Five Thangs People Get From Beef by Productions

WHAT DOES SUSTAINABILITY MEAN FOR DIETS AND THE FOOD Organization?

Sustainability in our food system is a complex topic. It encompasses multiple domains (economic, environmental, social) and long-term time scales (generational impacts). Issues as varied equally greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, wild animals habitat, rural livelihoods, the affordability of food, nutritional quality, and animal welfare can all fall nether the broader umbrella of sustainability. Farther complicating sustainability is the reality that there tin can be tradeoffs and interrelationships beyond domains. For example, animal source foods in general produce more than GHG per kilocalorie than constitute source foods; however, animal source foods too tend to provide more than of several essential nutrients in bioavailable forms per kilocalorie, such every bit iron, calcium, and vitamin B₁₂.¹ Finally, the multiple issues that fall under the umbrella of sustainability are field of study to value judgments, cultural differences, and traditions. What is most valued by one private may be dissimilar for another, which means that sweeping statements about ane-size-fits-all dietary advice or generalized public policy recommendations are difficult to provide.

Given the complexity outlined to a higher place, what are some of the definitions of sustainable food systems and diets? The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines a sustainable food system as "a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised." The same organization defines sustainable diets as "those with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and diet security and to healthy life for nowadays and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, attainable, economically off-white and affordable; nutritionally acceptable, safety and healthy; while optimizing natural and homo resources."^two

The bottom line is sustainability is a circuitous balancing act full of dash and shades of gray. This article will highlight this complication and provide practical advice with a food that is oftentimes in the crosshairs in good for you, sustainable nutrition discussions: beef. The following information on beef production, sustainability, consumption patterns, and food waste will be largely focused on the United States.

BEEF CATTLE PRODUCTION IN THE Usa

The US beef supply chain is 1 of the well-nigh circuitous of any food. Beef cattle production starts in the United States on operations called cow-calf operations, more than unremarkably known as farms or ranches depending on the region of the country. According to the 2017 United states Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census, there are more than 720 000 beef cow-dogie operations in the U.s.a., with operations in all 50 states. This makes beefiness the single largest segment of the US agriculture, equally cow-calf operations represent 36% of U.s. farms and ranches. Cattle and calves were the superlative ranked commodity in US agriculture in 2017, with $77.2 billion in sales.³

Cow-calf product is extensive, pregnant that near cows in the United States are housed on pasture or rangeland and spend most of their time grazing and eating forages, such as hay. On these operations, a beef cow will have a calf ideally once per twelvemonth (the gestation flow of cattle is similar to humans—approximately 285 days), and the cow volition nurse the calf until weaning, which typically occurs when the calf is 6 to 10 months old and weighs 450 to 700 lb. In one case weaned, cattle may remain on grass and graze for some other two to 6 months, or the cattle may enter a feedlot, while still consuming a loftier-provender diet (>50% of their feed intake). Cattle during this fourth dimension are referred to as stockers or backgrounders, respectively. The concluding phase of cattle production is known equally finishing, where cattle volition continue to gain lean muscle, but will also add a college proportion of fatty, in particular intramuscular fat known equally marbling. At the end of finishing, cattle will weigh betwixt 1200 and 1400 lb. Well-nigh cattle in the United States (~97%) are finished in feedlots and fed a grain-based diet for approximately 4 to 6 months earlier slaughter; all the same, proportionally, approximately two-thirds of the animal's lifetime is spent outside of feedlots. A much smaller proportion of cattle will be finished on grass or by consuming a 100% forage diet (eg, hay, silage, or fermented whole plants such as alfalfa) for approximately vi to ten months. In addition, dairy cattle will enter the beef supply, both in terms of culled dairy cows and male dairy calves that are raised as steers just every bit beef brood cattle (eg, Angus, Herefords). The US veal industry is small (74.five million lb of veal production compared with 27.2 billion lb of beefiness production in 2019) inside the United states and concentrated in the Northeastern and Midwest United states.^4,5

Nigh beef cattle in the United States are non in a feedlot at any given indicate in fourth dimension. For example, on January i, 2019, the USDA estimated that at that place were xiv.iv million cattle in feedlots, with the remaining 82% of the U.s.a. beef cattle herd located exterior feedlots primarily on pasture and rangeland (Figure 1).^vi The U.s.a. beefiness cattle industry is a combination of grass-based and grain-based feed intakes, with nigh of cattle's lifetimes and feed consumption resulting from grass and other forages.

FIGURE one.:

Cattle inventory and cattle production life cycle in the United states beefiness production system.^four,5

HOW BEEF FITS INTO A SUSTAINABLE FOOD Arrangement

The nature of beefiness cattle production is fundamental to its contributions to a sustainable nutrient system. Most of the land and feed resources used by the US beefiness cattle manufacture are not in straight competition with human food production, meaning that most of the state used past cattle cannot be cultivated to abound crops nosotros eat direct (eg, fruits and vegetables) and most of the feed that cattle consume is inedible to humans. Animal feed–human food competition is a key topic in sustainable food organization discussions as it potentially reflects natural resources competition and can influence how many people can exist nourished in total from the food system.

A multiyear survey of Us cattle farmers and ranchers found that the feed resource required to produce beefiness are 82% human being-inedible forage (eg, grass, hay), 7% byproducts or human-inedible found leftovers (eg, stale distillers grains), and 11% grain (eg, field corn, which is dissimilar from sweetness corn consumed by people).^seven This translates into 2.six kg of grain per kg of beef produced in the Us. Given the most contempo yr'southward beefiness product, corn yields, and corn acres harvested, corn grain harvested and fed to beefiness cattle in the United States was derived from approximately 8 1000000 acres.⁸ This is equivalent to 10% of harvested corn acres, 2% of cropland acres, and 0.3% of the land area in the U.s..⁹

The feed resources required to produce a pound of beefiness, or any animal source food product, is often of interest in sustainability assessments as a reflection of feed-nutrient competition. Frequently cited statistics include 6 lb, 3 lb, and 2 lb of feed to make 1 lb of beef, pork, or craven, respectively. However, this feed conversion for beef does not account for the other segments of the beef industry outside of the finishing stage (cow-calf and stocker/backgrounder) and fails to brand the stardom between the diet composition consumed past these unlike species.

Cattle are ruminants, which means their digestive systems are uniquely evolved to use gristly plant materials (forage) for energy and nutrients past fashion of microbes and so that they do non have to depend on high-quality dietary sources of protein to meet their amino acid requirements. The microorganisms within cattle's specialized tum compartments pass on to the fauna'south gastric stomach compartment (abomasum) and small intestine and are a source of high-quality, readily digestible protein for the animal. Similarly, the microorganisms are sources of essential vitamins such equally vitamin B₁₂, which is why ruminant products (beef, lamb, cow's milk, etc) are such excellent sources of vitamin B₁₂ for humans.

Pigs and chickens are similar to humans in that they are monogastric animals and depend upon the dietary intake of high-quality protein to encounter their daily amino acid requirements. As a result, diets fed to pigs and chickens in the U.s.a. typically include soybean meal equally a loftier-quality protein source. Ultimately, which species is considered near efficient at converting feed into homo nutrient depends on how feed conversion efficiency is expressed (Table 1).

TABLE i - Comparison of Feed Conversion Efficiency Expressed 3 Different Means

Species	Dry Matter Feed Conversion, lb of Feed Dry out Matter/lb of Live Weight	Human-Edible Feed Conversion, lb of Potentially Homo Edible Feed (Corn, Soy)a/lb of Live Weight	Net Protein Contributionb (Values >1 Mean More High-Quality Protein Generated Than Used)
US average grain-finished beef for full life cyclevii	xiii.i	ane.vi	ii.66
Broiler chickenx	1.6	1.4	0.85
Pork11	ii.5	2.0	0.71

This example demonstrates how a conclusion about which animal production organisation is nearly efficient is dependent upon how the sustainability metric is expressed.

^aBrute feedstuffs such every bit corn grain and soybean meal could exist consumed by people and thus are classified as human-edible feeds. Forages like grass and hay cannot be consumed by people and thus are classified as human-inedible feeds.

^bNet protein contribution is human-edible protein return * poly peptide quality ratio (PQR). Human-edible protein render is the kilograms of human-edible rough protein in the beef, chicken, or pork divided past the respective kilograms of human-edible feed rough poly peptide consumed by the cattle, chickens, or pigs. Poly peptide quality ratio is the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) of beef (111.6), pork (113.9), or chicken (108.2) divided by the DIAAS of the beast's diet (beef cattle, 42.2; pigs and chickens, 60.ix). The diets of pigs and chickens take a higher PQR considering of the inclusion of soybean meal. Net protein contribution values greater than 1 indicate more than high-quality protein generated in the form of meat than the animals consume (ie, adding to the human food protein supply).¹²

CONTEXT ON Beef'S GHG EMISSIONS

A quick Internet search of beefiness and GHG emissions will result in a wide range of statistics, and 3 types of conflation typically occur that can make agreement which statistic is the most appropriate to employ disruptive to a nutrition professional. Start, globally relevant statistics are oftentimes conflated with United states emissions; second, all emissions from livestock product are often ascribed to beef; and third, direct and life bicycle emissions are oftentimes used interchangeably without explicit delineation equally to what emission sources are or are not included within a per centum.

According to the United states of america Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) GHG emissions inventory, ii% of U.s. emissions come up directly from beefiness cattle (methane from cattle belches, methane and nitrous oxide from managed manure which is mostly the manure in feedlots). Total straight emissions from all farm production, crops and livestock collectively, were viii.4% of US emissions in 2017. Agriculture, state use, land use change, and forestry combined in the United States are a net sink of CO₂ equivalent (CO_iieastward) emissions, significant they removed 172 million metric tons of CO_twoeastward from the atmosphere in 2017.¹³

Globally, life wheel emissions from livestock production (emissions from feed product to consumer) are estimated to be 14.5% of GHG emissions. Global beef life cycle emissions are 6% of the world'due south GHG emissions.^fourteen The disparity between these 2 percentages is the other forms of livestock agronomics deemed for in the fourteen.5% figure, such as poultry, pork, and dairy production. Beefiness cattle do stand for a higher proportion of total GHG emissions from animal agriculture than monogastric animals like pigs and chickens. This is one instance of a sustainability tradeoff: beef cattle production has less feed-nutrient contest and beef cattle are able to use more nonarable country than pigs and chickens; however, considering cattle are ruminant animals, they produce more methane gas (a GHG 28 times more potent at trapping estrus over a 100-twelvemonth timeframe than carbon dioxide) from their digestive tracts.^thirteen

In the United States, beefiness cattle production produces iii.7% of US GHG emissions from a life wheel perspective. This partial life bicycle assessment (LCA) guess adds in emissions from feed production (eg, emissions from soil, manure on pasture lands), fuel and electricity use, and others, to the 2% estimation from the EPA inventory, hence why an LCA GHG estimate is higher than the EPA's straight emissions from the animals and their managed manure.^seven The GHG emissions produced by US beef cattle contribute but a fraction of the GHG emissions attributed to global beef production, as most cattle in the globe are located outside US borders: Us beef cattle product emissions are less than 0.5% of the world's GHG emissions.

Importantly, emissions from cattle and other livestock are not static, and there remain many opportunities to reduce emissions further. Both in the United States and around the world, beef production has become more than efficient, and GHG emission produced per pound of beef has declined. In the U.s., according to United Nations' FAO information, direct GHG emissions from beef cattle have declined 33% from eighteen lb of carbon dioxide equivalents in 1975 to 12.ane lb of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2016 per pound of beef produced.^fifteen This reduction in beef'due south carbon emissions is a result of a refuse in the size of the US cattle herd. In 1975, the United states had 132 million beefiness and dairy cattle and produced 24 billion lb of beef. In 2016, the The states cattle herd had shrunk to 92 million heads, merely beefiness production was slightly college at 25 billion lb.^half-dozen The global average carbon emission intensity of beef has declined xx% from 1975 to 2016, falling from 32 to 25.7 lb of carbon dioxide equivalents per pound of beefiness, respectively.^fifteen The ability to produce more beef with fewer animals ways fewer natural resources are required and less GHG emissions are produced to generate human nourishment. This comeback in efficiency was gained primarily through improvements in animal genetics, animal nutrition, and husbandry practices. Continuing improvement in these areas of beefiness cattle production can further reduce environmental impacts within the Usa and effectually the globe.

Research and extension and adoption of new knowledge are a continuous process that delivers on incremental improvements in reducing beef cattle product'due south resource use and ecology impacts. Advancements in grazing state management, beast convenance decision making enhanced by genomic information, methane inhibitors, integrated crop-livestock systems, h2o recycling applied science, and manure composting are just a few of the examples of new technologies beingness deployed and tested that will farther enhance the sustainability of Us beef production in the years ahead. These efforts are beingness driven past individual businesses within the beef supply chain, public entities like Country Grant Universities and the USDA, and multistakeholder groups such equally the US Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

THE SUSTAINABILITY-Nutrition Connexion

Defining a Sustainable Nutrition

Equally referenced previously, the FAO's definition of sustainable diets makes clear that many dietary patterns tin can be sustainable. The definition also presents the complexities involved in determining whether a dietary pattern is sustainable. One must consider many factors, including location, climate, civilization, economics, nutritional adequacy, and available natural and human resource. A sustainable nutrition in one function of the world may not be in another part of the world or even a given country.

People, Planet, and Profit Considerations

In considering the defining variables of a sustainable diet, the triple bottom line is an accounting framework that evaluates its impact on people, planet, and profit.^16,17 This framework can and then be used to determine the bear on of a item dietary design and ascertain if that dietary pattern meets the criteria for a sustainable diet.

Evaluating Impact on People

As shown in the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, in that location are many dietary patterns that are nutritionally adequate, providing enough calories and essential nutrients.^xviii Nutritional capability is fundamental to healthy, sustainable diets. Human biological science allows for flexibility with food option regarding meeting nutrient requirements and achieving optimal diets, which is peculiarly fortunate because lifestyle, culture, tradition, and values are often more than powerful daily drivers of food choice than the quest for adequate or optimal food intake.

In that location are many cultural factors that will influence food intakes, including ethnicity, race, and religion. The term "food culture" historically has referred to where people live and the traditional dietary patterns of that region or area (eg, Mediterranean food civilisation). More than recently, inquiry has focused on the impact of dietary patterns on an individual's food civilization.

Costa and colleagues¹⁹ looked at how young women choosing to consume a vegan diet practise non consider it a diet to follow but rather a lifestyle to alive. This finding starts to blur the lines between considerations of civilization and lifestyle. Nutrition practitioners need to not only understand the nutrition implications of various dietary patterns merely as well the lifestyle implications. When a dietary pattern becomes function of a person's identity rather than just a way of eating, recommendations to change the nutrition can accept a profound affect on a person's sense of self, well-being, and confidence.

Other factors to consider when evaluating a dietary blueprint include lifestyle. A sustainable dietary design for a woman with iii young children who works 2 jobs, lives in an urban food desert, relies on public transportation, and is at risk of food insecurity is very unlike from that of an educated, upper middle class woman with no children who works at dwelling, lives in the suburbs, orders home meal kits, joyfully cooks each evening during the calendar week, and dines out with friends and family unit on the weekend.

Over the past 10 years, much every bit been published on the negative impacts of "food elitism," the practice of making nutrient, beverage, or diet recommendations that require more than money and/or more time similar recommending fresh fruit and vegetables over processed forms including frozen or canned. Lawrence and colleagues^twenty write of marketers that target LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) consumers who "have a stiff interest in health, fitness, personal development, and social justice, and put a loftier value on sustainability and environmental protection." These marketers promise college quality and charge premium prices. Although their marketing is targeted, their letters are often far reaching, imparting feelings of fear or failure for consumers who believe their messaging only cannot afford their prices or exercise non have access to their products.

Huang and colleagues²¹ reported the negative impact of organic marketing on depression-income shoppers and their fruit and vegetable purchases. Messaging about product methods (eg, organic and conventional production) and pesticide residues in 12 fruits and vegetables highlighted by the Environmental Working Group "Dirty Dozen" report resulted in shoppers reporting they were less likely to buy any fruits and vegetables. If nutrition professionals believe fruits and vegetables are an important part of sustainable diets, efforts must be made to communicate in ways to motivate people to buy and consume more than fruits and vegetables versus less. The aforementioned applies to letters about beef production. Production information that creates a negative perception of a food'due south nutritional value is not helpful; nutrition professionals should strive to provide information about the role of beefiness in healthful diets that permit patients and clients to make informed not fear-based choices.

Evaluating Bear upon on the Planet

Dietary choices may have an bear upon on soil, air, and water as well as GHG emissions and their potential impact on climate change. Dietary choices too take an touch on on other natural resources like fossil fuel use for production, processing, distribution, and storage. When considering the touch of a specific dietary pattern or private food, it is critically of import to evaluate LCA information and not focus solely on private measurements or metrics. Many refer to an LCA assay as a "cradle-to-grave" assessment from the birth or starting time of a food product to its concluding use or when it becomes waste. Co-ordinate to Satpute and colleagues,²² "LCA enables the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life bicycle." Readers interested in learning more than about how LCAs utilize to foods tin can read Cucurachi and colleagues'²³ "Life Cycle Assessment of Food Systems" primer and Halpern and colleagues'²⁴ opinion piece "Putting All Foods on the Same Table: Achieving Sustainable Food Systems Requires Total Accounting."

Although it is tempting to compare foods based on a single metric like water use, doing so does not tell the full story of environmental impact. Besides, sharing data on global averages is not a fair and counterbalanced utilise of the data. For example, about 45% of GHG emissions in Ethiopia come from enteric fermentation from livestock.²⁵ Meanwhile, in the United States, GHG emission from livestock is 4%.^xiii Yet, when GHG data are reported, many volition report a global average that makes the impact of US livestock production look worse than it is.²⁶ Perchance one of the biggest challenges facing diet professionals today is the fact that nutrition scientific discipline is a relatively new field and we have much to learn. Coupled with that, our colleagues in environmental science work in an even younger discipline with less than 20 years of robust peer-reviewed literature. As a result, we need to exist mindful that nosotros currently know much more about healthful dietary patterns than we practice well-nigh the environmental impact of our food choices.

Evaluating Impact on Profits

Subcontract and ranch families comprise less than 2% of the US population. Meanwhile, as a event of the productivity and efficiency of these US farmers and ranchers, people in the United States have admission to an abundant, affordable, and safety food supply.²⁷ As with any business operation, a farmer's or a rancher'southward ability to make a profit is part of his/her sustainability story; no farm or ranch can be environmentally sustainable without as well being financially sustainable. It is therefore critically important for farmers and ranchers to be able to operate in ways that maximize their ability to produce a profit while protecting natural resources.

In the United states, near two-thirds of land for agriculture cannot be used to grow crops.²⁸ The soil quality may be too poor, topsoil depth too shallow, land as well rocky, slope likewise steep, or copse as well dumbo to successfully grow crops. Farmers and ranchers with this type of pasture, range, or forestland can use information technology to produce nutrient by grazing livestock on it. Proceeds from the sale of livestock contribute to the overall economical viability of the farming or ranching operation with marginal land that cannot support crops.

And so how does the financial sustainability of farmers and ranchers affect consumers? When Usa farmers and ranchers are productive, efficient, and financially stable, they tin continue to produce food for the 98% of the population not involved in agriculture. If nosotros lose farmers and ranchers, we lose nutrient security, relying on producers in other parts of the world to feed us, which tin can impact food quality, availability, and price.

TRANSLATING THE Evidence

The Role of Animal Poly peptide in Sustainable Diets

If we go dorsum to the FAO definition of sustainable diets and evaluate what "nutritionally adequate" means, nosotros must look at both macronutrient and micronutrient needs. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines included a Healthy Vegetarian Eating Pattern showing that nosotros can get adequate protein from a variety of plant-based foods as well as dairy products and eggs.¹⁸ Simply in that location are certain micronutrients similar choline, heme fe, zinc, and the essential fat acrid EPA that are easier to consume in adequate amounts when brute-based foods are included in healthful dietary patterns. According to the USDA National Nutrient Database, the peak sources of each of these nutrients are fauna-based products like eggs (choline), oysters (iron), beefiness (zinc), and salmon (EPA).²⁹

Beef is an case of a nutrient-rich food that can contribute pregnant nutrients with relatively few calories. According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, individuals aged xix to 50 years consume i.vii oz of beefiness per 24-hour interval; adults older than 50 years swallow slightly less beef per day (one.3 oz).^xxx In this aforementioned analysis, lean beef contributed less than 5% total fatty and less than 4% full saturated fat. A separate analysis shows that beef contributes approximately 5% of total calories to Americans' diets while contributing more than than v% of these essential nutrients: potassium (6.1%), phosphorus (vii.3%), iron (viii%), vitamin B₆ (9.2%), niacin (9.9%), protein (fifteen.2%), zinc (23.1%), and vitamin B₁₂ (25%).³¹ Teaching patients and clients how to cull lean beef helps them obtain optimal poly peptide and micronutrient benefits while limiting total fat, saturated fat, and calories from beef. The USDA defines "lean" beef as 100 m (three.v oz) of uncooked beefiness with less than 10 k of fat, 4.5 m or less of saturated fat, and less than 95 mg of cholesterol.³² Counseling patients and clients to choose food-rich foods like lean beef is a powerful role nutrition professionals can play when information technology comes to helping individuals and populations overcome nutrient deficiencies.

In addition to nutrient capability, nosotros must also address and respect food preferences and cultural food patterns. Many people like the taste, texture, mouthfeel, odour, and other sensory properties of animate being-based foods like milk, cheese, craven, pork, and beef. All these foods can exist included in healthful, balanced dietary patterns that are also sustainable.

The Mediterranean dietary blueprint is an case of a cultural food pattern that has been widely adopted because of both flavor and wellness benefits. A recent study past O'Connor and colleagues³³ demonstrated the benefits of including lean beef in a Mediterranean-mode dietary design. In this randomized, controlled feeding trial with 41 overweight or obese adult subjects, participants in the red-meat group who consumed 500 m (eighteen oz) of lean, unprocessed beefiness or pork each week had greater reductions in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with participants in the command group, who ate 200 yard (7 oz) of lean, unprocessed beef or pork each week along with other poly peptide-rich foods. Patients who enjoy lean beef can be encouraged to consume it as part of healthful dietary blueprint, similar the Mediterranean nutrition, that includes other nutrient-rich foods more than commonly associated with salubrious, sustainable diets.

The Need to Reduce Food Waste material

Nutrient waste is i of the biggest opportunities to accost when it comes to promoting sustainable diets. In the United States, nosotros currently waste xxx% to 40% of available food.³⁴ Food waste occurs throughout our nutrient organization, starting in agriculture (xvi%) and food processing (<2%), moving to losses in restaurants and retail (forty%), and finally to in-dwelling house losses (43%).³⁵ Meat, poultry, and fish are the top wasted foods in the home based on value.^35,36 Pedagogy patients and clients how to properly shop, handle, freeze and thaw, cook, and/or reheat these foods tin reduce food waste in the home.

The ecology impact of nutrient waste ranges from the extensive losses of natural resources that become into producing food (eg, land and water for crops; state, feed, water for animals; fossil fuels for machinery; etc) to the production of marsh gas as wasted food in landfills decomposes through the work of methane-producing microorganisms. Municipal solid waste landfills are the third largest emitter of methane in the United States.³⁷ Reducing the amount of wasted food that goes into landfills is an important and effective strategy for enhancing nutrient security while reducing GHG emissions.

Practical Application OF THE Scientific discipline

The Role of the Nutrition Professional person

Although the effect of sustainability is undoubtedly circuitous, the office of the nutrition professional in promoting sustainable diets is clear. Science- and evidence-based information that motivates our patients and clients to adopt healthful eating patterns should exist used equally the foundation of our recommendations, while recognizing and respecting that there are different ways for our patients and clients to achieve healthy, sustainable dietary patterns. There are environmental, social, financial, and health benefits to including nutrient dense, animal-based foods in a healthful dietary pattern; farther, the inclusion of these foods may meliorate adherence to a healthful dietary pattern if our patients and clients savour them. Finally, beef can fit into a sustainable nutrient system to evangelize adept nutrition because it is responsibly produced, affordable, accessible, acceptable, and nutrient-rich. With adept judgment and good science practical to animal husbandry, information technology is possible to feed people beefiness in a sustainable way.

REFERENCES

ane. Drewnowski A, Rehm CD, Martin A, Verger EO, Voinnesson M, Imbert P. Energy and food density of foods in relation to their carbon footprint. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:184–191.

two. United nations FAO. 2018. Sustainable food systems: concept and framework. http://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2019.

• Cited Here

3. US Section of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017 Census of agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/alphabetize.php. Accessed Oct 2, 2019.

• Cited Here

4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/x.17226/19014.

• Cited Here

five. US Section of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Livestock & meat domestic information. https://world wide web.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/livestock-meat-domestic-data/. Accessed February 10, 2020.

• Cited Here

6. U.s.a. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cattle inventory. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Cattle_Inventory/. Accessed October ii, 2019.

• Cited Hither

7. Rotz CA, Asem-Hiablie Due south, Place Due south, Thoma One thousand. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric Sys. 2019;169(Feb.):one–13.

• Cited Here

8. US Section of Agronomics National Agricultural Statistics Service. Quick stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov. Accessed Oct 2, 2019.

• Cited Here

ix. US Department of Agronomics Economic Research Service. Major land uses. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses/. Accessed October 2, 2019.

• Cited Here

eleven. Wilkinson JM. Re-defining efficiency of feed use past livestock. Animal. 2011;5(vii):1014–1022.

12. Ertl P, Knaus West, Zollitsch W. An arroyo to including protein quality when assessing the cyberspace contribution of livestock to human nutrient supply. Animal. 2016;x(eleven):1883–1889.

13. U.s. Ecology Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2017. Accessed Oct 6, 2019.

• Cited Here

14. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, et al. Tackling Climate change Through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome, Italy: Food and Agronomics Arrangement of the United Nations (FAO); 2013.

• Cited Here

fifteen. UN Food and Agriculture System. FAOSTAT: emissions intensities. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EI. Accessed Feb 10, 2020.

• Cited Here

16. Burlingame B, Dernin S, eds. Sustainable diets and biodiversity. Direction and solutions for policy, research and activity. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Confronting Hunger; November 3–five, 2010; Rome, Italy. FAO, 2012. http://world wide web.fao.org/iii/i3004e/i3004e.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2019.

• Cited Here

17. University of Wisconsin Sustainable Management. The Triple Bottom Line. https://sustain.wisconsin.edu/sustainability/triple-bottom-line/. Accessed February v, 2020.

• Cited Hither

xviii. US Department of Wellness and Homo Services and US Section of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 2005. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. Accessed August 27, 2019.

• Cited Here

19. Costa I, Gill PR, Morda R, Ali L. "More a nutrition": a qualitative investigation of young vegan women's relationship to food. Appetite. 2019;143:104418. doi:x.1016/j.appet.2019.104418.

20. Lawrence G, Lyons K, Wallington T. Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability. London: Earthscan; 2010.

• Cited Here

21. Huang Y, Edirisinghe I, Burton-Freeman BM. Low income shoppers and fruits and vegetables: what practice they retrieve?Nutr Today. 2016;51(5):242–250. doi:10.1097/NT.0000000000000176.

22. Satpute MS, Lamdande AG, Kadam VD, Garud SR. Life bicycle cess of nutrient. Int J Agric Eng. 2013;6(2):558–563.

• Cited Here

23. Cucurachi South, Scherer L, Guinfe J, Tukker A. Life bike cess of nutrient systems. One Earth. 2019;1(3):292–297.

24. Halpern BS, Cottrell RS, Blanchard JL, et al. Putting all foods on the same table: achieving sustainable food systems requires full accounting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U Southward A. 2019;116(37):18152–18156.

26. U.s.a. Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of green house gas emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed September 9, 2019.

• Cited Here

27. American Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture. Food and farm facts volume (2019 edition). https://www.fb.org/newsroom/fast-facts. Accessed October 30, 2019.

• Cited Here

28. Bigelow D. A primer on country use in the United States. USDA Economical Inquiry Service. https://world wide web.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/december/a-primer-on-land-use-in-the-united-states/. Accessed September 9, 2019.

• Cited Here

29. U.s. Section of Agronomics. USDA food composition databases food lists. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/nutrients/index. Accessed September 9, 2019.

• Cited Hither

xxx. U.s.a. Section of Health and Human Services and Us Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Eighth Edition. Dec 2015. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/.

• Cited Here

31. Zanovec K, O'Neil CE, Keast DR, Fulgoni VL 3rd, Nicklas TA. Lean beef contributes significant amounts of key nutrients to the diets of The states adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004. Nutr Res. 2010 Jun;30(6):375–381.

32. US Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. Beefiness from farm to tabular array. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/c33b69fe-7041-4f50-9dd0-d098f11d1f13/Beef_from_Farm_to_Table.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. Accessed February 5, 2020.

• Cited Hither

33. O'Connor LE, Paddon-Jones D, Wright AJ, et al. A Mediterranean-style eating pattern with lean, unprocessed crimson meat has cardiometabolic benefits for adults who are overweight or obese in a randomized, crossover, controlled feeding trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 108(1):33–forty.

• Cited Here

34. US Department of Agriculture. Food waste product FAQs. https://world wide web.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs. Accessed September 10, 2019.

• Cited Here

35. ReFED. An economic analysis of nutrient waste solutions. https://www.refed.com/. Accessed September x, 2019.

• Cited Here

36. USDA Economical Inquiry Service. Economical Information Bulletin Number 121. February 2014. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf. Accessed Feb five, 2020.

• Cited Here

37. US Environmental Protection Agency. Bones information almost landfill gas. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/bones-information-nigh-landfill-gas. Accessed September 10, 2019.

• Cited Hither

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published past Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

larochepres1995.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/fulltext/2020/09000/beef_production__what_are_the_human_and.7.aspx

Share this post