of cattle and the fact that all emissions are al-
located to the production of beef. Pelletier et al. (2010), for ex-
ample, concluded that on average the cow–calf stage is responsible
for about 63% of the impacts per kg beef. The dominant con-
tribution of the cow–calf stage explains why impacts per unit of
product were lower for dairy-based systems than for suckler-
based systems. In dairy-based systems, the majority of environ-
mental impacts related to the dairy farm are attributed to milk and
not to beef (i.e., 83–97%; Casey and Holden, 2006b; Cederberg and
Darelius, 2002; Alig et al., 2012; Opio et al., 2013; Mogensen et al.,
2015). That dairy-based systems can contribute to production of
beef with consistently lower environmental impacts than suckler-
based systems supports earlier findings of Zehetmeier et al. (2012).
They demonstrated that GWP of milk and meat production was
lower for a system with dual purpose Fleckvieh cows producing
milk and beef, than for a system in which milk and some meat is
produced by, e.g., high-producing Holstein Friesian cows, and the
remainder of meat by beef cattle in suckler-based systems. Despite
a lower environmental impact of dairy-based systems, however,
other values regarding beef production need to be taken into ac-
count. Quality of beef from dairy-bred calves or culled dairy cows,
for example, might not be valued similar to beef from suckler-bred
calves by consumers (Grunert et al., 2004). In this respect, use of
beef breeds to produce crossbred calves from dairy cows not se-
lected for breeding replacement heifers might offer potential for
lowering GWP of dairy-based systems while enhancing beef
quality. Cross-bred calves have a higher growth rate than dairy-
bred calves, leading to a lower GWP per kg beef (Touchberry,
1992). At present, however, use of sexed semen to produce dairy-
bred replacement heifers is costly and entails lower pregnancy
rates in part due to damage to sperm during sorting (Seidel, 2014).
3.2. Type of production method
Four studies compared GWP of certified organic and non-or-
ganic beef production systems (Table 1). On average, GWP per unit
of product was 7% (range 3–15%) lower in organic systems com-
pared with non-organic systems. The difference in GWP can be
explained partially by reduced carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
emissions in organic systems due to a lower use of (synthetic)
fertilizers, which compensates the increased methane emissions
caused by a higher amount of roughage in organic diets (Casey and
Holden, 2006a; Thomassen et al., 2008a). Furthermore, differences
in diet can contribute to differences between GWPs of organic and
 M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288
non-organic systems. Casey and Holden (2006a), for example,
found that lower GWP of organic systems compared with non-
organic systems was related to the use of less concentrates per kg
life weight. In addition, the type of concentrate (i.e. locally pro-
duced and unprocessed barley) fed in organic systems had a lower
GWP than concentrate (i.e. composition of different processed and
unprocessed ingredients) fed in non-organic systems (Casey and
Holden, 2006a). For other impact categories, certified organic and
non-organic beef production systems were compared in two stu-
dies only, which hinders the interpretation of results. On average,
Williams et al. (2006, updated results) and Alig et al. (2012) found
56% higher acidification potential, 36% higher eutrophication po-
tential, 30% lower energy use, and 22% higher land use per unit of
product in organic systems compared with non-organic systems
(Table 1). A lower energy use in organic systems can be explained
by the absence of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers (i.e. energy
use during production is avoided), and by the use of more local
and unprocessed feed products (e.g. roughage) compared to non-
organic systems (Williams et al., 2006; Alig et al., 2012). A higher
acidification and eutrophication potential and land use per unit
product in organic systems can be explained mainly by lower crop
and grass yields and lower growth rates of animals in these sys-
tems (Alig et al., 2012; Tuomisto et al., 2012). However, whereas
acidification and eutrophication potential were higher per unit of
product in organic production systems compared with non-
organic systems, these impacts are often lower when expressed
per unit of area (Tuomisto et al., 2012). Besides this, studies have
shown higher soil organic matter content and biodiversity for
other organic products compared with non-organic products (FAO,
2002; Tuomisto et al., 2012). These impact categories were not
included in our review because few studies have investigated this
for beef so far.
3.3. Type of diet
Nine studies compared beef production systems that were ei-
ther concentrate or roughage based (Fig. 3). GWP, energy use, and
land use per unit of product were lower in concentrate-based
systems than in roughage-based systems, whereas results for
acidification and eutrophication potential differed among studies.
On average, GWP was 28% (range 4–48%) lower in concentrate-
based systems compared with roughage-based systems, which is
Fig. 3. Environmental impacts (%) per unit of product of concentrate-based relative to roughage-based beef production systems (GWP ¼ global warming potential;
AP ¼acidification potential; EP ¼ eutrophication potential).
285
partly caused by a higher growth rate of calves in concentrate-
based systems and subsequently, a longer finishing time or lower
finishing weight (e.g. Holter and Young, 1992; Lovett et al., 2006;
Lupo et al., 2013; Mogensen et al., 2015). Average daily gain was
1.2 kg/d in the concentrate-based systems and 0.8 kg/d in the
roughage-based systems included in Fig. 3 (excluding Peters et al.
(2010)). A lower GWP from beef cattle in concentrate-based sys-
tems resulted also from lower enteric methane emissions due to a
higher amount of concentrates and a lower amount of roughage in
the diets. In the roughage-based systems, roughage consisted of
grass-products only (e.g. fresh grass or grass silage; Casey and
Holden, 2006b; Peters et al., 2010; Stackhouse-Lawson et al., 2012;
Lupo et al., 2013) or of both grass- and non-grass roughage pro-
ducts (e.g. maize silage or straw; Nguyen et al., 2010; Pelletier
et al., 2010; Beauchemin et al., 2011; Capper, 2012; Mogensen
et al., 2015). The average difference in GWP with concentrate-
based systems was the same for roughage-based systems feeding
grass-products only and those feeding both grass- and non-grass
roughage products (i.e. 28%).
In most studies with roughage-based systems in this review, it
was assumed that grazing and harvesting was on high productive
(highly fertilized) grasslands. Other studies have shown an even
higher GWP of roughage-based beef produced on low productive
grasslands. GWP of beef from suckler calves reared on low pro-
ductive native pastures in Uruguay, for example, was more than
twice as much as that of calves backgrounded on seeded pastures
and finished in a feedlot (Picasso et al., 2014). The higher GWP of
beef produced on low productive grasslands can be explained by
reduced animal growth and reproduction due to poor diet quality,
which outbalance lower GHGs due to no fertilizer use. Shifting
from low productive to high productive grasslands, therefore, can
reduce GWP of beef (e.g. Phetteplace et al., 2001; Dick et al., 2015;
Ruviaro et al., 2015), but may carry risks for the ecosystem, such as
the loss of wildlife habitat, soil erosion and sedimentation, and
nutrient run-off and leaching (Claassen et al., 2010).
Land use and land use change (e.g. from forest to cropland) can
add or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby
contributing to an increase or decrease in GWP. Except for Opio
et al. (2013), studies that compared GHG emissions of beef pro-
duction systems assumed that established systems achieved
equilibrium conditions in soil organic carbon (SOC) flux. In other
words, they excluded potential carbon sequestration of grassland
286 M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288
and GHG emissions from changes in land use from their analysis.
Besides estimating GWP of beef production assuming SOC equili-
brium (i.e. results presented in Table 1), five studies evaluated
effects of including SOC sequestration on GWP (Nguyen et al.,
2010; Pelletier et al., 2010; Beauchemin et al., 2011; Lupo et al.,
2013; Mogensen et al., 2015). In two studies, GWP of concentrate-
based systems was lower than GWP of roughage-based systems
when SOC equilibrium was assumed, but higher when accounting
for differences in SOC sequestration potential between grass- and
cropland (Nguyen et al., 2010; Pelletier et al., 2010). On the con-
trary, two other studies found that average GWP per kg carcass
weight was lower in concentrate-based systems compared with
grass-based systems, even when accounting for SOC sequestration
(Lupo et al., 2013; Mogensen et al., 2015). Lupo et al. (2013),
however, assumed that the SOC sequestration per unit of grass
consumed was lower in grass-based systems than in concentrate-
based systems due to differences in stocking rate, grazing season,
and grass yield per ha. In Mogensen et al. (2015), the assumed
difference in carbon sequestration potential between grasslands
and croplands did not compensate for the difference in GWP be-
tween grass-based and concentrated-based systems excluding
changes in SOC (Fig. 2). The advantage for grass-based systems is
debated, as carbon sequestration rates decrease over time when
the system approaches new equilibrium conditions (Skinner,
2008). In the study of Beauchemin et al. (2011), for example,
concentrate-based systems changed from a net GHG emitter to a
net sink of carbon when type of pasture was changed from native
pastures (assuming SOC equilibrium) to recently seeded pasture
on previously cropped land (assuming SOC sequestration).
For the impact categories acidification potential, eutrophication
potential, energy use, and land use, results of concentrate-based
and roughage-based systems were compared in two to four stu-
dies only (Fig. 3). These results, therefore, should be interpreted
with care. Acidification and eutrophication potential per unit of
product were higher for roughage-based systems compared with
concentrate-based systems in the studies of Nguyen et al. (2010)
and Pelletier et al. (2010; eutrophication only), but were lower in
the study of Lupo et al. (2013). According to Pelletier et al. (2010),
the higher eutrophication potential in roughage-based systems
could be explained by the higher throughput of feed (partly due to
grazing losses) and associated increase in area of managed pasture,
as well as the relatively greater amount of manure produced per
kg live-weight. Lupo et al. (2013), on the contrary, argued that the
lower eutrophication potential in the roughage-based system was
due to a lower dry matter feed intake and a lower amount of
manure produced per kg live-weight. In addition, Lupo et al.
(2013) assumed unfertilized grasslands, whereas extensive fertili-
zation was assumed in at least part of the grassland in the studies
of Pelletier et al. (2010) and Nguyen et al. (2010). Energy use was
lower for concentrate-based systems compared with roughage-
based systems (Fig. 3), as a result of cropping and harvesting
practices for conserved forages fed during winter in temperate
climate zones and intensive grassland management in roughage-
based systems (e.g. fertilizer use; Pelletier et al., 2010; Capper,
2012). Whereas roughage-based systems in the included studies
were rather energy intensive, however, energy use is suggested to
be much lower in more extensively managed grass-based systems
compared with concentrate-based systems (Pimentel and Pi-
mentel, 1996; Koknaroglu et al., 2007). For example, whereas en-
ergy use ranged from 12 to 84 MJ per kg carcass weight among the
intensively managed roughage-based systems with suckler calves
in our review (Table 1; assuming a dressed percentage of 57.5%
(LEI, 2008)), energy use was only 3.7 MJ per kg carcass weight for
suckler-based systems on extensively managed pastures in Brazil
(Cederberg et al., 2009) and no fossil energy was used for weaned
calves finished on rangelands in Uruguay (Modernel et al., 2013).
As discussed previously, energy use was also lower in organic
roughage-based systems compared with non-organic roughage-
based systems, which is in part due to extensive management of
organic grasslands.
In this literature review, land use per unit of product was lower
for most concentrate-based systems compared with roughage-
based systems (Fig. 3), which was mainly related to the higher
growth rate of calves in concentrate based systems (e.g., Capper,
2012). This suggests that we should favor concentrate-based beef
over roughage-based beef in human diets. Diets of concentrate-
based beef cattle, however, contain relatively more products that
humans could consume directly, such as maize or soy. To gain
insight into differences in amount of human-edible energy con-
sumed by beef cattle in both systems, Pelletier et al. (2010) com-
puted the ratio of human-edible energy in animal products, such
as beef, to the amount of human edible energy in animal feed. This
ratio was 4.2 for concentrate-based beef and 69.1 for grass-based
beef, implying that grass-based beef showed a significant higher
return on human-edible energy investment than concentrate-
based beef. This conversion ratio, however, does not yet include
the fact that, for example, grass fed to beef cattle can be produced
on land suitable for cultivation of human food crops. By accounting
for differences in the suitability of land to cultivate food crops, beef
produced on grassland unsuitable for crop production could have
an important role for future food security. Besides this, the re-
duced pressure on crop land could lower land use change (LUC)
and LUC related emissions of GHG (Audsley et al. 2009; Mogensen
et al., 2015).
Besides food production, well managed grass-based systems
may provide other functions to society, such as provision of clean
drinking water, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity
(Henle et al., 2008), conservation of cultural landscapes (Plieninger
et al., 2006) and contribute to the socio-economic viability of
many rural areas (OECD, 2001), especially in marginal or less fa-
vored areas (De Rancourt et al., 2006). These other functions of
grass-based systems, referred to as ecosystem services (Millen-
nium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), have been included in some
LCA studies (e.g. Ripoll-Bosch et al., 2013) but were mostly ignored
in LCA studies comparing grass-based and concentrate-based beef
production, which favored concentrate-based beef production.
Besides this, other issues regarding pasture-based and con-
centrate-based systems should be taken into account, e.g. quality
of meat as perceived by consumers or animal welfare levels (e.g.
Mader, 2003; Sitz et al., 2005).
3.4. Mitigating environmental impacts of future beef production
Given a projected increase in global demand for beef of 1.2% per
year towards 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012) and general
agreement on the urgent need to reduce environmental impacts
(e.g. reduction of GHG emissions; UNFCCC, 2014), beef production
systems require drastic change to mitigate environmental impacts.
This review of studies from OECD countries showed that dairy-
based systems show large potential to mitigate environmental
impacts of beef relative to suckler-based systems. To a lesser ex-
tent, beef from concentrate-based systems showed potential to
mitigate GWP, energy use and land use relative to roughage-based
systems, whereas differences in environmental performance of
organic and non-organic systems varied across impact categories.
The comparison of beef production systems based on the type of
diet or type of production method, however, is currently limited
because not all relevant impact categories have been studied. The
use of water and fossil phosphorus, the loss of biodiversity and the
impact on human- and eco-toxicity of contrasting beef production
systems, for example, should be further investigated. In addition,
comparison of land use of beef production systems should
 M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288
consider suitability of land for growing crops for direct human
consumption to evaluate the potential competition for land be-
tween humans and animals. In this respect, production of beef on
grasslands less suitable for crop production contributes to in-
creased food supply, whereas production of beef on highly pro-
ductive croplands may have an opposite effect. In situations where
beef is produced on highly productive cropland anyway, con-
centrate-based systems are preferred over roughage-based sys-
tems with regard to most of the environmental impacts under
study. In case of eutrophication and acidification potential, how-
ever, results are limited and not conclusive. For these impact ca-
tegories, an analysis of impacts per area of land might contribute
to a better understanding of differences in local impacts between
systems. In both concentrate-based and roughage-based systems,
environmental impacts can be reduced when dairy-bred calves are
used rather than suckler-bred calves. For example, despite a 0.4 kg
lower average daily weight gain, GWP of dairy-bred calves in a
grass-based system was similar to the GWP of suckler-bred calves
in a concentrate-based system in the study of Casey and Holden,
(2006b; Table 1). In remote grasslands that are unsuitable for dairy
farming due to, e.g., distance to markets, however, suckler-based
beef production may contribute to availability and access of ani-
mal-source food.
Environmental impacts can be further reduced when using
dairy-bred beef calves from dual-purpose cattle or from dairy cows
crossed with beef breeds, improving the growth performance and
feed efficiency of dairy-bred beef cattle (Hietala et al., 2015). In
addition, optimal utilization of by-products from human food, fi-
ber, and energy production can improve growth performance of
beef cattle while minimizing environmental impacts and the
competition for land between humans and animals.
A preference for beef from dairy-based systems may imply a
change in the dairy sector towards an increased focus on beef
production, through, e.g., increased cross-breeding with beef
breeds or optimizing dairy and beef production. Besides mitigation
measures from the supply-side, measures on the demand-side of
beef and milk, such as reduced consumption of animal-source food
in affluent countries, and reduced waste, can contribute to redu-
cing the environmental impact related to beef production and
increasing food security (Smith et al., 2013).
4. Conclusions
A large number of LCA studies have evaluated environmental
impact of beef production, some of which have compared beef
systems based on the origin of calves (dairy-based vs suckler-
based), production method (organic vs non-organic), and diet
(concentrate-based vs roughage-based). This review showed that
environmental impacts of beef produced in dairy-based systems
were lower than those of beef from suckler-based systems. No
large differences in GWP were found between organic and non-
organic systems, whereas eutrophication potential, acidification
potential and land use were higher, and energy use was lower for
organic systems. Except for GWP, however, these results should be
interpreted with care because impacts were compared in few
studies. GWP, land use, and energy use were lower in concentrate-
based systems compared with roughage-based systems. The
comparison of beef production systems based on the type of diet
or type of production method, however, is currently limited be-
cause not all relevant impact categories have been studied. In
addition, comparison of land use of beef production systems
should consider suitability of land for growing crops for direct
human consumption to evaluate the competition for land between
humans and animals. It was concluded that dairy-based beef
production showed largest potential to mitigate environmental
287
impacts of beef.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Martina Alig, Karen Beau-
chemin, Jude Capper, Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, and Adrian Wiliams
for sharing additional information about their manuscripts with
us.
References
Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The
2012 Revision. FAO, Rome, ESA Working paper No. 12-03.
Alig, M., Grandl, F., Mieleitner, J., Nemecek, T., Gaillard, G., 2012. Ökobilanz von
Rind-, Schweine- und Geflügelfleisch, Schlussbericht September 2012. Agro-
scope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART, Zürich, Switzerland.
Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., Williams, A.,
2009. How Low Can We Go? An Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
the UK Food System and the Scope to Reduce Them by 2050. WWF, UK.
Beauchemin, K.A., Henry Janzen, H., Little, S.M., McAllister, T.A., McGinn, S.M., 2010.
Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in
western Canada: a case study. Agric. Syst. 103, 371–379.
Beauchemin, K.A., Janzen, H.H., Little, S.M., McAllister, T.A., McGinn, S.M., 2011.
Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Ca-
nada – evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment. Anim. Feed. Sci. Tech.
166–167, 663–677.
Bonesmo, H., Beauchemin, K.A., Harstad, O.M., Skjelvåg, A.O., 2013. Greenhouse gas
emission intensities of grass silage based dairy and beef production: a systems
analysis of Norwegian farms. Livest. Sci. 152, 239–252.
Capper, J.L., 2012. Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental im-
pact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animals 2,
127–143.
Capper, J.L., Hayes, D.J., 2012. The environmental and economic impact of removing
growth-enhancing technologies from U.S. beef production. J. Anim. Sci. 90,
3527–3537.
Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2006a. Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional,
agri-environmental scheme, and organic Irish suckler-beef units. J. Environ.
Qual. 35, 231–239.
Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M., 2006b. Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef
production in Ireland. Agric. Syst. 90, 79–98.
Cederberg, C., Darelius, K., 2002. Using LCA Methodology to Assess the Potential
Environmental Impact of Intensive Beef and Pork Production. Department of
Applied Environmental Science, Göteborg University, Sweden, Ph.D. thesis.
Cederberg, C., Meyer, D., Flysjö, A., 2009. Life Cycle Inventory of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Use of Land and Energy in Brazilian Beef Production. Swedish
Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), Sweden.
Cederberg, C., Persson, U.M., Neovius, K., Molander, S., Clift, R., 2011. Including
carbon emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of brazilian beef.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1773–1779.
Claassen, R., Carriazo, F., Ueda, K., 2010. Grassland Conversion for Crop Production
in the United States: Defining Indicators for Policy Analysis. OECD Agri-En-
vironmental Indicators: Lessons Learned and Future Directions. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington D.C.
De Rancourt, M., Fois, N., Lavín, M.P., Tchakérian, E., Vallerand, F., 2006. Medi-
terranean sheep and goats production: an uncertain future. Small Rumin. Res.
62, 167–179.
De Vries, M., De Boer, I.J.M., 2010. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock
products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest. Sci. 128, 1–11.
Dick, M., Abreu da Silva, M., Dewes, H., 2015. Life cycle assessment of beef cattle
production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil. J. Clean Prod.
96, 426–434.
Eady, S., Viner, J., MacDonnell, J., 2011. On-farm greenhouse gas emissions and
water use: case studies in the Queensland beef industry. Anim. Prod. Sci. 51,
667–681.
Edwards-Jones, G., Plassmann, K., Harris, I.M., 2009. Carbon footprinting of lamb
and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in
Wales, UK. J. Agric. Sci. 147, 707–719.
FAO, 2002. El-Hage Scialabba, N., Hattam, C. (Eds.), Organic Agriculture, Environ-
ment and Food Security. FAO, Rome.
FAOSTAT, 2013. Electronic Database of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
UN. Accessed October 2013. http://faostat.fao.org/.
Foley, P.A., Crosson, P., Lovett, D.K., Boland, T.M., O’Mara, F.P., Kenny, D.A., 2011.
Whole-farm systems modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from pastoral
suckler beef cow production systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 222–230.
Grunert, K.G., Bredahl, L., Brunsø, K., 2004. Consumer perception of meat quality
and implications for product development in the meat sector—a review. Meat
Sci. 66, 259–272.
Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers,
L., Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Duin, R.,
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Lindeijer, E., Roorda, A.A.H., van der Ven, B.L., Weidema B.P.
288 M. de Vries et al. / Livestock Science 178 (2015) 279–288
(Eds.), 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment; Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards. Institute for Environmental Sciences, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., McCracken, D., Moritz,
R.F.A., Niemelä, J., Rebane, M., Wascher, D., Watt, A., Young, J., 2008. Identifying
and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation
in Europe – a review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 124, 60–71.
Hietala, P., Bouquet, P., Juga, J., 2015. Effect of replacement rate, crossbreeding and
sexed semen on the efficiency of beef production from dairy herds in Finland.
Acta. Agric. Scand. A 64, 199–209.
Holter, J.B., Young, A.J., 1992. Methane prediction in dry and lactating holstein cows.
J. Dairy Sci. 75, 2165–2175.
Hünerberg, M., Little, S.M., Beauchemin, K.A., McGinn, S.M., O’Connor, D., Okine, E.
K., Harstad, O.M., Kröbel, R., McAllister, T.A., 2014. Feeding high concentrations
of corn dried distillers’ grains decreases methane, but increases nitrous oxide
emissions from beef cattle production. Agric. Syst. 127, 19–27.
ISO, 2006. Environmental management. The ISO 14000 family of international
standards ISO standard collection on CD-rom, Genève, Switzerland.
Koknaroglu, H., Ekinci, K., Hoffman, M.P., 2007. Cultural energy analysis of pasturing
systems for cattle finishing programs. J. Sustain. Agric. 30, 5–20.
LEI, 2008. Land- en tuinbouwcijfers 2008 (Agricultural and Horticultural Statistical
Data in the Netherlands 2008). LEI Wageningen UR and Centraal Bureau voor
de Statistiek (CBS), ’s-Gravenhage.
Lovett, D.K., Shalloo, L., Dillon, P., O’Mara, F.P., 2006. A systems approach to quantify
greenhouse gas fluxes from pastoral dairy production as affected by manage-
ment regime. Agric. Syst. 88, 156–179.
Lupo, C.D., Clay, D.E., Benning, J.L., Stone, J.J., 2013. Life-cycle assessment of the beef
cattle production system for the northern great plains, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 42,
1386–1394.
Mader, T.L., 2003. Environmental stress in confined beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 81,
E110–E119.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Modernel, P., Astigarraga, L., Picasso, V., 2013. Global versus local environmental
impacts of grazing and confined beef production systems. Environ. Res. Lett. 8,
035052.
Mogensen, L., Kristensen, T., Nielsen, N.I., Spleth, P., Henriksson, M., Swensson, C.,
Hessle, A., Vestergaard, M., 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions from beef pro-
duction systems in Denmark and Sweden. Livest. Sci. 174, 126–143.
Nguyen, T.L.T., Hermansen, J.E., Mogensen, L., 2010. Environmental consequences of
different beef production systems in the EU. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 756–766.
Nguyen, T.T.H., van der Werf, H.M.G., Eugène, M., Veysset, P., Devun, J., Chesneau, G.,
Doreau, M., 2012. Effects of type of ration and allocation methods on the en-
vironmental impacts of beef-production systems. Livest. Sci. 145, 239–251.
OECD, 2001. Multifunctionality. Towards an Analytical Framework. Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development, France.
Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Osada, T., Shimada, K., 2004. Environmental impacts of the Ja-
panese beef-fattening system with different feeding lengths as evaluated by a
life-cycle assessment method. J. Anim. Sci. 82, 2115–2122.
Ogino, A., Orito, H., Shimada, K., Hirooka, H., 2007. Evaluating environmental im-
pacts of the Japanese beef cow–calf system by the life cycle assessment
method. Anim. Sci. J. 78, 424–432.
Oishi, K., Kato, Y., Ogino, A., Hirooka, H., 2013. Economic and environmental impacts
of changes in culling parity of cows and diet composition in Japanese beef cow–
calf production systems. Agric. Syst. 115, 95–103.
Opio, C., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., MacLeod, M., Vellinga, T.,
Henderson, B., Steinfeld, H., 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ruminant
Supply Chains – A Global Life Cycle Assessment. Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., Rasmussen, R., 2010. Comparative life cycle environmental
impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United
States. Agric. Syst. 103, 380–389.
Peters, G.M., Rowley, H.V., Wiedemann, S., Tucker, R., Short, M.D., Schulz, M., 2010.
Red meat production in Australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with
overseas studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1327–1332.
Phetteplace, H.W., Johnson, D.E., Seidl, A.F., 2001. Greenhouse gas emissions from
simulated beef and dairy livestock systems in the United States. Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 60, 99–102.
Picasso, V.D., Modernel, P.D., Becoña, G., Salvo, L., Gutiérrez, L., Astigarraga, L., 2014.
Sustainability of meat production beyond carbon footprint: a synthesis of case
studies from grazing systems in Uruguay. Meat Sci. 98, 346–354.
Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M., 1996. Food, Energy and Society. Colorado Univ. Press,
Boulder, CO.
Plieninger, T., Höchtl, F., Spek, T., 2006. Traditional land-use and nature conserva-
tion in European rural landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 9, 317–321.
Ridoutt, B.G., Page, G., Opie, K., Huang, J., Bellotti, W., 2014. Carbon, water and land
use footprints of beef cattle production systems in southern Australia. J. Clean
Prod. 73, 24–30.
Ridoutt, B.G., Sanguansri, P., Freer, M., Harper, G.S., 2012. Water footprint of live-
stock: comparison of six geographically defined beef production systems. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 17, 165–175.
Ripoll-Bosch, R., de Boer, I.J.M., Bernués, A., Vellinga, T.V., 2013. Accounting for
multi-functionality of sheep farming in the carbon footprint of lamb: a com-
parison of three contrasting Mediterranean systems. Agric. Syst. 116, 60–68.
Roer, A., Johansen, A., Bakken, A.K., Daugstad, K., Fystro, G., Strømman, A.H., 2013.
Environmental impacts of combined milk and meat production in Norway ac-
cording to a life cycle assessment with expanded system boundaries. Livest. Sci.
155, 384–396.
Rotz, C.A., Isenberg, B.J., Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R., Pollak, E.J., 2013. A simulation-
based approach for evaluating and comparing the environmental footprints of
beef production systems. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 5427–5437.
Ruviaro, C.F., de Léis, C.M., Lampert, Vd.N., Barcellos, J.O.J., Dewes, H., 2015. Carbon
footprint in different beef production systems on a southern Brazilian farm: a
case study. J. Clean Prod. 96, 435–443.
Seidel, G.E., 2014. Update on sexed semen technology in cattle. Animal 8 (Suppl. 1),
S160–S164.
Sitz, B.M., Calkins, C.R., Feuz, D.M., Umberger, W.J., Eskridge, K.M., 2005. Consumer
sensory acceptance and value of domestic, Canadian, and Australian grass-fed
beef steaks. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 2863–2868.
Skinner, R.H., 2008. High biomass removal limits carbon sequestration potential of
mature temperate pastures. J. Environ. Qual. 37, 1319–1326.
Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K.-h, Lauk, C., Harper, R., Tubiello, F.N., de Si-
queira Pinto, A., Jafari, M., Sohi, S., Masera, O., Böttcher, H., Berndes, G., Bus-
tamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Mbow, C., Ra-
vindranath, N.H., Rice, C.W., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F.,
Herrero, M., House, J.I., Rose, S., 2013. How much land-based greenhouse gas
mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environ-
mental goals? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302.
Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R., Rotz, C.A., Oltjen, J.W., Mitloehner, F.M., 2012. Carbon
footprint and ammonia emissions of California beef production systems. J.
Anim. Sci. 90, 4641–4655.
Thomassen, M.A., Dalgaard, R., Heijungs, R., De Boer, I.J.M., 2008a. Attributional and
consequential LCA of milk production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 339–349.
Thomassen, M.A., van Calker, K.J., Smits, M.C.J., Iepema, G.L., de Boer, I.J.M., 2008b.
Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the
Netherlands. Agric. Syst. 96, 95–107.
Touchberry, R.W., 1992. Crossbreeding effects in dairy cattle: the Illinois experi-
ment, 1949 to 1969. J. Dairy Sci. 75, 640–667.
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., Macdonald, D.W., 2012. Does organic
farming reduce environmental impacts? – a meta-analysis of European re-
search. J. Environ. Manag. 112, 309–320.
Udo, H., Cornelissen, T., 1998. Livestock in resource-poor farming systems. Outlook
Agric. 27, 237–242.
UNFCCC, 2014. Agenda Item 4: Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban
Platform for Enhanced Action. Conference of the Parties, Lima, 1–12 December
2014.
Vergé, X.P.C., Dyer, J.A., Desjardins, R.L., Worth, D., 2008. Greenhouse gas emissions
from the Canadian beef industry. Agric. Syst. 98, 126–134.
Veysset, P., Lherm, M., Bébin, D., Roulenc, M., Benoit, M., 2014. Variability in
greenhouse gas emissions, fossil energy consumption and farm economics in
suckler beef production in 59 French farms. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 188,
180–191.
Weiler, V., Udo, H.M.J., Viets, T., Crane, T.A., De Boer, I.J.M., 2014. Handling multi-
functionality of livestock in a life cycle assessment: the case of smallholder
dairying in Kenya. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 8, 29–38.
White, R.R., Brady, M., Capper, J.L., Johnson, K.A., 2014. Optimizing diet and pasture
management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production. Agric. Syst. 130,
1–12.
White, R.R., Capper, J.L., 2013. An environmental, economic, and social assessment
of improving cattle finishing weight or average daily gain within U.S. beef
production. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 5801–5812.
Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the environmental
burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural
commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield University
and Defra, Bedford, Available on /www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk, and www.defra.
gov.ukS.
Zehetmeier, M., Baudracco, J., Hoffmann, H., Heißenhuber, A., 2012. Does increasing
milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach.
Animal 6, 154–166.
Zonderland-Thomassen, M.A., Lieffering, M., Ledgard, S.F., 2014. Water footprint of
beef cattle and sheep produced in New Zealand: water scarcity and eu-
trophication impacts. J. Clean Prod. 73, 253–262.