· Board of Directors Meeting . Wednesday, February 27, 2019 . 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Central...

Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday, February 27, 2019

9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Central U.S. Time (9:00 p.m. UTC) Conference Call: +1 (800) 309-2350 Pin: 908-3334

AGENDA Chair: Nicole Johnson-Hoffman, President

1. Call to Order Nicole Johnson-Hoffman

2. Roll Call of Board of Directors Members (3:00 – 3:04) Ruaraidh Petre

Producer Constituency ____ Beef + Lamb New Zealand (Sam McIvor) ____ Canadian Cattlemen’s (Bob Lowe) ____ National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (Josh White) Commerce and Processing Constituency ____ Cargill (Gurneesh Bhandal) ____ OSI Group (Nicole Johnson-Hoffman) ____ Rabobank (Justin Sherrard) Retail Constituency ____ A&W Food Services of Canada (Lisa Hughes) ____ Ahold Delhaize (John Laughead) ____ McDonald’s (Rickette Collins) Ex-officio ____ Nicole Johnson-Hoffman, President ____ Leon Mol, Vice President ____ Ian McConnel, Secretary/Treasurer

Civil Society Constituency ____ Solidaridad (Gert van der Bijl) ____ World Wildlife Fund (Tim Hardman) ____ National Wildlife Federation (Simon Hall) Roundtable Constituency ____ CRSB – Canadian Roundtable (Monica Hadarits) ____ GTPS – Brazilian Roundtable (Beatriz Domeniconi) ____ MGSC – Colombian Roundtable (Juan Carlos Botero) ____ USRSB – U.S. Roundtable (Ashley McDonald)

3. Affirmation of adherence to the GRSB Anti-Trust Policy (9:04 – 9:05) Ruaraidh Petre

4. Opening Remarks (9:05 – 9:10) Nicole Johnson-Hoffman

5. Consideration of January 23, 2019 Minutes (9:10 – 9:14) APPROVAL Board of Directors

6. Regional Roundtables and Country Initiatives Updates INFORM 6.1. GTPS (Brazil) (9:14 – 9:18) Beatriz Domeniconi 6.2. CRSB (Canada) (9:18 – 9:22) Monica Hadarits 6.3. USRSB (U.S.) (9:22 – 9:26) Ashley McDonald 6.4. MGSC (Colombia) (9:26 – 9:30) Juan Carlos Botero 6.5. ERBS (Europe) (9:30 – 9:34) Patricia Garcia Diaz 6.6. MPCS (Paraguay) (9:34 – 9:38) Juan Carlos Pettengill or Alfred Fast 6.7. New Zealand (9:38 – 9:42) Sam McIvor

6.8. Australia Beef Sustainability Framework (9:42 – 9:46)

7. Executive Committee Report (9:46 – 9:51) INFORM Nicole Johnson-Hoffman

8. Executive Director’s Report (9:51 – 10:00) Ruaraidh Petre

8.1. Strategic Plan Review INFORM

8.2. Sustainability Communications INFORM

8.3. Carbon Methodologies Technical Working Group APPROVAL

9. Regional Director’s Report (10:00 – 10:05) Josefina Eisele

9.1. Latin America Regional Meeting INFORM

10. Administrative Report

11. Financial Report (10:05 – 10:10) Ruaraidh Petre / Ian McConnel

11.1.1. GRSB Financials as of January 31, 2019 APPROVAL

11.1.2. Consideration of 2019 Proposed Budget APPROVAL

11.1. May GRSB Meeting Schedule, Chicago, IL APPROVAL (10:10 – 10:15) Ruaraidh Petre

11.2.1. Strategic Planning Meeting, Tuesday, May 21, 2019

11.2.2. Communicators Summit, Wednesday, May 22 – Thursday May 23, 2019 until noon

11.2.3. Board of Directors, Face-to-Face, Thursday, May 23, 2019 noon – Friday, May 24, 2019 noon

11.2. Membership (10:15 – 10:20) INFORM Cheryl Clark

11.2.1. Accounts Receivable Update

12. Council Reports

12.1. Global Issues

12.1.1. GRSB-GTPS Joint Working Group on Forests (10:20 – 10:23) INFORM Mauricio Bauer

12.2. Demonstrating Impact (10:23 – 10:25)

12.2.1. Metrics – INFORM Ruaraidh Petre

13. Upcoming GRSB Member Engagement Opportunities REFERENCE

(send information to [email protected]) 13.1. CRSB Semi-annual Meeting, April 25th, 2019 in Winnipeg MB 13.2. USRSB Annual General Meeting, April 30 – May 2, 2019, Fresno, CA, usrsb.org

mailto:[email protected]

13.3. CRSB Annual General Meeting, September 18 &19, 2019 in Montreal QC

14. Other Business and/or Updates from Members

15. Future Board of Directors Meetings

16. Board of Directors, Wednesday, March 20, 2019, 4:00 – 5:30 pm. Central U.S. Time, 9:00 p.m. UTC

17. Adjourn

Attachments:

A. GRSB Anti-Trust Policy (p 4) B. 1-23-19 Board of Directors Minutes (pp 5-9) C. January 31, 2019 Financial Report (pp 10-13) D. FY19 Proposed Budget (pp 14) E. Sustainability Communicators Summit – Save

the Date (pp 15) F. Global Metrics Literature Review (16-91)

MEETING GUIDELINES

The purpose of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is to discuss sustainability

issues related to the global beef system. Conversation and discussion about increasing

industry sustainability are neutral and pro-competitive. While compliance with antitrust

and other laws that govern participation in industry meetings is the responsibility of each

participant, we ask you to follow both common sense and these simple guidelines to

help us conduct our meeting according to good practices, and to ensure that your fellow

participants are comfortable attending and actively participating.

DO adhere to the written meeting agenda.

DO NOT, in our organized meeting sessions, in informal discussions in the hallway, or

in any other setting:

discuss prices, rates, or other terms of trade among competitors;

engage in discussions that could result in

o the allocation of customers or markets,

o the fixing or stabilization of prices,

o limitations on production,

o boycotts of customers, suppliers, or rivals, or

o agreements that would competitively disadvantage certain rivals;

discuss proprietary or other competitively sensitive information;

discuss or engage in coordinated behavior to maintain prices, profit margins, or

stability in an industry;

engage in any other anti-competitive behavior or any discussion you feel might

be inappropriate.

Thank you for following these few simple guidelines. They are provided to set the stage

for a successful discussion of sustainability, not as a complete list of antitrust “don’ts” or

legal advice. Should you have any concerns or questions about antitrust issues, your

legal responsibilities, or your participation in industry meetings, you should seek advice

from your own counsel.

MINUTES (From conference recording) GLOBAL ROUNDTABLE FOR SUSTAINABLE BEEF BOARD OF DIRECTORS JANUARY 23, 2019 President Nicole Johnson-Hoffman called the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Board of Directors conference call to order at 3:00 p.m. Central U.S. Time, Wednesday, January 23, 2019. Board of Directors:

Organization Representative Organization Representative A&W Food Services of Canada Lisa Hughes Mesa Ganaderia Sostenible

Colombia Juan Carlos Botero

Ahold Delhaize Leon Mol McDonald’s Rickette Collins

Beef + Lamb New Zealand Not Present National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Josh White

Canadian Cattlemen’s Association Bob Lowe Rabobank Justin Sherrard Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Monica Hadarits National Wildlife Federation Simon Hall

Cargill Not Present Solidaridad Gert van der Bijl

GTPS Beatriz Domeniconi U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Ashley McDonald

OSI Group Nicole Johnson-Hoffman World Wildlife Fund Tim Hardman

Ex-Officio Members: Nicole Johnson-Hoffman (President) and Leon Mol (Vice President); Ian McConnel (Secretary/Treasurer) Staff Present: Ruaraidh Petre and Josefina Eisele A verbal affirmation of adherence to the GRSB Anti-Trust Policy was received from those on the call. Johnson-Hoffman welcomed everyone on the call. A very productive meeting of Executive Committee last week in Denver. Looking forward to working with everyone to further the mission in 2019. Consideration of Minutes There was a motion by McDonald and supported by Lowe that the minutes of the December 19, 2018 Board of Directors meetings be approved as corrected. Motion carried. Regional Roundtables and Country Initiatives Updates Nicole requested that all roundtables please add to their strategy agenda the role of GRSB as it applies to goals and the optimal relationship with GRSB. GTPS: Domeniconi reported that the roundtable will hold its first board meeting the week of January 28th. A General Assembly will take place on April 13. Catalog definitions of activities will be determined next week. Working with Josefina on Latin Round Table promotion.

GRSB BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 23, 2019 Page 2 of 5 CRSB: Hadarits reported that the council is reviewing progress toward the implementation of their three approaches of Organizational Strategy, Sustainability Strategy that feeds from their life cycle assessment and Strategy for Certified Sustainable Beef Framework. Goals have been set for 2019. We are currently updating strategy and business plan as well as action plan priorities. The Scientific advisory committee working on approved three-pronged project pillar. There is a letter of support policy (organizations looking for CRSB indorsement aligning with CRSB), inventory of sustainability projects (projects in place nationally in Canada) and communications of projects. Also, communications and marketing plans are being updated. USRSB: McDonald reported revising Framework based on second public comment period. These revisions are taking place. Feed Yard Auction Market webinar and Cow Calf Webinar taking place and comments and feedback will be collected and reviewed at NCBA. This is expected to be completed by the May general assembly meeting. Self-Assessment tools will be beta tested at NCBA for each sector to include the Friday sustainability engagement forum at NCBA; GRSB; Cattleman’s College and ESAP awards reception. Working on annual report and self-assessment to present at The U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB) General Assembly Meeting taking place on April 30 - May 2, in Fresno, California. Project support has been approved and is advancing. These tools are for producers to use on properties and they are looking to develop it through a series of 20 workshops in the western United States. MGSC (Colombia): Botero reported that the world famine conference was held in Columbia and included attendees from several countries around the world. The December meeting to finish the documentation for political publication for sustainable beef for the new government. Forty-six members have been working with big public and private companies to prepare the documents. It is important to get the money from the government for the industry. They are working hard to obtain these funds. We would like to learn how to better communicate and speak to the increase in beef production and consumption instead of other types of proteins. (pork and poultry) ERBS (Europe): No Report. MPCS (Paraguay): No Report. New Zealand: No Report. Australia Beef Sustainability Framework: No Report. Executive Committee Report Johnson-Hoffman reported that the Executive Committee meeting in Denver was very productive and resulted in high quality discussions. Focused on ensuring the Global Roundtable is aligning with regional roundtables and can accomplish specific objectives, and by the end of the year, to be able to identify and show work on these objectives. Executive Director’s Report Petre reported that the following three areas were discussed at the Executive Committee meeting in Denver.

GRSB BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 23, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Strategic Plan Review

1. Achieved a great deal from the 2016 strategic plan and progress. 2. Reviewed 2016 plan to get feedback and make revisions as requested. 3. Questions and interviews are being developed to review with members. 4. Full day session attached to the in-person board meeting in Chicago this year. 5. Looking for a member that has expertise in leading and facilitating strategic meetings.

Please be thinking about this and reach out to Petre or Johnson-Hoffman if you or someone in your organization is willing to monitor.

Sustainability Communications Communication summit – 2017 held in Denver. Session in Ireland was smaller, well received and created a level of interest. It was suggested and confirmed to have another Communication Summit in Chicago adjacent to a major meeting McDonald’s is holding and is also adjacent to the board meeting. Executive Committee discussed and if membership approves, efforts will be made to make it a budget neutral event. Carbon Methodologies Technical Working Group McDonald’s suggested to create a group to develop common methodologies, guidelines and tools that can be used around the world with all national roundtables to reduce carbon and methane. Proposed project with Executive Committee that will be put forth to BOD. Request: McDonald’s to lead group. (Nicola is looking into finding a lead.) Discussion: Do we have a budget for this? (Per Nicole, separate source of funding is necessary.) Would this be something we will discuss in our strategic planning meeting? (Per Nicole, we need to get started now with the preliminary scope of the work proposal and we will be working on at the strategic planning meeting as well.) Additional considerations were discussed around the project. We will want and need to ensure we are making good choices on what we can accomplish. A motion was made by Sherrard and seconded by McConnel to fund a new technical working group for Carbon Methodologies. Motion approved. Regional Director’s Report Josefina reports that the summer holiday is in progress so no roundtable meetings to report on. Regional meetings are being arranged to obtain experience and learn from each other to support other national roundtables. Sponsorship requested. Josefine is working on agenda. Membership – There is a joint effort to working on bringing Minerva Foods, (Brazil) on board. Financial Reports There was a motion by White and seconded by Sherrard to approve the GRSB Financials as of December 31, 2018. Motion approved. Consideration of 2019 Proposed Budget

GRSB BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 23, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Discussion: What revenue models should be used? Losses of membership have resulted in regional roundtable membership increases. Concerns were expressed over the budget deficit. Considerations:

• Aged receivable of $25k from 2018 • Potential grants • Latin America – Josefina focusing on additional memberships from Latin America

Executive Committee will review budget to determine if reductions can be made to reduce budget deficit to $100k. There was a motion by Johnson-Hoffman and seconded by White to move forward with current expense reimbursements with the goal to approve a final budget at the next meeting. Motion approved. Administration Meetings May GRSB Meeting Schedule, Chicago, IL

• Strategic Planning Meeting, Tuesday, May 21, 2019 • Board of Directors, Face-to-Face, Wednesday, May 22, 2019 • Communicators Summit, Thursday May 23 – Friday May 24, 2019

Membership Report Petre reviewed the new member application for Textile Exchange. There was a motion by Johnson-Hoffman and seconded by McDonald to approve Textile Exchange as an Allied Industry Initiative - Organization of the GRSB. Motion carried. Council Reports Global Issues GRSB-GTPS Joint Working Group (JWG) on Forests – Mauricio reported that he attended a event in Brazil where a discussion took place clarifying reforestation relationship with cattle ranching. There is a need to connect lines of work with areas of focus that we received as feedback from the joint working session in Ireland. Areas of feedback; Monitoring full supply chain, alternative mechanism to unlock financial resources, fostering increase in collaboration in Latin America roundtables, telling stories and demonstrating through progress. Demonstrating Impact Benchmarking: Petre reported that GTPS, USRB and CRSB have all submitted reports. Nicole commented that participation in reporting projects from the roundtables has not been as robust as expected. This needs to be addressed at the strategic planning meeting. Upcoming GRSB Member Engagement Opportunities

GRSB BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 23, 2019 Page 5 of 5

• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Convention, January 30 – February 1, 2019, New Orleans, LA, https://convention.beefusa.org/

• CRSB Semi-annual Meeting, April 25th, 2019 in Winnipeg MB

• USRSB Annual General Meeting, April 30 – May 2, 2019, Fresno, CA, usrsb.org

• CRSB Annual General Meeting, September 18 &19, 2019 in Montreal QC

Future Board of Directors Meetings

Board of Directors, Wednesday, February 27, 2019, 9:00 – 10:30 a.m. Central U.S. Time, 3:00 p.m. UTC

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Central U.S. Time. Respectfully submitted, Cheryl Clark Director of Operations

https://convention.beefusa.org/

Global Roundtable for Sustainable BeefBalance Sheet

January 31, 2019

ASSETS

Current AssetsCash in Operating - ML *02005 $ 277,794.14Accts Receivable - Members 25,000.00

Total Current Assets 302,794.14

Other AssetsCD Banc of Calif 2.05% 3/6/19 248,761.82

Total Other Assets 248,761.82

Total Assets $ 551,555.96

LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL

Current LiabilitiesAccounts Payable $ 50,398.72

Total Current Liabilities 50,398.72

CapitalRetained Earnings 90,927.58Board Specified Reserve 225,000.00Net Income 185,229.66

Total Capital 501,157.24

Total Liabilities & Capital $ 551,555.96

Unaudited - For Management Purposes Only

2/6/19 at 17:01:00.69 Page: 1

Global Roundtable for Sustainable BeefAged Payables

As of Jan 31, 2019Filter Criteria includes: 1) Includes Drop Shipments. Report order is by ID. Report is printed in Detail Format.

Vendor ID Date Invoice/CM # 0 - 30 31 - 60 61 - 90 Over 90 days Amount Due

NLPA 1/31/19 2019-0050 16,291.67 16,291.67

NLPA 16,291.67 16,291.67

Ruaraidh Petre 1/31/19 2019-02 7,083.33 7,083.33

Ruaraidh Petre 7,083.33 7,083.33

SSCD 12/28/1 12302016 26,863.72 26,863.72

SSCD 26,863.72 26,863.72

Wild Apricot 1/20/19 2018-40 160.00 160.00

Wild Apricot 160.00 160.00

Report Total 23,535.00 26,863.72 50,398.72

2/6/19 at 16:58:26.58 Page: 1

Global Roundtable for Sustainable BeefAged ReceivablesAs of Jan 31, 2019

Filter Criteria includes: 1) Includes Drop Shipments. Report order is by ID. Report is printed in Detail Format.

Customer IDCustomerBill To ContactTelephone 1

Invoice/CM Date

0-30 31-60 61-90 Over 90 days Amount Due

CARGILL INCCARGILL, INCORPORATEDMark Murphy

2018-0068/20/18

25,000.00 25,000.00

CARGILL INCCARGILL, INCORPORATE

25,000.00 25,000.00

Report Total 25,000.00 25,000.00

Page: 1

Global Roundtable for Sustainable BeefIncome Statement

Compared with BudgetFor the One Month Ending January 31, 2019

Current MonthActual

Current MonthBudget

Year to DateActual

Year to DateBudget

RevenuesDues Revenues $ 217,250.00 $ 217,000.00 $ 217,250.00 $ 217,000.00Contract revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Meeting Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Global Conference Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Interest Income 508.98 291.67 508.98 291.67

Total Revenues 217,758.98 217,291.67 217,758.98 217,291.67

ExpensesMeeting Expenses 2,201.33 2,200.00 2,201.33 2,200.00Staff Travel Expense - Meeting 561.51 1,000.00 561.51 1,000.00Executive Director Contract 7,083.33 7,083.33 7,083.33 7,083.33Executive Director Travel 4,664.71 2,916.67 4,664.71 2,916.67Leadership Travel 187.17 416.67 187.17 416.67Administrative Services 16,291.67 16,291.67 16,291.67 16,291.67Office Supplies & Expense 0.00 62.50 0.00 62.50Postage & Shipping Expense 0.00 29.17 0.00 29.17Telephone Expense 118.97 166.67 118.97 166.67Legal Fees & Expense 0.00 125.00 0.00 125.00Bank Charges & Fees 124.00 187.50 124.00 187.50Communications 1,296.63 4,291.67 1,296.63 4,291.67Contract Expenses 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00Global Conference Expenses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Expenses 32,529.32 39,770.85 32,529.32 39,770.85

Net Income $ 185,229.66 $ 177,520.82 $ 185,229.66 $ 177,520.82

For Management Purposes Only

Global Roundtable for Sustainable BeefBudget 2018, Actual 2018, and Proposed Budget 2019

Budget Actual ProposedAccount ID Account Description 2018 2018 Budget 2019

31000 Membership revenue 395,000 351,375.01 350,000 32000 Grant revenue 15,000 2,295.80 25,000

Contract Revenue 5,000 4,932.00 - 32500 Meeting revenue 2,500 3,405.00 3,000 34000 Interest income 1,400 5,861.87 3,500

Total Operating Income 418,900 367,869.68 381,500

33000 Global Conference revenue 250,000 288,755.00 Total Global Conference Revenue 250,000 288,755.00 -

Total Revenue 668,900 656,624.68 381,500

Administrative Expenses40000 Meetings expense 12,000 14,664.04 14,500

Contract meeting expense (CFA)40600 Staff travel expense - Meeting 3,500 2,305.67 3,500 41000 Consultant fees & expenses42000 Executive Director Contract 85,000 84,999.96 85,000 42010 Executive Director Travel 34,500 30,427.00 35,000 42015 Leadership Travel 15,000 3,892.27 5,000 42500 Administrative services 195,500 195,500.04 195,500 43000 Office supplies 750 177.58 750 43020 Postage 350 55.82 350 43500 Telephone 2,000 1,254.72 2,000 44000 Audit 6,000 6,000.00 6,000 44010 Legal expense 1,500 1,500 44015 Insurance 850 700.00 850 44020 Bank charges 2,250 1,266.08 2,250 44025 Professional Communications 60,000 49,306.48 50,000 44030 Communications / Website 1,500 2,319.60 1,500 45000 Technical projects

Total Administrative Expenses 420,700 392,869.26 403,700

Grants and Contract Expenses45000 Contract expenses 125,000 132,634.46 60,000 45500 Grants expenses 3,797.83

Total Grant and Contract Expenses 125,000 136,432.29 60,000

Global Conference Expenses46000 Conference expenses 183,000 134,826.63

Total Conference Expenses 183,000 134,826.63 -

Total Expenses 728,700 664,128.18 463,700

Operating Surplus (Deficit) (59,800) (7,503.50) (82,200)

Retained Earnings Invesment 59,800 7,503.50 82,200

Net Surplus - - -

O:\1. MEETINGS\Executive Committee\2019\2‐11‐2019\GRSB 2019 Proposed Budget Summary Rev #4

2/8/2019

GRSB GLOBAL METRICS LITERATURE REVIEW

1

Global Metrics Literature Review

Global Metrics Working Group FEBRUARY 12, 2019


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GRSB Membership .............................................................................................................................. 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 4

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 5 Key Global Facts .................................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Targets .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Major Beef Producing Systems ......................................................................................................... 11

Natural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 13 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Biodiversity ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Forests .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Carbon Emissions .............................................................................................................................. 22 Carbon Sequestration ....................................................................................................................... 26 Nutrient Management ...................................................................................................................... 27 Water ................................................................................................................................................ 31

People & the Community ...................................................................................................................... 36 Idle Animals ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Employment ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Health & Safety ................................................................................................................................. 37 Human Rights ................................................................................................................................... 37

Animal Health & Welfare ...................................................................................................................... 38 Morbidity and Mortality .................................................................................................................... 39 Cattle Handling ................................................................................................................................. 39 Cattle Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 40 Production Efficiencies ...................................................................................................................... 41 Antimicrobial Use .............................................................................................................................. 42

Food ..................................................................................................................................................... 46 Nutrition of Beef ............................................................................................................................... 46 By-Products ...................................................................................................................................... 49 Food Loss and Waste ........................................................................................................................ 50

Technology and Innovation ................................................................................................................... 53 Economic .......................................................................................................................................... 54

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 57 Appendix 1: Summary of major environmental interactions and improvement opportunities (Gerber et al. 2015) ................................................................................................................................................ 58 Appendix 2: Solutions to Deforestation in Beef Supply Chains .............................................................. 60 Appendix 3: By-Products from Cattle .................................................................................................... 62 Appendix 4: Summary of Global Metrics Literature Review .................................................................. 63 References ............................................................................................................................................ 69


3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Global Cattle Density Map (FAO, 2016) .................................................................................. 12 Figure 2. Global Land Assessment of Degradation and Improvement (Bai, Jong de and van Lynden 2010) ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3. Overview of the pressures (grey) or benefits (green) that livestock have on biodiversity. Adapted from LEAP, 2015. .....................................................................................................................17 Figure 4: Net Annual Average Forest Area Change ............................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Net Annual Average Change in Agricultural and Forest Area .................................................. 19 Figure 6: Proportion of Deforestation attributed to various drivers in seven South American Countries20 Figure 7: Deforestation of Amazonia Legal ........................................................................................... 21 Figure 8: Global Estimates of Emissions by Species .............................................................................. 22 Figure 9: Global Emission Intensities by Commodity ............................................................................. 23 Figure 10. Global Emission regional total production and profile by commodity Source: FAO, 2017 (GLEAM 2.0) ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 11. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Production (kg of CO2 equivalents per gram of protein).............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 12. Global Bovine Emission Intensity .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 13. Emissions from Bovines ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 14. Agricultural soil N budgets (Source: Bouwman et al., 2013) .................................................. 31 Figure 15. Global Map of Water Scarcity at the basin level in 2007 (Source: Molden et al., 2007) ........... 32 Figure 16. Global cattle ‘losses’. ............................................................................................................ 39 Figure 17. Global carcass weights (cattle and buffalo). .......................................................................... 41 Figure 18. Average carcass weights by country (cattle and buffalo). ..................................................... 41 Figure 19. Estimated cattle off-take rates (total slaughter/inventories)................................................. 42 Figure 20. Antibiotic consumption in livestock, top ten countries (2010 & 2030 (projected)). ................ 42 Figure 21. Global antimicrobial consumption in livestock, average standard deviation of estimates of milligrams per population corrected unit (PCU). Source: Van Boeckel et al., 2015 ................................ 43 Figure 22. Food Losses - Meat ............................................................................................................... 51 Figure 23. Beef Supply Curve ................................................................................................................ 57

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Livestock population and production in different agro-ecological zones (2001-03 average)..... 11 Table 2.Global livestock population and production in different production systems (2001-03 average)11 Table 3. Global land use for forage and feed production for Cattle & Buffalo (million hectares) ............ 13 Table 4. Estimated N excreted per animal, 1990, Kg of N per year ........................................................ 28 Table 5. Global N and P budgets from Crop and Livestock Production (Trillion grams per year Tg/yr) .. 30 Table 6. Water use values associated with beef production from Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) based studies (Legesse et al. 2017, 2018) .............................................................................................. 33 Table 7. Blue Waterⱡ use values associated with beef production from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Livestock Water Productivity (LWP) and other studies (Legesse et al., 2017) ........................................ 34 Table 8. Water productivity versus levels of scarcity to guide priorities (0 low to +++ high) ................... 35 Table 9. Global Agricultural Employment ............................................................................................. 36 Table 10. The Five Freedoms of animal welfare under human control. .................................................. 38 Table 11. Food Waste ............................................................................................................................ 51


4

GRSB MEMBERSHIP

There are 7 regional roundtables (Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Mexico, Paraguay and USA) representing approximately 28% of global cattle inventories (427 million head), 52% of global beef production (FAOSTAT, 2014), and 79% of grassland acres (FAOSTAT, 2015). When the GRSB individual membership is included for a total of 17 countries, they represent approximately 32% of global cattle inventories (533 million head), 57% of global beef production, and 95% of grassland acres. Europe: Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom North America: Canada, Mexico, USA South America: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay Africa: Namibia Oceania: Australia, New Zealand Asia: None

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Prepared by:

• Canfax Research Services

Under the oversight of the Global Metrics Working Group:

• Peter Barnard, Australia – Chair

• Ashley McDonald, United States

• Kim Stakehouse-Lawson

• Lisa Hughes

• Mike McCarty

• Ernesto Reyes

• Lucas McKelvie

• Bill Cordingley

• Claus Deblitz

• Mauricio Bauer

Recommended citation: Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (2019). Global Metrics Literature Review. Calgary, AB: Canfax Research Services.


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) envisions a world where all aspects of the beef

value chain are environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable. The initiative was

developed to advance continuous improvement in sustainability of the global beef value chain. The

GRSB strategy includes a commitment to provide transparent global metrics that demonstrate the

impact of and monitor progress in the beef industry.

This initial literature review provides a summary of where data exists that can serve as global

benchmarks and identifies global data gaps. The purpose of global metrics is not to compare individual

countries against each other, but to provide a global benchmark to evaluate whether global beef

sustainability is improving. As each region improves the various areas of sustainability, it will contribute

to an improved global metric.

There is broad diversity between climates, production systems and supply chain situations that

contribute to the complexity in evaluating global metrics. For example, a lower greenhouse gas (GHG)

number from a grain-fed production system should not be considered better or worse compared to a

grass-fed production system that utilizes a larger habitat through low stocking rates on pasture, and

subsequently local biodiversity. Another example of these trade-offs is demonstrated through

industrialized countries tending to report significantly lower GHG emissions due to higher productivity.

However, industrialized countries also have greater opportunities to further improve GHG reductions

through the reduction of food waste at the consumer level compared to developing countries where

losses tend to be higher during production and transportation.

KEY GLOBAL FACTS

Natural Resources

Land Use

Land used for cattle (beef, dairy, buffalo) globally is estimated at 1.29 billion hectares (ha) (Mottet et

al., 2017), representing 26.5% of global agricultural land (World Bank, 2015). The 1 billion ha of

grassland under cattle production is an important contributor of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Land that is too rocky, steep, or otherwise unsuitable for annual cropping is utilized by ruminants as

pastureland to produce a high-quality protein. Annual cropland used for feed (fodder or grain) is

estimated at 127.2 million ha or 10% of total use representing 17.8% of global cereal production (World

Bank, 2015).

Most grasslands evolved with grazing by herbivores. Without livestock, natural grasslands would be lost

through ecological succession habitats of lower conservation value, with the loss of many specialized

species (Poláková et al., 2011). Ruminant production may often be the only way to maintain semi-

natural habitats against the contrasting and detrimental pressures to wildlife that are seen in

conversion to arable land or abandonment (Laiolo et al., 2004; LEAP, 2015). Appropriate grazing

management plays a vital role in maintaining healthy grassland flora and fauna. Species preferences for

a variety of different grazing management intensities, make any recommendation for a single optimal


6

grazing management approach impossible (Pogue et al. 2018). Permanent grasslands, managed with

low stocking rates, are among the habitats with the highest biodiversity level.

According to PRODES, the deforestation monitoring system in Brazil’s Legal Amazon, annual rates have

decreased by 69% from the 1995-2004 average of 20,629 km2 per year to the 2009-16 average of 6,319

km2 per year.

Climate Change

Due to their significant acres (an estimated 1 billion hectares of grassland used for cattle production

globally), the potential of grazing lands as carbon sinks should not be discounted. There is large

variation in carbon sequestration potential depending on climate, soil type, and vegetation.

Temperate-climate systems generally sequester less carbon in above ground biomass annually than

tropical-climate systems. Arid, semi-arid and degraded lands all have less potential to sequester

carbon. The IPCC estimates that grasslands could sequester 54-216 million tons of carbon annually by

2030 (Toensmeier, 2016). Reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases requires both emission reduction

and carbon sequestration – making ruminant production a key player in positively sequestering carbon

in agricultural soils.

Cattle (beef, dairy, buffalo) are the main contributor to livestock emissions at approximately 5.0

gigatonnes CO2-eq annually (FAO, 2017). Beef production contributes approximately 3.0 gigatonnes

CO2-eq (includes producing meat and non-edible products). Emission intensity has been declining in the

30 years from 1980 to 2010 for meat cattle (-18.6%), meat buffalo (-38.4%), dairy cattle (-27.7%), and

dairy buffalo (-38.5%). While production of bovine meat (+41%) and milk (+55%) has increased

significantly over that time period, total emissions from bovines have increased at a lesser rate (meat

+15%, milk +10.8%) (FAOSTAT). Total emissions have continued to grow as emissions intensity

reductions haven’t been enough to offset total emissions larger global beef production. However, those

emissions intensity reductions have allowed the global beef sector to avoid a lot of emissions by

reducing the growth of emissions. Emission intensity is lower in feedlot-raised cattle, as compared to

pasture-based systems; however, there are trade-offs in the use of feedstuffs that can be consumed by

humans versus forages indigestible by humans. Grassland systems often involve lower feed digestibility

and thus higher methane emissions, but can be crucial for maintaining rich biodiversity habitats (Bignal

and McCracken, 2000; Teillard et al., 2014). It is estimated that if all livestock producers achieved the

production efficiency of the top 10-25% of producers, total emissions could be reduced by 18-30%

(Gerber et al, 2013).

Nutrient management

The addition of organic matter and nutrients from manure on cropland and pasture can positively

impact soil organic matter, soil moisture, nutrients and trace elements as well as soil microbial activity

contributing to higher productivity. Global estimates of manure-based Nitrogen (N) emissions range

between 75 and 138 Trillion grams (Tg) N per year with 56% being from beef cattle and 16% from dairy

cattle. Around 40-50% of manure N is collected in barns, stables, and pastures with approximately half

being recycled onto cropland. Gaseous N losses from manure are estimated at 45-75 Tg/year. Total N

and Phosphorus (P) in livestock manure exceed global N and P fertilizer use indicating that greater


7

crop-livestock integration could address the current imbalance in N and P budgets (Bouwman et al.,

2013). Larger cattle inventories combined with higher N excretion per animal due to changes in

production systems makes nutrient management critical for sustainable beef production globally

(Oenema et al., 2005). Environmental concerns around ecotoxicity and nutrient surpluses stress the

need to reduce the risks at every stage of production. Management includes reducing the risk at every

level from excretion rates, storage systems that degrade chemical compounds, and application that

reduces risk of transport and runoff within the environment.

Water

Global blue water footprint for beef estimated to be 550 liters per kilogram of beef produced

(Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012). Both water consumptive use and water scarcity need to be considered

at the regional level. Sources of water need to be evaluated in situations of water scarcity.

People & the Community

The International Labour Organization (May 2018) reports agriculture is the second largest source of

employment globally representing 26% of jobs (858 million). Agriculture plays a larger role in low

income situations where they represent 68.5% of jobs. There is a need to improve worker safety in

agriculture. In some countries, it is one of the most unsafe occupations. It is further recognized, from

anecdotal evidence, that there are concerns around mental health in rural communities in numerous

regions.

Animal Health & Welfare

Beef productivity has increased, global ‘losses’ for cattle, was calculated from USDA FAS data, at 19.3%

(2008-17 average) of total slaughter. The USDA loss number peaked in 1996 at 30% and has dropped to

17.5% in 2017. Stressed and chronically unhealthy animals are inefficient in using feed resources for

growth. Between 1961 and 2013 FAO cattle carcass weights increased 33% and buffalo 12%. The vast

majority of the cattle gains occurred between 1961 and 1991 (31%) and have been relatively flat since.

The gains in buffalo have occurred since 1985 (10.5%). Off-take rates (a proxy for reproductive

efficiency), calculated with USDA FAS data, have increased from 15% in 1960 to 24% in 2017. Rates

have been steady 24% since 2012.

Injury and mortality rates during cattle transport by road are reported to be very low across several

countries with data available. Understanding regional differences is important as welfare outcomes are

influenced by climate, geography, traffic/delays, journey duration, space allowances, ambient

temperature, and quality of driving.

Van Boeckel et al. (2015) estimated antimicrobial use (AMU) in food animals in 2010 at 45 mg per kg

of animal produced for cattle, compared to 148 mg/kg for chickens and 172 mg/kg for pigs. Global

consumption of antimicrobials was estimated at 63,151 ± 1,560 tons in 2010. Alternatives to

antimicrobials include nutritional adaptation, hygiene, housing, vaccines, enzymes, environmental

adaptation, transport conditions, animal handling, and preconditioning. Management options to


8

responsibly use antimicrobials and reduce the potential of resistance should be considered across all

livestock production systems and practices.

Food

Recent research suggests that dietary advice to limit red meat is unnecessarily restrictive and may have

unintended heath consequences. As nutrient-rich high-quality protein, red meats play an important

role in meeting essential nutrient needs. Beef increases the availability of both the quantity and quality

of protein in the diet and global food supply chain.

Beef is a nutrient-dense food providing 14 essential nutrients including zinc, iron, protein and B12. Cattle

are upgrading human inedible plant proteins and by-products into high-quality protein and essential

micronutrients that can become deficient when applying a plant-based diet to the entire population.

This supports the role of farmed animals in generating foods with higher density of micronutrients.

In industrialized regions consumer meat waste makes up approximately half of total losses. In

developing regions losses are distributed quite equally throughout the food supply chain.

Innovation and efficiency

Innovation and efficiency in beef production are encouraged to address changes in climate as better

production efficiencies result in reduction in methane and manure production. Mitigation actions

cannot be considered in isolation; true mitigation potential needs to consider ‘packages’ of actions

assessed in terms of impacts on multiple greenhouse gases (GHG) and synergies or trade-offs between

individual actions.

Forecasts of a longer and warmer growing season has implications on beef production from the

potential for land use change (grassland into cropland), negative implications on grassland productivity,

the potential for the spread of diseases and animals being exposed to new diseases with no pre-existing

immunity.

Beef production is a small margin business regardless of the sector (cow-calf, feedlot or packer) or

country. Other commodities or off-farm income are frequently relied upon for long-term profitability

due to volatility in the markets.

A summary of the metrics is available in Appendix 4


9

INTRODUCTION

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) envisions a world where all aspects of the beef value chain are environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable. The initiative was developed to advance continuous improvement in sustainability of the global beef value chain. The GRSB strategy includes a commitment to provide transparent global metrics that demonstrate the impact of and monitor progress in the beef industry. The aim of this initial literature review is to provide a global benchmark for analysis of progress where data exist, identify data gaps, suggest potential proxy metrics, and help guide discussions within the GRSB membership. The purpose of global metrics is not to compare individual countries against each other, but to provide a benchmark to evaluate whether global beef sustainability is improving. As each region improves the various areas of sustainability, it will contribute to an improved global metric.

For the purposes of this report, unless specified uniquely, beef animals are considered domesticated Bovines, including animals that enter the meat value chain (e.g., Bos Taurus / Bos Indicus, Bubelus, and dairy). There are various beef producing systems in the world, including production intensity differences and product type differences, all within various geographic, agro-ecological zones. As such, it is challenging to create a baseline assessment. This literature review considers natural resources (including land use, carbon emissions and sequestration, nutrient management, and water use), people and the community, animal health and welfare (including morbidity, mortality, handling, transportation, antimicrobial use), food (nutrition, loss and waste), and efficiency and innovation (technology use, economic) topics for the sustainability of the global beef sector.

Population growth (including growth of the middle class, as measured by GDP), urbanization, and globalization are leading to higher demand for animal-based foods, including beef (UN, 2015). This increased demand is resulting in changes in the beef sector, such as productivity enhancements (e.g., genetics, best management practices), intensification in structure, and increased trade (movement of cattle and beef). Ruminants play a crucial role in food production worldwide by making use of plant resources, such as grasses, which humans cannot digest.

The GRSB is committed to providing global consumers the choice of different production systems (grain-fed, grass-fed) and breeds (bos taurus, bos indicus, bubalus bubalis). Production systems have evolved in each country to supply beef to consumers year-round. Different breeds are suited to different environments with performance varying by region. This genetic diversity facilitates the adaptation of production systems to future challenges and is a source of resilience in a time of greater climatic variability. This means there is no single ideal production system or breed.

This broad diversity between climates, production systems and supply chain situations contribute to the complexity in evaluating global metrics. For example, a lower greenhouse gas (GHG) number from a grain-fed production system should not be considered better or worse compared to a grass-fed production system that utilizes a larger habitat through low stocking rates on pasture, and subsequently local biodiversity. Another example of these trade-offs is demonstrated through industrialized countries tending to report significantly lower GHG emissions due to higher productivity. However, industrialized countries also have greater opportunities to further improve GHG reductions through the reduction of food waste at the consumer level compared to developing countries where losses tend to be higher during production and transportation.

These changes have impacted the sustainability of beef production, as intensification leads to land use changes, with trickle-down impacts including regional biodiversity, water quality, and climate (i.e., as relating to carbon / greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration). Some of these impacts can be offset


10

with productivity enhancements, including adopting management practices to minimize negative impacts and practices to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity, water filtration, animal productivity (i.e., matching genetics to environment, maintaining healthy animals) and land use systems (i.e., to minimize and even reverse the negative impacts of land use change).

To achieve a sustainable beef sector, implementation of practices must take an integrated approach and jointly consider social, economic and environmental dimensions. While useful for benchmarking progress, averages and metrics in the highly variable beef production environment can be misleading when it comes to solving regional issues. Further work is needed to evaluate the trade-offs and integrate regional diversity and the multiple functions performed by beef sector at a local level. As each regional roundtable encourages adoption of sustainable practices that contribute to these global metrics, the GRSB is monitoring progress being made.

CAUTION: This literature review focuses on global studies that have used a consistent methodology. Certain precautions should be kept in mind when interpreting and comparing results with other studies that are more regional in focus. Setting the boundaries of any assessment influences the outcome. In addition, the functional unit results are reported in (i.e., emissions per kilo produced versus per hectare used) can change the relative ranking between different production systems. The choice of functional unit depends on the study’s specific objective. We encourage readers to go back to the original papers for details around individual metrics.

TARGETS

The GRSB is not setting global targets for any of these indicators. However, it is recognized that setting targets helps focus efforts to achieve specific goals. GRSB encourages continuous improvement as small, incremental changes in all countries will contribute to improvements in global metrics, as everyone works towards a more sustainable future. It is recognized from the diversity in production systems (see Major Beef Producing Systems section) that different countries will focus on different areas when setting targets.

Targets should be ambitious but realistic, galvanizing change rather than appeasing defeatism. Targets should be Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Relevant and Timely (SMART). This enables ongoing monitoring and accountability to the goals to ensure they will be met. In addition, targets should be economically viable to implement, aligned with the GRSB principles, effective, and valuable in meeting stakeholders’ priorities.


11

MAJOR BEEF PRODUCING SYSTEMS

Sere and Steinfeld (1996) classified livestock systems according to agro-ecological zones and length of growing period (LGP), defined as the period when the rainfed available soil moisture is greater than half the potential evapotranspiration (Thornton et al. 2009). Steinfeld et al. (2006) went further, classifying livestock production systems based on integration with crops, relation to land, the agro-ecological zone, intensity of production, and type of product (Table 1). As beef production varies widely within and across countries due to differences in environment, intensity, purpose of production, and socio-cultural factors, various beef production systems have developed in response.

Table 1. Livestock population and production in different agro-ecological zones (2001-03 average) Units: Million head/tonnes Arid and Semi-arid

Topics and Sub-Tropics Humid and Sub-humid

Tropics and Sub-Tropics Temperate and Tropical

Highlands

Cattle and Buffalos (hd) 515 (34%) 603 (40%) 381 (25%)

Beef Production (tonnes)

11.7 (21%) 18.1 (32%) 27.1 (48%)

Source: Steinfeld et al., 2006

These beef production systems were further separated into different production systems (see Table 2), including grassland-based and mixed farming systems. Grassland-based systems (pastoral) are focused on animal production with more than 90% of dry matter fed to animals coming from rangelands, pastures, annual forages, and purchased feed, and less than 10% of that total value of production from non-livestock activities. A mixed farming system can have more than 10% of the dry matter fed to animal coming from crop by-products (e.g., stubble) or where more than 10% of the total value of production comes from non-livestock activities. These mixed farming systems may have annual crops based on rainfall or irrigated water (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In general, all beef production is grassland based as even grain-finished systems have a high reliance on forage, at over 80% (Place, 2017). Therefore, 10% is used as the threshold to distinguish grassland-based systems versus rainfall/farming systems. Industrial or landless systems are defined when less than 10% of the dry matter fed to animals is produced on farm (i.e., over 90% is purchased) and the average stocking rate is above 10 livestock units per hectare (Steinfeld et al., 2006)1. This estimate of 6% of global beef production coming from industrial systems is on the low end with Gerber et al. (2015) reporting 7% and Mottet et al. (2017) reporting 13%.

Table 2.Global livestock population and production in different production systems (2001-03 average)

Grazing Rainfed mixed Irrigated mixed Industrial

Cattle and Buffalos (million head) 406 (27%) 641 (42%) 450 (29%) 29 (2%)

Beef Production (million tonnes) 14.6 (24%) 29.3 (48%) 12.9 (21%) 3.9 (6%) Source: Steinfeld et al., 2006 (may not add to 100% due to rounding)

1 It should be noted that this definition of industrial production only counts cattle in feedlots (roughly 11-12 million USA, 1 million in Canada and Australia per turn, at almost two turns per year), as the beef cows would be part of a different production system in these countries.


12

Given this diversity in environmental conditions and production systems, there is no single optimal herd size, output per animal, off-take rate2, or grazing intensity that should be a universal target for beef production (Herring, 2014). In addition, there are a wide range of environmental impacts reflective of each production system and the unique environment where they are located. See Appendix 1 for a summary of major environmental interactions and improvement opportunities by production system.

Global Cattle Inventories

The FAO reports global cattle and buffalo inventories at 1.67 billion head in 2016 (FAOSTAT, 2018). India had the largest cattle inventory (18% of the total) followed by Brazil (13%), China (6.5%) and the United States (5.5%). Meat produced from cattle and buffalo was 68.4 million tonnes in 2014 (FAOSTAT, 2018) (see Figure 1 for global cattle densities). The largest producing countries are the United States (16.4%), Europe (15%), Brazil (13.3%), and China (10.5%). Despite having a large herd India only produces 3% of beef and buffalo meat globally. Idle animals not used for food production include draught animals and those used as investments in some countries, also contribute to the sustainability impacts of the sector globally.

Figure 1. Global Cattle Density Map (FAO, 2016)

2 Defined as the total cattle slaughter divided by total cattle inventories. Off-take rates are impacted by age at slaughter (with older cattle resulting in a lower number and younger cattle resulting in a higher number) and reproductive efficiency. See the Production Efficiencies section for more information.


13

NATURAL RESOURCES

LAND USE

The FAO defines agricultural land as (1) arable land, producing annual crops or summer-fallow; (2) permanent cropland, producing perennial crops; (3) permanent pasture - natural, artificial grasslands and shrubland used for grazing livestock. In 2011, agricultural land accounted for 38.4% of the world's land area. Of all agricultural land, permanent pastures accounted for 68.4% (26.3% of global land area), arable land accounted for 28.4% (10.9% of global land area), and permanent crops (e.g. vineyards and orchards) accounted for 3.1% (1.2% of global land area).3

Globally, the amount of agricultural land has been declining since 1998. Competition for agricultural land is largely coming from growing land requirements of urban populations, where current estimates suggest that an additional 100 million hectares of land will be needed by 2030 (FAO, 2010).

Land used for Beef Production

The diversity of production systems and animal diets around the world play an important role in the conversation around cropland used for feed production. Ruminants (beef and sheep) are often seen as poor converters of feed with lower feed conversion rates as compared to monogastric animals. Beef consumption of grain ranges between six and 20 kilograms per kilogram of beef produced; although some pastoral systems have no grain. Higher levels of grain use are based on grain finished production, which accounts for 13% of global beef output (Mottet et al., 2017).4

Table 3. Global land use for forage and feed production for Cattle & Buffalo (million hectares) Grasslands

suitable for crops

Grasslands unsuitable for crops

Cereal and legume silage, fodder beet

Cereal grains

Oil seed and oilseed cakes

By-products

Crop residues

Total

Non-OECD 436.2 442.6 46.8 42.8 22.7 22.1 100.7 1113.8

OECD 88.5 40 9.6 28 8.2 3.7 2.2 180.2

Total 524.7 478.5 56.5 70.7 30.9 25.8 103 1290.1

Adapted from Mottet et al., 2017

Mottet et al. (2017) found that the global area currently used for feed production is 1.29 billion hectares.5 This represents 26.5% of global agricultural land (World Bank, 2015). Of that, around 1 billion hectares or 78% of the total is currently in grasslands, with 52% of those grasslands suitable for crops and vulnerable to conversion.6 Annual cropland used for feed (fodder or grain) is estimated at 127.2 million hectares, or 10% of total use, representing 17.8% of global cereal production (World Bank, 2015). The remaining 159.7 million hectares (12%) of land use is a result of by-product or residue production. This last category is possible because the ruminant animal is able to act as an “up-cycler”,

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land 4 Mottet (2017) found no significant discrepancies between the GLEAM feed rations and 121 peer-reviewed publications for different production systems and regions. And was able to validate total dry matter intake. 5 Mottet et al (2017) reports the total area of agricultural land currently estimated to be used for livestock feed globally is around 2.5 billion ha representing about half of the global agricultural land. Cattle and buffalo at 1.29 billion ha represent 52% of the land used for livestock feed. 6 FAOSTAT (2016) and Mottet et al. (2017) reports 3.5 billion ha of permanent grasslands globally with about 1.5 billion ha supporting no livestock production (therefore is not classified as agricultural land) due to very marginal rangeland and shrubby ecosystems. The remaining 0.5 billion ha not used by cattle would be utilized by other ruminants (e.g. sheep, goats).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Agriculture_Organization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vineyard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land


14

thus by upgrading plant protein from other industries into more complete and digestible protein for humans.

Place (2017) notes four ways in which cattle contribute to sustainable agricultural systems that are not captured by traditional environmental assessments. These include: (1) cattle’s ability to convert human-inedible feedstuffs into high quality protein; (2) consumption of forages and roughages that are grown on lands unsuitable for cultivation, thus expanding the land base that produces food; (3) consumption of inedible by-products and residues from other industries; (4) integration of livestock and grain production having environmental and socioeconomic benefits. Utilization of by-products and crop residues have the potential to improve cattle performance while minimizing environmental impacts and competition for land between humans and animals (de Vries et al., 2015).

Beef production is often criticized for its poor feed conversion ratios. Yet, when all feed sources are considered many are unsuitable for human consumption and therefore a high-quality protein is being made from something that was not even a food source before the ruminant was introduced into the system. Mottet et al. (2017) found that producing 1 kg of boneless meat required an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed in ruminate systems compared to 3.2 kg in monogastric systems.

In some regions land conversion may occur as a result of, or absence of, beef production. Change of forest land to grassland, arable land or perennial land; or change of grassland to arable land or perennial land have implications on soil carbon sequestration and biodiversity (FAO, 2014). The GRSB’s principles and criteria apply to all regions where cattle are produced including open grasslands, agro-forestry, mixed farmland, and other mixed regions.

BIODIVERSITY

As a major user of land resources, livestock impact biodiversity mostly through habitat change (e.g., degradation of grasslands, conversion to cropland for feed or deforestation). This trend is projected to intensify over the next decades as populations grow and meat consumption increases in developing countries (Elferink and Nonhebel, 2007; Machovina and Feeley, 2014). There are concerns around growing beef production in biodiversity-rich developing countries, in that it often leads to the destruction of previously undisturbed natural habitats. The Amazonian forest for instance, which may host up to a quarter of the world’s terrestrial species (Dirzo and Raven, 2003) has seen rapid conversion to pastures and annual crops over the last two decades (Lambin et al., 2003; Nepstad et al., 2009; Steinfeld et al., 2006). Similarly, in Europe and North America, native grasslands are being intensively managed or converted to arable land, including forage and feed crops (Gibson, 2009). This has been linked to important declines in wildlife (Firbank et al., 2008; Gregory et al., 2005; Stoate et al., 2009; Vickery et al., 2001) and loss of biodiversity. Grassland birds and butterfly species for instance have declined significantly in Europe over the past 20 years and are in poor conservation status (Poláková et al., 2011). Conversion to arable land also contributes to habitat fragmentation, resulting in more homogeneous communities (Devictor et al., 2008).

Permanent grasslands, managed with low stocking rates, are among the habitats with the highest biodiversity level. Steppe-like grassland in Eastern Europe is a regional biodiversity hotspot that hosts an extremely high diversity of endemic plants (Cremene et al., 2005). In Europe, semi-natural grasslands have been shaped by a long history of agricultural practices, and species have adapted and specialized to these landscapes, such that they are an important component of regional biodiversity (Baldock et al., 1993). As most grasslands evolved with grazing by herbivores, without livestock, natural grasslands would be lost through ecological succession habitats of lower conservation value, with the loss


15

of many specialized species (Poláková et al., 2011). Livestock production may actually often be the only way to maintain semi-natural habitats against the contrasting and detrimental pressures to wildlife that are seen in conversion to arable land or abandonment (typically leading to conversion to forests) (Laiolo et al., 2004; LEAP, 2015). In many cases large-scale abandonment may indeed lead to declines in habitat heterogeneity, species diversity and result in regional extinctions. In addition, several decades will be needed for these habitats to regain their original biodiversity value, if they do not become dominated by common or invasive species (Poláková et al., 2011).

Maintaining a range of grazing intensities can support biodiversity as habitats with different grazing intensities support different species (Vickery et al., 2001). Grazing management and stocking density can influence grass species composition. The primary mechanism by which livestock affect biodiversity in pasture is the creation and enhancement of grassland structural heterogeneity, and thus botanical and faunal diversity, by selective defoliation as a result of dietary choice (Rook et al., 2004). Livestock may also shift the competitive balance amongst species in the vegetation community through treading, nutrient cycling, and seed dispersal (Rook et al., 2004). Treading opens up restoration niches for gap-colonizing species and affects subsequent plant growth. In addition, dung and urine patches create hotspots of nutrient enrichment and act as natural fertilizer facilitating soil bacterial activity (Murray et al., 2012). In general, moderate grazing promotes a greater diversity of plant species, creates new niches and increases habitat heterogeneity (Pogue et al., 2018). Appropriate grazing management plays a vital role in maintaining healthy grassland flora and fauna. Grassland birds have preferences for a variety of different grazing management (i.e., greater and lesser intensities), making any recommendation for a single optimal grazing management approach impossible (Pogue et al., 2018).

The actual impacts of grazing on biodiversity depend on the level of production intensity, namely the quality of the land base and the type of livestock production (Olff and Ritchie, 1998). In general, biodiversity decreases in rangelands along a gradient of grazing intensities (Alkemade et al., 2013). Low input grazing systems have been shown to be generally effective in the maintenance of biodiversity of semi-natural grasslands (Báldi et al., 2013; Dumont et al., 2009; Isselstein et al., 2005). A recent review (LEAP, 2015) indicates that livestock can eat competitively dominant grassland species which makes it possible for rarer species to persist (Olff and Ritchie, 1998). It also favors intermediate disturbance through trampling, dung and urine deposition, which enhances species diversity at local scales (Dumont et al., 2012). In contrast, rangelands with high degree of human management and very high stocking rates have the lowest biodiversity values (Alkemade et al., 2013).

Potential degradation of habitat from grazing livestock

Grasslands and forest areas that are over- or inappropriately grazed can be degraded (i.e., becoming non-productive), but the extent and seriousness of degraded lands is not known with much precision. The most comprehensive survey to date, the Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement identifies the status and trends of land degradation and hotspots suffering extreme constraints or at severe risk. Land degradation may be defined as long term loss of ecosystem function and productivity caused by disturbances from which land cannot recover unaided (Bai et al. 2008). This can be cause by changes in climate (e.g., reduced rainfall) or human activity such as: continuous cropping and loss of nutrients through harvest, erosion, leaching or gaseous emissions that deplete soil fertility and cause soil organic matter levels to decline, often to less than half the original levels. This impacts soil biodiversity and future land use.

The “Normalized Difference Vegetation Index” (NDVI shown in Figure 2) is an indicator for net primary production (NPP) which is more accurate for cropland and rangeland than forests. In 2003, 23.5% of the land area had been degraded, affecting 1.5 billion people. This was an increase from the 15% reported


16

in 1981. Degraded land was found to be 19% in cropland, 24% broad-leaved forest, 19% needle-leaved forest and only 4% in mosaics with woodland and grassland. Degraded land is found in all areas with 78% in humid regions, 8% in dry sub-humid, 9% in semi-arid and 5% in arid regions (Bai et al. 2008).

Figure 2. Global Land Assessment of Degradation and Improvement (Bai, Jong de and van Lynden 2010)

Overgrazing, when livestock density is beyond the carrying capacity of the landscape, can have adverse consequences on biodiversity, both in low-input systems and in improved grasslands (LEAP, 2015). In arid systems overgrazing can lead to desertification and woody encroachment, resulting in decreased plant species richness (Asner et al., 2004). Livestock production is also a considerable vector in the spread of invasive plant species, whether fast growing grasses used in feed crops fields or through seed dispersal by grazing livestock. For instance, invasive plant species now dominate the landscape in large areas of America (Pimentel et al., 2005). Semi-natural areas that are degraded are the most prone to invasive species.

Livestock protect lands from conversion and can contribute to the recovery of degraded land

As a user and beneficiary of the biodiversity resource base, the global beef industry can be a steward for the maintenance and restoration of semi-natural and native grasslands, grazed forest and shrublands, and annual cropland used for feed. Grazing management is an obvious area where the beef industry can, and in some cases already does, improve production practices. Changing grazing management regimes can vary the efficiency with which the meat is produced while benefiting biodiversity.


17

Williams and Price (2010) suggested the following grazing management actions:

• Matching grazing systems to carrying capacity (at several scales);

• Taking total grazing pressure into account when calculating sustainable stocking rates;

• Temporary destocking;

• Robust and long-term monitoring systems to measure the impact of management on biodiversity and production systems.

Figure 3. Overview of the pressures (grey) or benefits (green) that livestock have on biodiversity. Adapted from LEAP, 2015.

Grasslands are not only valuable for grazing, they store carbon and provide wildlife habitat as well as other environmental goods and services (e.g., water infiltration that buffers from drought and flooding). Improving degraded grasslands and maintaining healthy rangelands should be part of sustainable beef production around the globe.

Measuring Biodiversity

Although there is large evidence of the global impact of livestock on biodiversity, quantifications are scarce. Measuring biodiversity impacts remains a thorny issue and no consensus has yet been reached about how to do it (de Souza et al., 2015; Teixeira, 2014). The methodological challenges stem both from the complexity of biodiversity, the many different ways in which it can be impacted (Figure 3), as well as from difficulties with integrating biodiversity impacts in classical life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies or other impact assessment frameworks. 7 Further work is needed to guide measuring

7 The FAO Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership focuses on promoting improvements in the environmental performance of livestock supply chains, by providing guidance and methodologies (LEAP, 2015). http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/en/

http://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/en/


18

and monitoring biodiversity as an ecosystem service provided by beef production. However, the difficulties in measuring biodiversity should not delay work on other areas.

FORESTS

Globally, forests cover approximately 42 million square kilometers (km2) in tropical, temperate, and boreal lands accounting for 30.7% of land cover (FAO, 2016b). Forests store around 45% of terrestrial carbon and sequester large amounts of carbon annually. Forests provide a wealth of public services and private goods, including carbon storage, biodiversity habitat, water filtration, storm mitigation, timber and non-timber products, wild foods and medicines, and tourism (Ferretti-Gallon and Busch, 2014). Forests also play a major role in the hydrological cycle through evapotranspiration, which cools climate through feedbacks with clouds and precipitation (Bonan, 2008). This makes them a key component of climate change discussions. Forests house thousands of species that contribute to their unique biodiversity. For example, the Amazon Basin has the most diverse fish fauna with approximately 2,200 species recognized. Diversity is also high among birds and trees, with about 1,000 flood tolerant tree species and over 1,000 bird species in the lowlands that contain most freshwater ecosystems.

Deforestation

Boreal and temperate forest cover have generally increased over the last decade, primarily in North America and western Europe. At the same time, subtropical and tropical forests have declined, particularly in South America and Africa (Figure 4). Despite forests’ many values, forested land is being steadily converted to other uses, that can generate greater private economic returns including cropland, pasture, mining, and urban areas. The majority of new global agricultural land is coming at the expense of tropical forests being converted to cropland and pasture to produce soy, beef, palm oil, and timber (Ferretti-Gallon and Busch 2014).

The deforestation area reported here are based on satellite data and therefore include both legal and illegal deforestation. It should be recognized that there can be sustainable agricultural practices established in these ecoregions for economic development that supports the people living there. The rate of deforestation in the Amazon has dropped significantly between 2004 and 2014.

Figure 4: Net Annual Average Forest Area Change

The Impact of Deforestation


19

As international concern about climate change has grown, attention has intensified on reducing the 10-15% of global greenhouse gas emissions resulting from deforestation and forest degradation (Ferretti-Gallon and Busch 2014).

Scarcity of freshwater is a critical issue globally. The four main drivers of freshwater ecosystem degradation in the Amazon basin are deforestation, construction of dams and navigable waterways, and pollution. Deforestation in the Amazon basin increases water runoff and stream discharge through decreased evapotranspiration and alters the morphological and biogeochemical conditions of freshwater ecosystems through soil erosion and increased terrestrial sediment runoff into streams. In Amazonian floodplains, deforestation reduces the abundance and diversity of highly productive plant communities that sustain abundant animal populations.8 In the riparian zones of small streams and rivers, deforestation can reduce water quality, increase water temperature, alter biotic assemblage composition and production through increased sediments, and remove structures that provide habitat for aquatic biota (Castello et al., 2013).

Drivers of Deforestation

Deforestation is the result of multiple causes occurring at various scales and differing significantly between locations. Direct causes of deforestation include human activities with direct impacts on forest cover, such as agricultural expansion (80%), urban expansion (10%), infrastructure development (10%) and mining (7%), although there are regional differences (see Figure 6).

In Southeast Asia oil-palm plantations dominate deforestation; while small-scale agricultural processes are the main driver in Africa. Commercial agriculture accounted for almost 70% of the deforestation in Latin America in the period 2000–2010. In the Amazon, agribusiness production for international markets, which includes cattle ranching, soybean farming and oil palm plantations, has been identified as a main driver of post-1990 deforestation (FAO 2016b). The 2006 Soy Moratorium in the Brazilian Amazon has successfully stopped deforestation for soy in the region (Hall 2018).

Figure 5: Net Annual Average Change in Agricultural and Forest Area

8 The annual rates are estimated from the deforestation increments identified in satellite images that cover the Amazon; data are available at http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/prodes_1988_2016n.htm.

http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/prodes_1988_2016n.htm


20

Ferretti-Gallonand Busch (2014) found that forests are more likely to be cleared when economic returns to agriculture and pasture are higher, either due to more favorable climatological and topographic conditions, or due to lower costs of clearing forest and transporting products to market.

Figure 6: Proportion of Deforestation attributed to various drivers in seven South American Countries

A study of deforestation drivers in seven South American countries (De Sy et al., 2015) highlighted the relationship between deforestation and pasture expansion for cattle ranching (Figure 6). Deforestation in those South American countries between 1990–2005 was driven by increased demand for pasture (71%), commercial cropland (14%), infrastructure and urban expansion (<2%). Pasture expansion contributed to at least one-third of forest loss in all countries except Peru, where smallholder cropland expansion (at 41%) was a more prominent driver. In Argentina, pasture expansion was responsible for nearly 45% of forest loss over the same period and the expansion of commercial cropland for more than 43%. More than 80% of deforestation in Brazil in the period was associated with conversion to pasture land (Figure 6; FAO, 2016b).

However, the motivations for deforestation in Latin America are mixed and unclear, particularly as pastureland used for grazing cattle is often converted to annual crops after 5-7 years (Graesser et al., 2015). Ferretti-Gallon and Busch (2014) found that deforestation was consistently lower at higher elevation, on steeper slopes and in wetter areas; but consistently higher on soil that was more suitable for agriculture. Timber activity, land tenure security, and community demographics did not show a consistent association with either higher or lower deforestation. Population is consistently associated with greater deforestation, and poverty is consistently associated with lower deforestation, but in both cases causality is difficult to confirm. Promising approaches for stopping deforestation include stronger laws with better enforcement, stronger rights for indigenous peoples and protections of Indigenous Peoples lands, private sector agreements, public-private partnerships, reducing the intrusion of road networks into remote forested areas, targeting protected areas to regions where forests face higher threats, payments for ecosystem services, and insulating the forest frontier from the price effects of demand for agricultural commodities.


21

The Amazon

The rate of deforestation in the Amazon dropped significantly between 2004-2014. According to PRODES, the deforestation monitoring system in Brazil’s Legal Amazon from 1988 to 2017, there have been 428,721 km2 deforested.9 Annual rates have decreased by 69% from the 1995-2004 average of 20,629 km2 per year to the 2009-16 average of 6,319 km2 per year.10 Annual deforestation rates since 2014 demonstrate that progress is not permanent and can be reversed if proper enforcement measures, incentives, and monitoring tools are not utilized.

The Chaco

The Gran Chaco plain in South America (a dry forest) is the second largest forest in Latin America, after the Amazon rainforest, and stretches across parts of Paraguay, Argentina, and Bolivia and supports thousands of plant types and hundreds of species of birds, mammals, and reptiles. However, the region also has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world. Landsat satellites indicate that 20% of the Chaco forest (142,000 km2) has been converted into farmland or grazing land between 1985 and 2013 (Baumann et al. 2017). Forest was replaced by croplands (38.9%) or grazing lands (61.1%). Of the grazing lands that existed in 1985, about 40% have been subsequently converted to cropland (Baumann et al. 2017). Historical rates of deforestation of around 1% per year have accelerated in the twenty-first century to be over 4% in 2010 (Vallejos et al. 2015).

The Cerrado and Caatinga Biomes

The Cerrado is a wooded savanna and the Caatinga is a heterogeneous biome consisting of a mosaic of shrubs and areas of seasonally dry forest, occurring mainly under semi-arid conditions. Together they cover around 2.8 million square kilomters and are among the most endangered eco-regions with high rates of conversion (Beuchle et al. 2015).

See Appendix 2: Beef Industry Solutions to Deforestation

9 http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/dashboard/prodes-rates.html 10 The annual rates are estimated from the deforestation increments identified in satellite images that cover the Amazon; data are available at http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/prodes_1988_2016n.htm.

Figure 7: Deforestation of Amazonia Legal

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

198

8

199

0

199

2

199

4

199

6

199

8

200

0

200

2

200

4

200

6

200

8

201

0

201

2

201

4

201

6

Squ

are

kilo

met

ers

per

yea

r

Annual Deforestation Rates in the Brazilian Legal

Amazon

http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/dashboar d/pr odes -rates. html

http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/dashboard/prodes-rates.html

http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/prodes_1988_2016n.htm


22

CARBON EMISSIONS

Changes in global climate are expected to have considerable effects on agricultural production, although with significant differences across regions.

Farmers will need to alter existing agronomic practices, both to adapt to and to mitigate the effects of climate change. Adjustments will involve changes in water use (irrigation), development and use of improved crop varieties and better adapted livestock breeds, alterations to cropping schedules and crop rotations, and diversification of production strategies to improve capacity to face risk. There is already considerable evidence that small-scale farmers in traditional farming environments are adapting to climate change, particularly through the use of traditional varieties and the adaptation of traditional farming practices (FAO, 2010).

Greenhouse Gas (GHG)

Emissions

The FAO (2013) reports that the total annual GHG from livestock production to be 7.1 gigatonnes CO2-eqivalent (for the 2005 reference period).

Cattle (beef, dairy, buffalo (meat and milk) are the main contributor to livestock emissions at about 62% of the total livestock emissions (approximately 5.0 gigatonnes CO2-eq see Figure 8) (FAO, 2017). Beef11 production alone contributed 41% of total livestock emissions (approximately 3.0 gigatonnes CO2-eq; includes producing meat and non-edible products), and milk production generated 20% of total livestock sector emissions. Emissions from buffalo production (including meat, milk, and other products) accounted for 8% of total livestock sectors emissions (approximately 0.7 gigatonnes CO2-eq). Buffalo production is concentrated in South Asia (90% of milk and 70% of buffalo meat production).

Emissions from other agricultural goods and services such as draught animal power and manure used as fuel accounted for 6.5% of total cattle emissions (0.3 gigatonnes CO2-eq). This number is regionally important - in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa draught animals account for almost 25% of emissions (Gerber et al 2013).

Mottet and Steinfeld (2018) note that agriculture is based on a large variety of natural processes that emit (or leak) methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from multiple sources. Unlike transport where it is possible to “de-carbonize”, emissions from land use and agriculture are much more difficult to measure and control. In addition, there is no life cycle approach estimate available for the transport sector at a global level making any comparison to total livestock emissions inappropriate. Direct emissions from livestock only account for 2.3 gigatons or 5% of the total human produced emissions (this includes methane and nitrous oxide from rumen digestion and manure management). This lower direct emission number is the one that can be compared to transport emissions which represent 14% of the total.

11 FAO uses ‘beef’ to refer to meat from both dairy and specialized beef herd.

Figure 8: Global Estimates of Emissions by Species Source: FAO, 2017 (GLEAM 2.0)


23

Large differences in emission intensity between producers

There is significant variation in emission intensities from cattle (e.g., between beef, cattle milk, buffalo meat, and buffalo milk - see Figure 9). This equates large to differences in emission intensity (Ei) regionally, as buffalo meat production is particularly high in East and Southeast Asia (approximately 70.2 kg CO2-eq/kg carcass weight) as productivity of the animals is low due to poor feed resources and low reproductive efficiency. In comparison, emission intensity of buffalo meat production is estimated at 21 kg CO2-eq/kg carcass weight in Near East and North Africa (see Figure 10).

While some climatic factors are unavoidable, there are opportunities to reduce GHG emissions from beef cattle by improving efficiencies and reducing idle cattle. Various agro-ecological conditions, management practices and supply chain logistics explain the variations in emission intensity, within and across production systems. This variability from producers with highest emission intensity and those with lowest emission intensity provides options for

mitigation efforts.

For instance, beef produced by dairy cattle generally have lower Ei than specialized beef production as the emissions from reproductive animals are allocated to both milk and meat production. Beef tends to have higher Ei in production systems with low productivity, due to low feed digestibility, (leading to higher enteric and manure emissions), less efficient herd management practices including poorer animal husbandry and lower slaughter weights (slow growth rates leading to more emissions per kilogram of

meat produced), higher age at slaughter (longer life leading to more emissions), and low reproductive performance (Gerber et al, 2013).

Figure 9: Global Emission Intensities by Commodity Source: FAO, 2017 (GLEAM 2.0)

Figure 10. Global Emission regional total production and profile by commodity Source: FAO, 2017 (GLEAM 2.0)


24

The GHG footprint of cattle is made up of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. It is dominated by methane emissions (an estimated 44-50.3% globally of the total beef supply chain; buffalo have higher methane emissions at 61-64% of their total emissions compared to beef cattle), produced through enteric fermentation. Nitrous oxide is produced by nitrogen volatilization from manure and crop fertilizer, and carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption, primarily from producing feed. FAO reports that globally, nitrous oxide emissions account for 29-30% and carbon dioxide 20-26% of beef supply chain emissions. These vary significantly between regions (see Figure 11).

As feed digestibility increases (e.g., in feedlots) methane emissions decline. In industrialized regions, feed production, feed processing, and manure combined are as important a source of emissions as enteric fermentation. At the opposite side of the spectrum, land that is less ‘productive’, too rocky, steep, or otherwise unsuitable for annual cropping is utilized by ruminants as pastureland to produce a high-quality protein. This type of pastureland use supports biodiversity and carbon sequestration (see Land Use Section). However, the FAO estimates that in Latin America and the Caribbean, one-third of the emissions (24 kg CO2-eq/kg carcass weight) from beef production come from pasture expansion into forested areas12 (Gerber et al, 2013). In these low productivity regions, enteric fermentation is the main emission source.

When emissions are expressed on a per unit protein basis, buffalo meat is the agricultural commodity with the highest emission intensity (i.e., most GHG emitted per unit of meat), with an average of 404 kg CO2-eq per kg of protein, followed by beef with a global average of 295 kg CO2-eq. (FAO, 2017).13 When

12 This should be taken with caution, given the numerous methodological and data uncertainties affecting land-use change emissions estimates 13 Based on the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM), a GIS framework that simulates the bio-physical processes and activities along livestock supply chains under a life cycle assessment approach. More information available at http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/.

Figure 11. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Production (kg of CO2 equivalents per gram of protein) (Source: Herrero et al., 2013)

http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/


25

CO2-eq emissions are expressed per kg of protein, developed nations tend to have lower carbon footprints (10 to 50 times lower) as compared to many nations in sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent (Herrero et al., 2013). The efficiency of practices in how beef cattle are raised varies widely across countries (i.e., productive use of resources to maximize the total amount of beef produced), and efficiency is a key driver of beef’s carbon footprint (Broocks et al., 2015). To a lesser extent, there are also social and economic challenges of reducing emissions in some areas, including the fact that draught animals may still be used and that cattle may act as an investment (i.e. bank).

Continuous Improvement

It is estimated that if all livestock producers achieved the production efficiency of the top 10 or 25 per cent of producers, total emissions could be reduced by 18 to 30 per cent (Gerber et al, 2013). Meaningful reductions in the global average are possible by addressing the gap between producers and production systems with the highest Ei and lowest Ei.

Focusing exclusively on high Ei countries is not enough. The GRSB has a commitment to continuous improvement as low Ei countries lead the way to the next phase of reductions. A number of countries have completed historical analysis showing incremental improvements occurring over time. Australia, Canada and the United States all reduced GHG emissions per kilogram of beef produced by 14%, 15%, and 16%, respectively over the 30 years between 1980 and 2010 (Wiedemann et al., 2015; Legesse et al., 2015; Capper, 2011). Continuing these reductions in all production systems will contribute to a lower global average.

The FAO has recognized that the Ei of enteric methane varies greatly across the globe. There are a number of ongoing efforts to generate more robust estimates of mitigation potential in the livestock sector (e.g., Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) (FAO, 2017)). In addition, there is a growing realization that mitigation actions cannot be considered in isolation; true mitigation potential needs to consider ‘packages’ of actions

assessed in terms of impacts on multiple gases and synergies or trade-offs between individual actions.14

Even while considering these data limitations, FAOSTAT also show that Ei has been declining in the 30 years from 1980 to 2010 for meat cattle (-18.6%), meat buffalo (-38.4%), milk cattle (-27.7%), and milk buffalo (-38.5%) (see Figure 12). The Ei from milk production is significantly lower due to the allocations of milk animals to the meat sector (e.g., male offspring).

14 FAO have launched their Reducing Enteric Methane for improving food security and livelihoods project to complement existing initiatives, details available at http://www.fao.org/climate-change/programmes-and-projects/detail/en/c/412689/.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

196

1

196

4

196

7

197

0

197

3

197

6

197

9

198

2

198

5

198

8

199

1

199

4

199

7

200

0

200

3

200

6

200

9

201

2

201

5

kg C

O2

eq/k

g p

rod

uct

(milk

)

kg C

O2

eq/k

g p

rod

uct

(mea

t)

Global Bovine Emission Intensity

Meat, cattle Meat, buffalo Milk, cow Milk, buffalo

Source:FAOSTAT

Figure 12. Global Bovine Emission Intensity

http://www.fao.org/climate-change/programmes-and-projects/detail/en/c/412689/


26

This means that while production of bovine meat (+41%) and milk (+55%) has increased significantly over that time period, total emissions from bovines have increased at a lesser rate (meat +15%, milk +10.8%) (see Figure 13). Historical efforts to improve productivity of beef production have already contributed to reducing emission intensity. Total emissions have continued to grow as emissions intensity reductions haven’t been enough to offset total emissions larger global beef production. However, those emissions intensity reductions have allowed the global beef sector to avoid a lot of emissions (reduce emissions growth). If emission intensity had not changed since 2061 total emissions from bovines in 2016 would have been 60% higher that what was reported by FAOSTAT.

CARBON SEQUESTRATION

The world’s soils are the largest terrestrial reservoir of carbon (FAO, 2002). However, a significant part of the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today comes from soil carbon release (converted to atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2) due to land use change (LUC) or land management change (LMC) (Toensmeier, 2016). Some farming practices sequester carbon and fight climate change while providing food and other products of agriculture. Soil carbon that has been lost can be recaptured and re-stored in the soil (Toensmeier, 2016). Reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases requires both emission reduction and carbon sequestration – making agriculture a key player in positively sequestering carbon in agricultural soils.

Soil Carbon Sequestration & Livestock Systems

Soil and biomass carbon reserves are non-permanent and reversible. In addition, there is large variation in carbon sequestration potential depending on climate, soil type, and vegetation. Temperate-climate systems generally sequester less carbon in above ground biomass annually compared to tropical-climate systems, as temperate soils store carbon below ground, where organic matter breaks down more slowly, meaning these regions have more potential for soil carbon storage (Toensmeier, 2016). Similarly, arid, semi-arid, and degraded lands all have less potential to sequester carbon (Toensmeier, 2016).

Carbon soil content varies geographically depending on soil cover (forest, crop, grassland, peatland, etc.), soil type, and climate (rainfall and temperature). For a given land use, management practices can result in storage or a release of soil carbon content. A change in land use (e.g., forest to cropland) induces variation in soil carbon stock, resulting in either CO2 emissions to the atmosphere (i.e., carbon source) or removal from the atmosphere (i.e., carbon sink) (CRSB, 2016).

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

196

1

196

4

196

7

197

0

197

3

197

6

197

9

198

2

198

5

198

8

199

1

199

4

199

7

200

0

200

3

200

6

200

9

201

2

201

5

Bill

ion

to

nn

es C

O2

eqiv

alen

t

Emissions from Bovines

Meat, cattle Meat, buffalo Milk, cow Milk, buffalo

Source:FAOSTAT

Figure 13. Total Emissions from Bovines


27

Due to their significant acres (an estimated 1 billion hectares of grassland used for beef production globally), the potential of grazing lands as carbon sinks should not be discounted even in places where carbon sequestration potential is low on a per acre basis.

Managed grazing is a broad category that includes many practices, including managed stocking rates (density of animals per unit area), controlling the intensity and timing of grazing, enclosure of pastures to encourage resting, and various kinds of planned and adaptive grazing. The effects of the same practices are sometimes inconsistent among different regions and sites. While the IPCC has noted ‘optimally grazed land’ often has better carbon sequestration than overgrazed and ungrazed land, other studies have found little or no carbon impact, especially in dry grasslands. Grazing practices that sequester carbon often improve in productivity over time. For these reasons, managed grazing is also considered an important climate adaptation strategy (Toensmeier, 2016).

The IPCC rates managed grazing and improved pasture management as having high climate change mitigation potential, strategies that are easily adopted and readily implemented by ranchers. It is also considered one of the most cost-effective options for the potential amount of carbon sequestered. The IPCC estimates that grasslands alone could sequester 54 to 216 million tons of carbon annually by 2030 (Toensmeier, 2016). However, practices that increase soil carbon sequestration can take years before they are measurable, and there are risks of reduced production and profitability during this time. Grassland carbon dynamics also fluctuate with climate; in the Great Plains grassland may be a net carbon sink in wet years and a net source in others (Pogue et al. 2018, Petrie et al. 2016). It should also be remembered that gains from adopting recommended practices are lower in soils with higher initial soil organic carbon (SOC) levels and soils have a finite capacity to sequester SOC (Pogue et al. 2018).

There is a need for further research to better understand carbon stocks on lands utilized by beef animals and the capacity for those grazing lands to increase carbon sequestration under different soil types, rainfall, and management.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Research generally evaluated manure from all species (beef, dairy, buffalo, pork, poultry). Numbers in this section are not beef specific unless stated.

The addition of organic matter and nutrients from manure on cropland and pasture can positively impact soil organic matter, soil moisture, nutrients and trace elements as well as soil microbial activity contributing to higher productivity. However, long term application in excess of plant requirements can result in accumulation of nutrients, soluble salts, trace elements leading to reduced soil and water quality (Pogue et al. 2018).

Agriculture, specifically crops and livestock, are the largest cause of human alteration of the global nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) cycles (Bouwman et al., 2013). Negative implications of this are that mobilized N is lost through emissions of ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N20), and nitric oxide (NO). Ammonia contributes to eutrophication and acidification when redeposited on the land. It also impacts air quality through particulate matter and can contribute to respiratory issues. Nitric oxide plays a role in ozone chemistry, and nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas (see preceding Carbon Emissions and Sequestration section). Fractions of anthropogenically mobilized N and P can enter watersheds and groundwater through leaching and surface runoff, where they can be transported through freshwater toward coastal marine systems. Such contamination has negative implications on human health


28

through groundwater pollution, as well as loss of habitat and biodiversity through harmful algal blooms, eutrophication, hypoxia and fish kills (Bouwman et al., 2013).

Global estimates of manure N range between 75 and 138 Trillion grams (Tg) N per year with 56% being from beef cattle and 16% from dairy cattle. Around 40-50% of manure N is collected in barns, stables, and pastures with approximately half being recycled onto cropland. Gaseous N losses from manure are estimated at 45-75 Tg/year. There are opportunities to decrease N losses by improving feed efficiency (e.g., through quality and processing of feed and animal genetics) and manure management (Oenema, 2006). Research on differences between production systems are unclear.15

Table 4. Estimated N excreted per animal, 1990, Kg of N per year

Bouwman etal 1997 Smil 1999 Mosier et al 1998

Species Developed Developing Developed Developing Developed Developing

Dairy cattle 80 60 80 45 70-100 60-70

Non-dairy cattle 45 40 50 30 60-70 40-50

Buffalo 45 45 30 30 40 40 Source: Oenema et al. (2006)

Due to the low soil mobility of P it is assumed that surface runoff is the only loss, and surplus P is added to residual soil P. However, some research suggests that P mobility is influenced by soil type (e.g., coarse textured mineral soils with high organic matter content). Problems are the most severe in situations where water movement from soil to surface water is greatest and soil P levels are highest, usually from organic and inorganic fertilizer (Sims et al., 1998).

Integration between crops and livestock

Total N and P in animal manure generated by livestock production exceed the global N and P fertilizer use indicating that greater crop-livestock integration could address the current imbalance in N and P budgets (Bouwman et al., 2013). Larger cattle inventories combined with higher N and P excretion per animal due to changes in production systems (e.g. dried distiller grains can be higher in P, N) makes nutrient management critical for sustainable beef production globally (Oenema et al., 2005).

The role of animal manure in nutrient cycling is a motivation for keeping animals in some production systems, particularly when nutrients are transferred from common property to private land (Steinfeld et al., 2006). As noted earlier, nitrous oxide, representing about 30% of total supply chain GHG emissions, comes from manure and crop fertilizer nitrogen volatilization (Gerber et al, 2013). There can be complex interactions between soil type and the composition of manure resulting in large variations

15 Generally, acidification and eutrophication potential per unit of product were higher in roughage-based (i.e., pasture forages, hays, silages) systems compared with concentrate-based (i.e., energy and protein rich grains and/or supplements) systems. While there is some disagreement among researchers, in general, the higher eutrophication potential in roughage-based systems could be explained by the higher throughput of feed, larger pasture area grazed and greater amount of manure produced per kg live-weight (de Vries et al., 2015). However, Oenema (2006) argues that N inputs and losses increase from grazing systems being the lowest to mixed systems and landless systems having the largest losses due to fertilizer use on feed grains. The IPCC default emission factor for N from grazing animals (20 g per kg vs. 12.5 g per kg from N fertilizer) has been justified on the grounds of localized disposition of high amounts of both N and C in dung and urine, and associated effects of trampling and compaction of grazing animals. This is potentially biased due to the research sites used, being skewed to pasture in temperate areas managed with high stocking rates and not in tropical areas or low stocking rates pastures. Oenema et al. (2005) suggests using 10 g per kg for drier, developing countries and 20 g per kg N for temperate, more affluent countries.


29

in N2O emissions. Emissions tend to be higher following application of manure to arable land compared to grassland, as well as from wet soils compared to dry soils, and from soils low in organic matter rather than rich in organic matter. The manure application method (surface application vs. incorporated) can also have an affect (Oenema et al., 2005).

Ecotoxicity

Research has found estrogens, androgens (testosterone) and progestogens occurring in surface water. These hormones are present in manure as they are naturally produced in livestock. Agricultural sources include water lagoons from feedlots, land application of manure to fields, and runoff from feedlots (Bartelt-Hunt et al., 2014). Human use of steroids and other pharmaceuticals are a source of contamination through water treatment plant and septic systems (Biswas et al., 2013). Regardless of source, steroids have been linked with the abnormal endocrine disrupting functions during critical growth stages of aquatic life (mainly fish, turtles, alligators, frogs, etc.), including abnormal expression of secondary sex characteristics and gonadal development resulting in intersex fish (Bartelt-Hunt et al., 2014, van Donk et al., 2013).

An additional concern are the higher concentrates from synthetic steroids and steroid-like compounds, often used in beef production, as they have the potential to be passed through in manure resulting in greater environmental impact (Biswas et al., 2013). Bartelt-Hunt et al. (2012) detected a range of endogenous steroids (i.e., use of steroids as growth-promoting agents) in manure, runoff, and feedlot soil surfaces from both treated and untreated animals in similar conditions, with no significant differences in concentration; however, runoff from feedlots can be a source of steroid hormones at concentrations above the predicted no effect concentration for aquatic organisms.

Chemical fate: Changes in chemical form and concentration can occur through the biological degradation process during chemical absorption/transformation within the animal as well as during manure handling and field application. The compound excreted in feces and urine can be the same for both natural and synthetic steroids, creating difficulty in distinguishing source (Biswas et al., 2013).

Environmental transport: Both estrogen and androgens can leach from soil at varying rates and reach streams through subsurface and surface flow; even though mobility of both in subsurface systems is low (van Donk et al., 2013). While a number of studies have found the half-life of compounds in soil under aerobic conditions to be short, there is also evidence of steroids found in rivers 60 km downstream from feedlots, indicating that the impacted areas can be large (Biswas et al., 2013).

Potential Management: “Leakage from poorly constructed lagoons, leaching through the vadose zone and runoff from manure-amended fields are all sources of contamination. The magnitude depends on soil properties, type of steroid, precipitation timing, duration and intensity, antecedent soil water content; position of water table and manure and crop management practices” (Biswas et al., 2013).

Management includes reducing the risk at every level from excretion rates, storage systems that degrade chemical compounds, and application that reduces risk of transport and runoff within the environment. Composting is effective in removing 79-87% of steroid hormones from beef cattle manure (Bartelt-Hunt et al., 2014). Since steroids are hydrophobic and strongly adsorbed to soil particles no-till practices can reduce overland runoff (Biswas et al., 2013). The increased concentration of steroids in manure from use of synthetic steroids and associated risks must be weighed against the overall reduced production of manure through the use of synthetic steroids and associated environmental risk (Biswas et al., 2013), along with management practices that mitigate environmental impacts.


30

Global Historic Trends

At the beginning of the 20th century nutrient budgets were generally balanced with no deficits or surpluses. The increased use of N and P fertilizers supported the human population which roughly doubled in the second half of the century. During this period and global cereal production has doubled mainly from increased yields due to fertilizer, irrigation, pesticides, new varieties, and other technologies while the number of domestic animals tripled (Tilman et al., 2002; Bouwman et al., 2013).

Between 1950 and 2000, the increased use of fertilizers (N fertilizer increased 20-fold and P sevenfold), biological N2 fixation from increased use of legumes, greater animal manure production and NO emissions from industrial activities, and fossil-fuel combustion led to a rapid increase in atmospheric N deposition (see Table 5 and Figure 14). Of note, the stocks of cattle increased rapidly, particularly in developing countries where productivity increased slowly. It is estimated that in 2000 about 50% of the N surplus was lost through denitrification (Bouwman et al., 2013).

Table 5. Global N and P budgets from Crop and Livestock Production (Trillion grams per year Tg/yr)

Input/output balance 1900 1950 2000 2050 base

2050 EX

2050 FE

2050 ST

2050 IM

2050 DI

N budget (Tg/yr) 20 36 138 170 169 165 172 156 165

P budget (Tg/yr) 0 2 12 18 18 17 18 16 18 Adapted from Bouwman et al., 2013. Modifications in livestock production include extensification (EX), increased feed efficiency (FE), improved manure storage systems (ST), integrated manure management systems (IM) and change in human diet replacing beef with poultry (DI).

By 2050, Bouwman et al., (2013) estimates a baseline scenario that has an N surplus of 170 Tg/yr, up 23% from 2000; and a P surplus of 18 Tg/yr, up 50%. There were regional differences with industrialized countries increasing nutrient recovery and decreasing surpluses; developing countries increased nutrient inputs to prevent soil degradation, leading to decreasing nutrient efficiency (i.e., similar to what was seen in industrialized countries from 1900-1950). Therefore, nutrient surpluses are projected to increase rapidly in Africa, South and Central America and more slowly in South Asia, according to the expected rate of development (Bouwman et al., 2013).

Extensification16 and improved manure storage systems have minimal impact on nutrient management (Bouwman et al., 2013). It should be noted that shifts in human diets away from beef had negative impacts in some regions dominated by natural grasslands that are not suitable for crop production. Like extensification and manure storage systems, the change in human diet of replacing beef with poultry had minimal impact on nutrient budgets (Bouwman et al., 2013). Compared to the baseline, improved feed efficiency reduces manure production by 6-7% contributing to lower nutrient budgets. In the baseline scenario, a portion of animal manure ends up outside the agricultural system, used for fuel (regional impact). Therefore, integrated manure management systems had the greatest impact with N and P surpluses increasing only 13% and 33% respectively from the year 2000. Combining all modifications in production practices achieves a reduction in N and P surpluses of 12% and 20% by 2050 (Bouwman et al., 2013).

16 The move from mixed to pastoral systems leads to an overall decrease in the efficiency of production and nutrient use and is the reason for the minimal difference from the baseline scenario. These tradeoffs need to be considered carefully due to unexpected externalities.


31

Figure 14. Agricultural soil N budgets (Source: Bouwman et al., 2013)

Nutrient Management

Environmental concerns around ecotoxicity and nutrient surpluses stress the need to reduce the risks at every stage of production. There are opportunities to decrease nutrient losses by improving feed efficiency (through quality and processing of feed and animal genetics) and manure management, including:

• Discouraging or limiting cattle’s ability to defecate directly in moving water sources when on pasture;

• Storing manure in a way that allows the biological degradation process to detoxify chemicals;

• Storing and applying manure to crops in a way that limits leaching through the soil and mobility through subsurface systems;

• Using feeding systems that reduce the overall amount of manure produced.

WATER

Although approximately three-fourths of the earth’s surface is covered by water, less than 3% of this is available freshwater. Furthermore, this freshwater is not evenly distributed among nations or across regions, making water management both a global and local issue (Legesse et al., 2017). Agriculture accounts for about 70% of all water use globally and physical water scarcity is already a problem for more than 1.6 billion people. By 2025, 1.8 billion people will live in countries or regions with absolute


32

water scarcity and two-thirds of the world’s population could be under water-stress conditions (FAO, 2010).

Water is considered to be a renewable resource as it cycles through land, water bodies, and the atmosphere. However, water can be drawn from water bodies faster than it can be recharged through precipitation, resulting in depletion of water resources both in terms of quantity and quality (Legesse et al., 2017). Over-pumping of groundwater aquifers is a serious concern in many countries throughout the world, particularly in China, India, Mexico, Pakistan, and most of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East. It is estimated that already more than 60% of the world’s rivers are fragmented by hydrological alterations, including dams (FAO, 2010). Further, the regions of the world that experience severe water scarcity are also the ones with higher livestock density, such as sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia (Legesse et al., 2017) (see Figure 15).

Figure 15. Global Map of Water Scarcity at the basin level in 2007 (Source: Molden et al., 2007)

With increased urbanization there is increased competition for water previously dedicated to agriculture. Over the next 40 years agriculture will have to become increasingly efficient in its use of water through improved management of irrigation, the development of cropping and livestock production systems that use water more efficiently, reductions in water loss from agricultural systems, and improved watershed management (FAO, 2010). Ruminants play a crucial role in global food production by making use of plant resources that humans cannot normally digest and forage-based systems are known for multiple ecological benefits such as enhanced biodiversity, water quality and soil health. However, ruminants are also known to have a higher level of consumptive water use (CWU) (Legesse et al., 2017).


33

Wet Lands

Wetlands provide a wide range of functions, including providing water for crop production and fisheries and aquaculture, water purification, groundwater recharge, nutrient cycling and flood protection. Around half of the world’s wetlands have disappeared since 1900. Pastureland used for grazing livestock typically preserve wetlands (FAO, 2010).

Water Use by Cattle

Approximately 60-70% of an animal’s body mass is water. In livestock water is vital for essential physiological and biochemical processes such as thermoregulation, transport, purification, growth, lactation, and reproduction, with the requirement increasing as productivity of the animal increases. Water requirements are met primarily through drinking water and consumption of water in feedstuffs.

Feed can be a major source of water consumption in livestock systems with small proportions of the ration representing a disproportionately large amount of the water consumption. However, from a socioeconomic context, low stocking rate livestock systems in arid regions are operating in a water scarce environment, but pastoralists are the main contributor to food security and livelihoods in the region (FAO, 2018).

Forty percent of crop production comes from the 16% of agriculture land that is irrigated, however scarcity of water raises concerns over about the future productivity of these lands. In several areas, groundwater is pumped in excess of recharge, and overpumping is a concern in China, India, Bangladesh and parts of the United States (Tilman et al., 2002). The majority of water used for cattle is through irrigation to grow feed. Innovation that continues to improve the efficiencies of plants to utilize irrigated water and more efficient delivery systems that reduce the amount of evaporation will contribute to a lower water footprint in countries that have a high reliance on irrigation.

Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) reported a global blue water footprint for beef of 550 L H2O/kg produced using a water footprint assessment approach; however, a wide range has been reported between countries (67-525 L H2O/kg) (see Tables 6 and 7). Pogue et al. (2018) notes “The efficiency of water use for beef production can be enhanced by improving feed crop yield per unit area; increasing the use of crop by-products and residues; and adopting water conservation management practices and efficiency irrigation practices. Well-managed rangelands and perennial cover crops can reduce surface runoff and soil erosion and improve water recharge and infiltration. Furthermore, beef cattle obtain a large share of their nutrients from marginal lands and rangelands that mainly rely on natural precipitation and are unsuitable for other agricultural purposes… [In addition] grasslands that support beef production regulate water quality by preventing soil erosion, trapping sediments, recycling nutrients, detoxifying chemicals, replenishing groundwater supplies and controlling surface runoff that transports pollutants to surface water bodies.”

Table 6. Water use values associated with beef production from Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) based studies (Legesse et al. 2017, 2018)

Functional Region/ Estimate Source Unit Country Blue* Green Grey Aggregate L H2O/kg Global 550 14,414 451 15,415 Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012 L H2O/kg USA 525 12,933 733 14,191 Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012 L H2O/kg Global

15,497 Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007

L H2O/kg USA

13,193 Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007 L H2O/kg England 67 14,900 2,690 17,657 EBLEX, 2010. *Net Blue water footprint values


34

Livestock estimates have typically fallen into three categories / methodologies:

• Water Footprint Assessment – total volume of consumptive freshwater use and volume required to dilute pollutants produced during the production process. Treats water as a global issue.

• Livestock Water Productivity – the ratio of net beneficial livestock related products and services to the water depleted in producing them. Productivity oriented. Expressed in physical or monetary units. Does not normally present separate blue and green estimates.

• Life Cycle Assessment – consumptive water use and associated environmental impacts caused by production along the entire value chain. Considers water a local issue. Evaluates local water stress and is impact oriented. Assesses blue water only. Difficult to communicate results and implications to general public.

Table 7. Blue Waterⱡ use values associated with beef production from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Livestock Water Productivity (LWP) and other studies (Legesse et al., 2017)

Functional Estimate Region/ Approach Source Unit Country

L water/ kg meat 11,500 Ethiopia LWP Gebreselassie et al., 2009 L H2O/kg HSCW* 18–540 Australia Hybrid LCA Peters et al., 2010 L H2Oe/ kg LW 3.3-221 Australia LCA Ridoutt et al., 2011 L H2O/ kg LW 24.7-234 Australia LCA Ridoutt et al., 2012 L H2Oe/kg LW 0.37 New Zealand LCA Zonderland-Thomassen et al.,

2014 L H2Oe/kg beef 15.1-20.0 UK LCA Zonderland-Thomassen et al.,

2014 L H2O/kg carcass weight 2034±309 USA LCA Rotz et al., 2019 L H2O/kg LW 1,100 USA Capper, 2011 L H2O/kg boneless beef 3,682 USA Beckett and Oltjen, 1993 L H2Oe/kg LW 235 Canada LCA CRSB, 2016 L H2Oe/kg LW 223 Canada LCA Legesse et al., 2018 * Hot standard carcass weight ⱡ Gross blue water values

Methodology

The FAO LEAP Water Use of livestock production systems and supply chains, Guidelines for Assessment (August 2018) recognizes that there are two main water measures to evaluate quantitative water use (FAO, 2018).

1. Water Productivity (WP) or water consumption – the ratio of net benefits from livestock related products and services to the water depleted (through evaporation, transpiration, integration or drainage) in producing them. This is productivity oriented and is expressed in physical or monetary units. Can separate blue, green and grey water estimates.17

17 Where, blue water is defined as surface and groundwater consumed (transpired or evaporated); green water is defined as precipitation that is stored as soil moisture and eventually consumed; and grey water is defined as the freshwater required to assimilate the load of pollutants (e.g., a dilution water requirement).


35

a. Direct water productivity is focused on the production system and includes: on farm irrigation for feed production, drinking water, service and processing water at the farm, finishing and slaughtering stages

b. Indirect water productivity is focused on the supply chain (background processes) and includes: irrigation for purchased feed, electricity portion water requirements and water required to produce fertilizers, pesticides, etc.

2. Water scarcity – The severity of deficit in water resource depends on the extent of demand for water compared to the replenishment in an area. The contribution to water scarcity is assessed via the consumption of blue water only (green water excluded). Water scarcity can be calculated using the AWARE method18 and the Blue Water Scarcity Index (BWSI)19 (FAO, 2018).

These two measures can be interpreted in parallel to guide industry priorities (see Table 8). Approaches should avoid shifting the burden from one sector to another within the supply chain, consider the water source (surface, aquifer, snow or glacier melt), and the local watershed. Water optimization should also be done without negatively impacting animal welfare.

Table 8. Water productivity versus levels of scarcity to guide priorities (0 low to +++ high)

Low scarcity Medium scarcity High scarcity

High water productivity 0 0 +

Medium water productivity 0 + ++

Low water productivity + ++ +++ Source: FAO LEAP Water Use of livestock production systems and supply chains, Guidelines for Assessment (August 2018).

18 The AWARE method for calculating water scarcity captures the potential impacts of water consumption with the amount of remaining water in a watershed after the deduction of human water consumption and environmental water requirements (FAO, 2018). 19 The BWSI method for calculating water scarcity benchmarks regions where consumption violates environmental flow requirements (BWSI>1); assessment is based on whether or not the water use occurs in a region where the amount of water consumption is within the available amount for human activities.


36

PEOPLE & THE COMMUNITY

Cattle provide several socio-economic benefits; particularly employment. Inventories of cattle in a

region can be influenced by culture (i.e. religion) and availability of technology (i.e. draught animals). In

addition, livestock can represent an important source of capital particularly in developing countries

(White and Hall, 2017). Legal land and property rights can influence producer decisions around grazing

practices and impact biosecurity.

IDLE ANIMALS

Resources used to raise or maintain cattle are affected by the number of idle animals in the global herd. Idle animals are cattle that are not growing, not producing dairy, not pregnant and not being used for draught work. Farmers and ranchers may choose to maintain idle cattle for reasons beyond beef production, including breeding stock potential, cultural beliefs, or socio-economic factors.

Families may purchase and maintain cattle and other livestock for many years as a way to save money instead of keeping cash in regions, where socio-economic and political factors limit access to and trust in banking systems that are common in developed countries. Cattle or their calves may then be traded or sold as needed. Improving beef production may be secondary to helping improve the socioeconomic and political landscape.

A better understanding of the number of idle animals globally and their environmental, social, and economic impact is needed. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock (Gerber et al, 2013) reports a relatively low GHG emissions coming from draught animals; however, it is unclear if this number includes or excludes idle animals. The definition for idle animals by FAO should be reviewed as it may not reflect reality of the number of bovines that are maintained but are not for food production.

EMPLOYMENT

The International Labour Organization (May 2018) reports agriculture is the second largest source of employment globally representing 26% of jobs (858 million). Agriculture plays a larger role in low income situations where they represent 68.5% of jobs. Within agriculture 40% are female and 60% male, with female employment in agriculture larger in low income situations (see Table 9).

Table 9. Global Agricultural Employment Units: Thousands Employed

Global Ag. Low Income Middle Income Upper-Middle High Income

Total 858,439 195,761 23% 446,797 52% 198,610 23% 17,271 2%

Male 513,260 102,728 20% 286,267 56% 111,937 22% 12,328 2% Female 345,188 93,026 27% 160,535 47% 86,679 25% 4,949 1%

Male 60% 52% 64% 56% 71% Female 40% 48% 36% 44% 29% Source: International Labour Organization (May 2018)20

20 Data on employment across three broad sectors. The aggregate sector categories are based on the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC). This indicator is part of the “ILO ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS” series, analyzed in the ILO’s World Employment and Social Outlook reports. For more information, refer to

http://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/2018/lang--en/index.htm


37

Agriculture is dominated by middle income (52%) employment, followed by low (23%) and upper-

middle incomes (23%) and only 2% of agricultural employment is high income.

HEALTH & SAFETY

The International Labour Organization (2011) has published a Code of Practice for occupational health and safety in agriculture. This code is intended to raise awareness of the hazards and risks associated with agriculture and promote effective management and control (by governments, employers, workers and other stakeholders) to help prevent occupational accidents and disease and improve the working environment in practice. It is also to ensure that good workplace health and safety practices are applied to all workers in the workplace regardless of age or gender (ILO, 2011). Worker health and safety is poorly covered in the scientific literature. Agri-food industries, which include packers and processors, have experienced higher rates of injury resulting from repetitive work tasks, standing postures, noise, and time spend working in low temperatures. Within livestock production, physically difficult work is decreasing but stress (e.g. financial) has contributed to mental health and suicide rates among farmers (Dumont et al 2017). In Australia, work-related fatalities in agriculture have decreased from 16.5 per 100,000 workers in 2013 to 11.6 in 2016 (Safe Work Australia). In the United States, agriculture is clustered with forestry and fishing and has the highest rate of occupational deaths at 22.2 per 100,000 workers, followed by transportation, mining and construction (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). The most common work injuries are related to livestock, falls from surfaces, vehicles and machinery. In Canada, the overall agricultural fatality rate was 11.9 per 100,000 farm population in 2012, between 1990 and 2012 fatality rates declined on average 1.1% per year (CAIR, 2016).

HUMAN RIGHTS

United Nations Human Rights (UNHR, 2018) has 18 International Human Rights Treaties covering racial discrimination; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, children’s rights, all forms of discrimination against women; and rights of persons with disabilities.21 Some countries have not signed onto these treaties because the laws within their own country surpasses the requirements by the UNHR commission.

the indicator description and the ILO estimates and projections methodological note. Data are also available in Stata format via the bulk download facility. 21 A list of the 18 International Human Rights Treaties can be found at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CoreInstruments.aspx

http://www.ilo.org/ilostat-files/Documents/description_ECO_EN.pdf

http://www.ilo.org/ilostat-files/Documents/TEM.pdf

http://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/oracle/webcenter/portalapp/pagehierarchy/Page30.jspx

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CoreInstruments.aspx


38

ANIMAL HEALTH & WELFARE

There are a number of ways to categorize cattle diseases. Reichel and Caraguel (2015) identify old diseases (e.g., rinderpest, foot-and-mouth, bovine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis), diseases of increasing importance (e.g., bovine viral diarrhea, Johne’s disease, bovine neosporosis) and emerging diseases (e.g., Schmallenberg virus, bluetongue virus, Besnoitia besnoiti). Changes in temperature have the potential to shift ranges of disease vectors and the environments where diseases are the most prevalent. Heat stress can result in poor growth performance, reduced conception rates, and higher mortality rates, particularly for breeds that are not acclimatized and have natural adaptations to heat stress (Balamurugan et al., 2017).

Certain diseases have higher prevalence rates associated with certain production systems (e.g., bovine respiratory disease in feedlots) (Johnson and Pendell, 2017; Baptista et al., 2017). Country specific conditions, such as cattle density and herd management, as well as herd specific conditions, such as vaccination programs, influence the prevalence and incidence of various diseases (Richter et al., 2017).

The use of animals for food production brings an ethical responsibility to ensure animal welfare. The One Health Initiative22 notes that human, animal and ecosystem health are linked – making animal health for food production of interest for consumers. And it is recognized that improvements in farm animal health and welfare can support productivity and food safety, leading to economic benefits.

The Office International des Épizooties (OIE; the World Organization for Animal Health) provides guidance on animal health and welfare. According to the OIE Terrestrial Code, “Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives.”23 The five freedoms provide the right to welfare of animals under human control, outlined in Table 10.

Table 10. The Five Freedoms of animal welfare under human control.

Freedom from: Can be address through providing:

Hunger, malnutrition, thirst

Adequate feed and water are provided to meet cattle’s physiological needs. Diet composition is balanced to promote good health and proper body condition. Animal caretakers recognize signs of malnutrition and take appropriate action to maintain condition and correct deficiencies.

Fear and distress Animal caretakers should minimize cattle stress, and recognize and react appropriately to signs of stress. Physical and thermal

discomfort

Pain, injury and disease

Appropriate action to control and treat disease. All veterinary pharmaceuticals and vaccines are used responsibly and in accordance with labeling.

Express normal patterns of behaviour

Good animal welfare is ensured, including the freedom for cattle to express normal patterns of behaviour.

The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code24 provides criteria for measuring animal welfare of beef cattle including: behaviour, morbidity rates, mortality rates, changes in weight and body condition, reproductive efficiency, physical appearance, handling responses, and complications due to routine

22 http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/ 23 http://www.oie.int/en/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-at-a-glance/ 24 Article 7.9.4, available at http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_beef_catthe.htm

http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/

http://www.oie.int/en/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-at-a-glance/


39

procedure management. Most of these items cannot be measured at a global level due to data limitations. However, morbidity, mortality and reproductive efficiency serve as important direct outcomes that can be measured for animal health and welfare (OIE, 2013; Lee and Thomson 2015).

MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY

Global ‘losses’ for cattle, was calculated from USDA FAS data, at 19.3% (2008-17 average) of total slaughter. The USDA loss number peaked in 1996 at 30% and has dropped to 17.5% in 2017 (see Figure 16). There are data limitation in that “losses” are heavily influenced by India and over time different countries are included, skewing the historical comparability.25 When India is excluded from the data, ‘losses’ drop to 9% in 2017.26

The 2017 ‘loss’ number at 17.5% is mostly likely overstated for just accounting for mortality as it is similar to estimates that report 20% of beef produced is lost to morbidity and mortality (Cady, 2016).

There are several global animal health challenges that result in higher environmental impact and decrease animal welfare including: reproductive efficiency (negatively impacted by poor nutrition, venereal diseases and heat stress), respiratory disease (impacts 75% of cattle), emerging diseases and new threats from climate volatility, and zoonotic disease control (Cady, 2016).

An underlying assumption is that there is compliance with national and international regulations on animal health and welfare. Some national guidelines exceed OIE, which is consistent with the concept of continuous improvement.

CATTLE HANDLING

Animal handling is the main aspect of how a producer contributes to animal welfare. Understanding flight zone, general principles of cattle behaviour and responses, as well as the variations that can be seen across breeds and individuals can improve the experience of animal handling for both the livestock and the handler (Herring, 2014).

Brazilian, Chilean and Uruguayan data collected from 2005 to 2012 clearly show that bruising and other damage to beef and pork carcasses can be greatly reduced by training truck drivers and handlers, and by simple improvements in facilities.27

25 When only countries that have complete data since 1996 are included the peak is 31% in 1996 and drops to 17% in 2017. 26 When only countries that have complete data since 1996 are included and India is excluded the peak is 12% in 1996 and drops to 7% in 2017. 27 T. Grandin. 2014. Livestock Handling and Transport, 4th Edition. Chapter 10: Handling and transport of cattle and pigs in South America. CAB International. Date accessed Sept 18, 2018. https://www.grandin.com/inc/livestock.handling.transport.4th.chapter.summaries.html

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

197

5

197

7

197

9

198

1

198

3

198

5

198

7

198

9

199

1

199

3

199

5

199

7

199

9

200

1

200

3

200

5

200

7

200

9

201

1

201

3

201

5

201

7

World Cattle Animal 'Loss'

Loss as % of total Slaughter Loss as % of Inventories

Source: USDA, FAS

Figure 16. Global cattle ‘losses’.

https://www.grandin.com/inc/livestock.handling.transport.4th.chapter.summaries.html


40

CATTLE TRANSPORTATION

Transportation of cattle is one of the most common practices worldwide that is highly visible to consumers and therefore frequently raises public concerns (Butterworth, 2005). Regardless of the type of cattle transported (veal calves, feeders, cull cows, or finished cattle ready for slaughter) the producer must evaluate fitness for transport and help prepare cattle and provide recovery from transport to support cattle health and reduce stress. Cattle haulers should be focused on providing a safe and comfortable ride between destinations (Thomson et al., 2015).

Research and recommended practices around cattle transportation are extremely local in nature.

Climate (temperature and humidity), geography (mountainous, plains), traffic and political boundaries

(boarder crossings) all impact the outcome of how cattle come off the truck in commercial conditions.28

This in turn informs industry practices around truck configuration for air movement, loading densities,

etc. Transportation of animals is one of the most frequently regulated aspects of animal production.

“Understanding regional differences is important when it comes to setting global welfare standards and

harmonizing trade so that these issues do not become barriers to commerce or achieving optimal

animal welfare.” (Schwartzkopf-Genswein and Grandin, 2014).

Schwartzkopf-Genswein and Grandin (2014) summarized cattle transport issues by road focusing on

North America. Gonzalez et al (2012) reported 0.012% became lame, 0.022% non-ambulatory and

0.011% mortality across 6,200 loads of finished, feeder, calf and cull cows. Warrant et al (2010) reported

0.158% lame, 0.01% non-ambulatory, and 0.008% mortality across 1,363 loads of slaughter weight

cattle. The United States National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit reported 0.24% injured and

0.04% mortality across 5,500 animals arriving at packing plants. Canadian studies have found that have

found that 99.95% of long-haul (>400km) and 99.98% of short-haul cattle arrive at their destination

with no signs of injury or stress.29 European studies have reported mortality rates of 0.007% for finished

cattle and 0.027% for calves, 0.039% for dairy cattle during transport. “All of the studies indicated that

unacceptable animal welfare outcomes can be minimized by taking careful consideration of journey

duration, space allowances, ambient temperature, and quality of driving” (Schwartzkopf-Genswein and

Grandin, 2014). The greatest concern continues to be transport of high-risk cattle (e.g. cull cows,

weaned calves) where extra care is required. Communication materials tend to focus on pre-transport

handling, proper use of bedding, avoiding long distances, and maintaining proper load densities.30

Australian studies have found that loading and the initial phase of transport were the most stressful to

livestock. Livestock export by air has consistently delivered very low mortalities and provided a safe

means of moving animals around the world. Perkins et al. (2015) found that mortality rates from 1995

to 2012 had significantly declined, and that heat stress was no longer the primary cause of mortality for

cattle exported to the Middle East (BRD being the primary cause). LiveCorp (2018) reported mortality

rates in live cattle exports have been consistently below 0.5% since 2000.31

28 BCRC, August 2018.Transport http://www.beefresearch.ca/research-topic.cfm/transport-1#can 29 BCRC, August 2018.Transport http://www.beefresearch.ca/research-topic.cfm/transport-1#can 30 BCRC, 2018. Cattle Transportation Facts for Producers.

http://www.beefresearch.ca/files/pdf/Cattle_Transport_Facts_for_Producers_Infographic_Aug2018.pdf 31 LiveCorp Submission. 2018. Review of Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) -Stage 1. Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd. North Sydney. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal/lae/asel/livecorp.pdf

http://www.beefresearch.ca/research-topic.cfm/transport-1#can

http://www.beefresearch.ca/research-topic.cfm/transport-1#can

http://www.beefresearch.ca/files/pdf/Cattle_Transport_Facts_for_Producers_Infographic_Aug2018.pdf

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal/lae/asel/livecorp.pdf


41

PRODUCTION EFFICIENCIES

Animal health impacts performance and consequently resource efficiency. Diseases impact production capacity and reduce the contribution of beef to resilient livelihoods, economic growth, and food/nutrition security (FAO, 2018b). Due to climate change and increasing globalization, there are increasing emerging and re-emerging zoonoses (FAO, 2015). There are also genetic and environmental component related to immune response, disease resistance. For instance, about 80% of the world cattle population is under risk of ticks and tick-borne diseases that impact productivity; yet cattle resistant to ticks in tick prone areas will continue to thrive (Shyma, Gupta and Singh, 2015).

Stressed and chronically unhealthy animals are inefficient in using feed resources for gain. While there are no specific data on welfare implications and feed efficiency, we know that beef production has increased. In 2010, fewer resources were required than the equivalent system in 1977 with 69.9% of animals, 81.4% of feedstuffs, 87.9% of the water, and only 67.0% of the land required to produce the same amount of beef (Capper, 2011). It is recognized that while healthy animals are more efficient; efficient does not equal health and welfare in all cases.

Between 1973 and 2013 FAO cattle carcass weights increased by 13% and buffalo by 14%. The gains in buffalo have occurred since 1985 (10.5%) (see Figure 17). USDA tends to focus on more productive regions that are significant for trade. They show global cattle carcass weights to be above the FAO number with weights increasing 19% between 1973 and 2013. That is an annual rate of 0.48% compared to FAOs 0.32% for cattle and 0.34% for buffalo. There is significant regional variation between production systems (dairy vs. beef-based herds, grass vs. grain finished) (see Figure 18).

The use of technologies has contributed to productivity gains in many regions. See the Technology and Innovation section for more detail about the adoption of these tools.

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

197

3

197

5

197

7

197

9

198

1

198

3

198

5

198

7

198

9

199

1

199

3

199

5

199

7

199

9

200

1

200

3

200

5

200

7

200

9

201

1

201

3

Kg

per

an

imal

Global Carcass Weights

Buffalo Cattle USDA FAS

Source: FAO, USDA

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

Can

ada

USA

Mex

ico

Bra

zil

Arg

enti

na

Par

agu

ay

Co

lom

bia

Ecu

ado

r

Au

stra

lia

New

Ze

ala

nd

Euro

pe

Be

lgiu

m

Ge

rman

y

Ita

ly

Net

he

rlan

ds

Spai

n

Swit

zerl

and

UK

Nam

ibia

Ch

ina

Ind

ia

Wo

rld

Ch

ina

Ind

ia

Euro

pe

Wo

rld

Kg

s p

er

an

ima

lAverage Carcass Weights

BuffaloCattle

Figure 17. Global carcass weights (cattle and buffalo).

Figure 18. Average carcass weights by country in 2013 (cattle and buffalo).


42

Off-take rates (i.e., total cattle slaughter/total cattle inventories) are impacted by age at slaughter (with older cattle resulting in a lower number and younger cattle resulting in a higher number) and reproductive efficiency. There is insufficient data to calculate reproductive efficiency globally.

Off-take rates, calculated with USDA FAS data, have increased from 0.15 in 1960 to 0.24 in 2017. Rates have been steady at 0.24 since 2012 (see Figure 19).

ANTIMICROBIAL USE

Research on AMU is typically done for all livestock. Numbers in this section are for all livestock species unless stated as being for cattle.

Antimicrobials are an essential element of animal health and welfare. There are concerns about the use of antibiotics in subtherapeutic concentrations for disease prevention, contributing to selection pressure and development of resistance. Resistance develops when a microorganism no longer responds to a drug to which it was originally sensitive (WHO, 2014). Maintaining effectiveness of existing antibiotics and antimicrobials in veterinary practice is important for treatment of animal disease, food security, and the livelihood of the approximately 12% of the world’s population that is dependent on livestock (Laxminarayan et al 2015).

Van Boeckel et al. (2015) estimated antimicrobial use (AMU) in food animals in 2010 at 45 mg per kg of animal produced for cattle, compared to 148 mg/kg for chickens and 172 mg/kg for pigs. Global consumption of antimicrobials will increase 67% from an estimated 63,151 ± 1,560 tons in 2010 to a projected 105,596 ± 3,605 tons in 2030. Two-thirds of this increase is expected to come from larger livestock populations and one-third from changes to more intensive production systems in some

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

20

14

20

16

20

18

Off-Take Rate (Total Cattle Slaughter / Total cattle inventories)

Source: USDA, FAS

Figure 20. Antibiotic consumption in livestock, top ten countries (2010 & 2030 (projected)). Source: Van Boeckel et al., 2015

Figure 19. Estimated cattle off-take rates (total slaughter/inventories)


43

countries.32 Countries with both the largest expected increase in animal food production and those expected to shift towards more intensive practices have the largest projected increases. In particular, consumption in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) is expected to nearly double from 2010 to 2030 (e.g., see Figure 20).

Figure 21, from Van Boeckel et al. (2015), provides global AMU consumption for livestock (cattle, chickens, pigs) in AMU per population corrected unit (PCU), which is adjusted for livestock weight that is mg of AMU per kg of meat in 228 countries.33

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) provides an overview of how countries around the world use antimicrobial agents in food-animal production. Key findings in the December 2016 report include:

• A total of 96 of 130 (74%) OIE member countries indicated that they do not authorize antimicrobial agents for growth promotion in animals.

• Twenty-five Member Countries provided a list of antimicrobial agents authorized for growth promotion, in which tylosin and bacitracin were most frequently quoted. Colistin was mentioned by 10 of 25 Member Countries.

• A total of 89 of 130 OIE Member Countries (68%) submitted to the OIE their quantities on the use of antimicrobial agents in animals for years ranging from 2010 to 2015.

o Tetracyclines and macrolides were the most commonly reported antimicrobial agents used; differences however, were observed between OIE Regions. Tetracyclines and macrolides accounted for more than 60% of reported antibiotic use in the Americas; but only 22% in Asia.

o The main route of administration in animals was oral.

There are significant gaps in surveillance and a lack of standards for methodology, data sharing and coordination (WHO, 2014). Data gaps and inconsistency in how data is collected between countries makes it difficult to determine use of antimicrobials in livestock for food production. Improvements in global surveillance programs and coordination would assist efforts to monitor use.

32 For cattle, population density was used to determine extensive versus intensive production practices with a threshold of five cattle per kilometer as being intensive. Livestock density for 2030 was based on projected meat consumption. In the absence of reliable global estimates, the same proportion of extensive/intensive production in 2010 was maintained for 2030. 33 These volumes include ionophores, which are not medically important, as they are included in national databases.

Figure 21. Global antimicrobial consumption in livestock, average standard deviation of estimates of milligrams per population corrected unit (PCU). Source: Van Boeckel et al., 2015


44

Resistance

The World Health Organization (WHO) 2014 Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance found very high rates of resistance in all WHO regions in common bacteria such as Escherichia coli,34 Kiebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus that cause common health infections (e.g. urinary tract infections, wound infections, bloodstream infections and pneumonia).

Categories

The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed criteria to rank antimicrobials according to their importance in human medicine (Collignon et al., 2016). The WHO list of critically important antimicrobials was developed for use in developing risk management strategies related to antimicrobial use in food production animals. There is growing consensus that specific medically important classes of antimicrobials, in particular the critically important antimicrobials classified by WHO with highest priority for human medicine, should be restricted (Laxminarayan et al., 2015). The 2016 updated rankings allow the agriculture sector and regulatory agencies to focus risk management efforts on drugs that are the most important to human medicine. Specifically, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, and third-generation cephalosporins and any potential use of glycopeptides and carbapenems need to be addressed due to their importance in human medicine (Collignon et al., 2016).

There are significant differences between the WHO categorizations and how individual countries categorize antimicrobials.

Use of Antimicrobials

After 50 years of antimicrobial use as growth promoters, there is substantial variability in the response depending on: species, age, genetic potential, hygiene and management conditions. Although studies done before the 1980s reported improvement in feed efficiency and growth rates as high as 5–15% in pigs, poultry, and cattle, studies after the 2000s (in the USA, Denmark, and Sweden) point to more modest effects of less than 1% improvement or no statistically significant improvement, except for nursery pigs where a 5% improvement in growth rate has been reported. A common explanation is that the growth response to antimicrobials is less important when nutrition, hygiene practices, the genetic potential of animals, and the health status of animal herd and flock are optimized (Laxminarayan et al., 2015). Low risk cattle raised in small pens have been found to have similar growth performance, health status and carcass characteristics to cattle fed subtherapeutic antimicrobials (Stanford et al. 2015).

Economic Impact

OECD (2015) reports modest losses of production and meat value after a ban on antimicrobial growth promoters worldwide (Laxminarayan et al. 2015). This is in contrast to a U.S. report indicating the direct net return value of metaphylaxis (administering antimicrobials to groups of animals to prevent disease) to the U.S. fed cattle industry estimated at $532 million per year (Dennis et al. 2018). Beef producer surplus losses were estimated at $1.8 billion when eliminating metaphylaxis (Dennis et al. 2018).

34 While E.coli is a good indicator organism for AMR, because it’s found everywhere, and bacteria can share AMR genes with each other. Antimicrobial therapy is rarely used to treat human foodborne E.coli infections, because it actually increases the risk of hemolytic uremic syndrome (red blood cell damage that can lead to kidney failure). “Preventing STEC infections is of particular importance as there is no treatment other than careful fluid management and supportive care, and further, antimicrobial therapy is not usually recommended due to the potential for increased risk of HUS (59, 210).” https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/981c8e0a-6a5b-45d1-a04d-1934463a666c/NACMCF-STEC-2018Aug.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/981c8e0a-6a5b-45d1-a04d-1934463a666c/NACMCF-STEC-2018Aug.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/981c8e0a-6a5b-45d1-a04d-1934463a666c/NACMCF-STEC-2018Aug.pdf?MOD=AJPERES


45

Consumers would likely need to pay more for changes in management and infrastructure (Stanford et al. 2015).

Potential Consequences

While risk of resistance is expected to decline with a ban on antimicrobials, there can be negative outcomes of such bans. “Denmark phased out subtherapeutic use in livestock production between 1994 and 1999. Since 2001, there has been a drop in the use of Medium Importance antimicrobials that are rarely used in humans anymore. The use of High Importance antimicrobials has increased. Without the use of growth promoting antimicrobials, the need for antimicrobials that are important to human health increased. In addition, there has been no clear trend towards decreased antimicrobial resistance in Danish cattle or beef” (BCRC, 2018). Negative outcomes of removing subtherapeutic antibiotics could include: increased incidence of enteric diseases in food-producing animals; reduced productivity and increased mortality losses; and increased use of antibiotics for therapeutic purposes with greater relevance to treatment of serious infections in humans that have no or limited alternatives.

Management

Alternatives to antimicrobials include: nutritional adaptation, hygiene, housing, vaccines, enzymes, environmental adaptation, transport conditions, animal handling, and preconditioning. Management options should be considered across all livestock production systems and practices to responsibly use antimicrobials and reduce the potential of resistance. See the GRSB Statement on Antimicrobial Stewardship for more details.35

It should be recognized that there is significant research underway on this topic that will contribute to future discussions.

35 Available at https://grsbeef.org/resources/Documents/AntimicrobialStewardship/GRSBAntimicrobialStewardship-FINAL.pdf.

https://grsbeef.org/resources/Documents/AntimicrobialStewardship/GRSBAntimicrobialStewardship-FINAL.pdf

https://grsbeef.org/resources/Documents/AntimicrobialStewardship/GRSBAntimicrobialStewardship-FINAL.pdf


46

FOOD

Food safety is ensured through the development, adoption, documentation, maintenance and, where applicable, third-party validation of practices throughout the value chain. This includes the prompt resolution of all cases of food contamination.

Prevention of drug residues from meat is critical from the one health perspective and impact on humans. Reports of drug residues negatively impact consumer confidence in food safety standards and enforcement of those standards within industry. There are several factors that can influence the half-life of a drug, and therefore affect the withdrawal time, including route of drug administration, volume administered at each injection site, drug formulation and disease (Smith, 2015).

Beef quality is ensured through the adoption, documentation, maintenance and validation of management systems throughout the value chain. All reasonable efforts are taken to ensure the quality of beef and co-products to participants further down the value chain.

NUTRITION OF BEEF

Recent research suggests that dietary advice to limit red meat is unnecessarily restrictive and may have unintended heath consequences. As nutrient-rich high-quality protein, red meats play an important role in meeting essential nutrient needs. Beef increases the availability of both the quantity and quality of protein in the diet.

Health Impacts of Beef

Large population studies in Europe and North America has reported no association between intake of unprocessed red meat and any cause of death, including cardiovascular disease or cancer. Pooled data from 1.2 million participants spanning over 20 countries found that consuming 100 g/day of unprocessed red meat was not associated with cardiovascular disease. Large meta-analysis utilizing worldwide data show no association between unprocessed red meat and coronary heart disease. Randomized controlled trials show the effect of lean red meat on LDL-cholesterol is no different than white meat (Binnie et al. 2014).

Studies have found that adults who ate red meat more often also tend to eat vegetables more often compared to those who ate red meat less often. Those who ate red meat more often tended to have lower body mass index and a smaller waist circumference. In addition, those who ate red meat more often were less likely to have hypertension. This is consistent with research that shows higher protein intake may help promote satiety and body weight management (Binnie et al. 2014).

Excess energy intake can contribute to overweight/obesity, it is important to meet dietary protein recommendations and higher intake for at risk groups, within energy needs (Phillips et al. 2015). Increased dietary protein has been shown to promote healthy body weight and composition, in part by increasing satiety, improved vitality and stamina by supporting adequate muscle mass and strength. The quantity of protein to promote improved weight management is between 1.2 and 1.6 g protein per kg per day (McNeill, 2014).

Intake of dietary protein moderately higher than current recommended levels may be beneficial for some people such as older adults (who have lower energy intakes and specific nutrient needs) and physically active individuals. Moderately higher protein intake may help reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and sarcopenia (Phillips et al. 2015, Hallberg et al. 2018, Noakes and Windt, 2016).


47

Micronutrients

There is no strict definition of “nutrient density” or “nutrient dense” food. In general, “nutrient-dense foods provide vitamins, minerals, and other substances that may have positive health effect, with relatively few calories. They are lean or low in solid fates, and minimize or exclude added solid fats, added sugars, and added refined starches, as these add calories but few essential nutrients or dietary fiber.” (Phillips et al. 2015)

Beef is nutrient dense providing 14 essential nutrients including zinc, bioavailable iron, selenium, potassium and a range of B-vitamins including niacin, riboflavin, thiamine and vitamin B12. These nutrients are all essential for optima health throughout the lifecycle. Iron and zinc found in red meat is more bioavailable than in alternative food sources. Red meat can enhance the absorption of these important minerals. Iron plays vital role in children’s early cogitative development, normal energy metabolism and the immune system (Binnie et al. 2014). Heme iron found in animal products is better absorbed than non-heme iron (McNeill, 2014). Zine is essential for healthy immune system, wound healing, children’s growth and reproductive development. Inadequate intake of iron and zinc remain a concern for some population and subgroups even within developed countries. Selenium acts as an antioxidant and is necessary for immune system function; while potassium plays a role in blood pressure regulation. B-vitamins contribute to nervous system function and in releasing energy from foods (Binnie et al. 2014).

White and Hall (2017) found that while removing animals from U.S. agriculture would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (28% reduction of US agriculture emissions, 2.6% reduction in US total emissions), it would also create a food supply incapable of supporting the U.S. population’s nutritional requirements. Specifically, essential micronutrients rather than macronutrients become a challenge when plant-based diets are scaled up from the individual to an entire population. This supports the role of farmed animals in generating foods with higher density of micronutrients.

Nutrient issues of concern include iron deficiency and low omega-3 intakes. Meat can contribute to intakes of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids for those with little or no oily fish consumption. Diet and lifestyle related contributors to the global burden of disease include high body mass index, high fasting blood glucose, childhood underweight, physical inactivity, suboptimal breastfeeding and drug use. A diet high in red meat ranked the lowest in a list of 43 factors contributing to the global burden of disease. (Binnie et al. 2014).

Consumption of Red Meat is within recommended guidelines

There is a common misconception that red meat, and beef in particular, is consumed in amounts that exceed recommended levels (McNeill, 2014). Historic recommended daily amount for protein at 0.95g/kg/day for children and 0.8 g/kg/day for adults are known to be imprecise and potentially under-estimated as they focus on minimum requirements to avoid deficiency not optimal levels (McNeill, 2014). Higher protein intakes of 1.1 to 1.5 kg/kg/day are required to support muscle and bone maintenance and help aging (Binnie et al. 2014). Overall, there are a wide range of protein intakes that are considered healthy (Phillips et al. 2015).

Recommendations are to eat at least two meals (ideally three) of 25-30 g of high-quality protein from naturally nutrient-rich foods for optimal health. However, measurements of protein in food sources tend to over-estimate protein quality, specifically from plant proteins. Consequently, people consuming primarily plant-based protein may not actually be meeting their dietary requirements for protein (Binnie et al. 2014).


48

The average red meat intakes in developed countries are moderate and in line with current recommendations. An average of 110 g of red meat (pork, beef, veal and sheep) is available for daily consumption in developed countries, based on national statistics. These are likely over-estimated given plate waste, trimming and weight loss in cooking. At 110 g this is within the 142 g per day average recommendation for meat and meat alternatives (Binnie et al. 2014).

Rather than restrict or eliminating red meat from dietary patterns, which would be expected to have negative consequences with reduced intake of high-quality protein and essential nutrients, consumers should be encouraged to select lean cuts of red meat and wide variety of nutrient rich foods (McNeill, 2014).

Upcycling Quantity and Quality of Protein

Protein is one of the most limiting nutrients in our environment. Meats are protein-dense, nutrient-dense foods that are not easily replaced with plant-based foods. All plants are limiting in one or more of the five essential amino acids (EAAs e.g. lysine, methionine, tryptophan, threonine, and leucine) (Layman, 2018).

In the food-feed debate, cattle are acting as “upcyclers” in our food system; upgrading low quality proteins found in human inedible plants and plant by-products into a high-quality protein and essential micronutrients, including iron, zinc and B vitamins. Beef provides a more complete source of dietary protein with greater biological value than plant sources which contain insufficient levels of indispensable amino acids (Baber et al. 2018).

Mottet et al. (2017) that for every 0.6 kg of edible protein in the feed cattle eat, they return 1 kg of edible protein back to humanity. Meaning cattle are producing 66% more edible protein for humans, then they are using – without them this protein wouldn’t exist. Additionally, Baber et al. (2018) shows this ratio is larger when the higher quality of protein in beef (specifically the bioavailability and essential amino acid profile) is taken into account. Beef is also an upcycler of the other essential micronutrients like vitamin B12 with beef increasing the amount of vitamin B12 available to humans.

When cattle are consuming human edible feeds, such as corn grain, they are still upgrading plant proteins to more complete and digestible proteins for humans. For example, the digestible indispensable amino acid score of beef is 2.6 times greater than corn grain (Ertl et al., 2016), as the protein in beef is more bioavailable and contains a balance of amino acids essential to the human diet.

Ertl et al. (2016) found that protein scores were between 1.4 and 1.87 times higher for animal products than for human-edible plant protein (depending on the method used). The value of the protein in the animal products (milk and beef) were 2.15 times higher than in human-edible plant proteins. The ability of livestock to upgrade the quality of protein available for human consumption is substantial and should not be dismissed. Bohrer (2017) found that consideration needs to be made when replacing meat in the diet with nonmeat foods, because most non-meat foods contain only 20-60% protein density of meat.

Baber et al. (2018) found that the beef production system is a net contributor to the human protein supply and likely a more efficient converter than nonruminant systems. The cow-calf sector consumes the least human edible protein and had the greatest efficiency, positively contributing to meeting human protein requirements. While methane emissions are also greatest from the cow-calf sector this trade-off between the nutritional benefits and environment must be kept in context (Baber et al. 2018).

Nutrition and the Environment

Much of the recent interest in sustainability regarding food is in response to a growing world population of increasing affluence that will lead to growth in global demand for food and animal protein


49

specifically. Increases in food demand have led to concerns that we will be unable to meet the nutritional needs of future generations without causing serious environmental damage or exceeding the resource-carrying capacity of earth (Foley et al., 2011). However, the focus cannot be on producing more calories; but to create healthy diets (with no nutritional deficiencies) with the least environmental impact (Layman 2018).

Discussions related to the sustainability of our food system often include arguments to reduce or abandon animal proteins with a particular focus on beef, due to its higher environmental footprint relative to other foods (Eshel et al., 2016; Clark and Tilman, 2017). While environmental footprints (e.g., water and carbon footprints) are useful tools to benchmark the sustainability of an individual food industry or commodity, they do not capture all the relevant components of a sustainable food system, including:

• Cattle consumption of forages/roughages (high-fiber plant feeds) grown on lands unsuitable for cultivation, expands the overall land base available for food production (CAST, 1999).

• Cattle consumption of by-products, from the food, fiber, and biofuels industries; that might otherwise go to waste, mean cattle are enhancing the sustainability of other industries (e.g., distillers’ grains from the corn ethanol industry, cottonseed from cotton production, and beet pulp from sugar beet production) (CAST, 1999).

• Integration of cattle in annual crop systems (e.g., grazing corn stalks/winter wheat) can have environmental and socioeconomic sustainability benefits (Sulc et al., 2014).

• Because of the unique ability of cattle to convert human inedible feedstuffs into high quality human edible protein, they fill an important role in our food system (Oltjen et al., 1996; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016).

• Quality of protein in the human diet (matching amino acid intake to requirements) is enhanced through cattle.

One of the costs of the upcycling service provided by cattle is the production of methane from the rumen. While researchers around the world are exploring ways to practically and cost-effectively further reduce enteric methane emissions, it is important to recognize that methane production is a trade-off of the upcycling service provided by cattle.

Functional Units that account for Nutrient Content

Emission intensities can change dramatically when the nutrient content of meat replaces the mass of meat as the functional unit. Life cycle assessments (LCAs) typically report the Kg CO2-eq per unit of food produced. McAuliffe, Takahashi and Lee (2018) found that when emissions are evaluated based on absolute level of nutrient scores using recommended daily intake (RDI) that beef produced from forage fed cattle was the most favourable product. When three additional nutrients were included (vitamin B12, Se and Zn) both beef production systems became more favourable than the comparisons for lamb, chicken and pork. This is notable as vegan diets are often deficient in B12 and Zinc.

BY-PRODUCTS

Cattle provide more than beef. By-products include all parts of a live animal that are not part of the dressed carcass including: edible offal (variety meats), inedible offal, hides and skins, blood, fats, and tallow. They represent about 44% of the liveweight of cattle. The largest and most valuable item is the hide. The Responsible Leather Roundtable (https://responsibleleather.org/) started in 2017 and brings together 420 stakeholders from the Textile Exchange and leather industries.

https://responsibleleather.org/


50

By-products from beef animals provide raw materials used in pharmaceutical, cosmetic, household, and industrial products. For example, hides are used for clothing, boots, and upholstery; intestines have been used for food containers. The first recorded use of a cleaning compound was soap made from animal fat and lye (Marti, Johnson and Mathews, 2011). In recent years, animal fats and tallow (mostly inedible tallow) have been used as biodiesel feedstock (Centrec Consulting Group, LLC 2014). The sale of by-products contributes to the value and profitability of the meat processing industry supporting higher prices for livestock producers (Marti, Johnson and Mathews, 2011).

FOOD LOSS AND WASTE

One-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year. This is unacceptable in an age where almost a billion people go hungry. Food is lost or wasted throughout the supply chain, from initial agricultural production down to final household consumption. Food that is spilled or spoiled before it reaches its final product or retail stage is called food loss. This may be due to problems in harvesting, storage, packing, transport, infrastructure or market/price mechanisms, as well as institutional and legal frameworks. Food that is fit for human consumption but is not consumed because it is left to spoil or discarded by retailers or consumers is called food waste. This may be because of rigid or misunderstood date marking rules, improper storage, buying or cooking practices.

Food losses/waste represent a waste of resources used in production such as land, water, energy, and inputs. Producing food that will not be consumed leads to unnecessary CO2 emissions in addition to loss of economic value of the food produced. The FAO (2011) estimates this economic value at US$750 billion annually. On a per-capita basis, much more food is wasted in the industrialized world than in developing countries (see Table 11). FAO estimates that the per capita food waste by consumers in Europe and North-America is 95-115 kg/year, while in sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia is only 6-11 kg/year.

The causes of food losses and waste in low-income countries are mainly connected to financial, managerial and technical limitations in harvesting techniques, storage and cooling facilities in difficult climatic conditions, infrastructure, packaging and marketing systems. Given that many smallholder farmers in developing countries live on the margins of food insecurity, a reduction in food losses could have an immediate and significant impact on their livelihoods. The food supply chains in developing countries need to be strengthened by encouraging small farmers to organize and to diversify and scale-up their production and marketing. Investments in infrastructure, transportation, food industries and packaging industries are also required.

The causes of food losses and waste in medium/high-income countries mainly relate to consumer behaviour as well as to a lack of coordination between different actors in the supply chain. Farmer-buyer sales agreements may contribute to quantities of farm crops being wasted. Food can be wasted due to quality standards, which reject food items not perfect in appearance. At the consumer level, insufficient purchase planning and expiring ‘best-before-dates’ also cause large amounts of waste, in combination with the careless attitude of those consumers who can afford to waste food. Food waste in industrialized countries can be reduced by raising awareness among food industries, retailers, and consumers. There is a need to find good and beneficial use for safe food that is presently thrown away.

The exact causes of food loss vary throughout the world and are very much dependent on the specific conditions and local situation in a given country. In broad terms, food losses will be influenced by crop production choices and patterns, internal infrastructure and capacity, marketing chains and channels


51

for distribution, and consumer purchasing and food use practices. Irrespective of the level of economic development and maturity of systems in a country, food losses should be kept to a minimum.

Figure 22. Food Losses – Meat (FAO, 2011)

For meat and meat products (Figure 22): losses and waste in industrialized regions are most severe at the end of the food supply chain, explained by a high per capita meat consumption combined with large waste proportions by retailers and consumers, especially in Europe, North America and Oceania. Waste at the consumption level makes up approximately half of total meat losses and waste. The relatively low levels of waste during agricultural production and post-harvest handling and storage can be explained by relatively low losses due to animal mortality during breeding and transportation to slaughter. Losses in all developing regions are distributed quite equally throughout the food supply chain, but notable is the relatively high losses in agricultural production in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is explained by high animal mortality, caused by frequent livestock diseases (e.g., pneumonia, digestive diseases, and parasites) (FAO, 2011).

Table 11. Food Waste Country Agricultural

Production Postharvest handling &

storage

Processing &

packaging

Distribution: Supermarket

Retail

Consumption Total

Russia 3.1% 0.7% 5% 4% 11% 23.8%

North America & Oceania

3.5% 1.0% 5% 4% 11% 24.5%

Industrialized Asia 2.9% 0.6% 5% 6% 8% 22.5%

Sub-Saharan Africa 15% 0.7% 5% 7% 2% 29.7%

North Africa, West & Central Asia

6.6% 5% 9% 10% 4% 34.6%

South & Southeast Asia

5.1% 0.3% 5% 7% 4% 21.4%

Latin America 5.3% 1.1% 5% 5% 6% 22.4%

Source: FAO, 2011


52

Consumer Labels: A help or hindrance?

Consumer confusion over date labels is a significant factor contributing to food waste, a report by the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic and others concludes (NRDC, 2013). Thirty-seven percent of 1,029 consumers in a survey by the group said they always or usually discard food close to or past the date on the label, and 84% do so at least occasionally, according to the findings. About 40% of the food produced in the United States goes uneaten, resulting in 62.5 million tons of wasted food each year (NRDC, 2013).

Many people throw away food once the date passes because they think the date is an indicator of safety, but for most foods the date is a manufacturer’s best guess as to how long the product will be at its peak quality. Thirty-six percent of those surveyed thought date labels were federally regulated; however, infant formula is the only product where date labels are regulated.36

Methodology

The FAO (2014) report on Food Wastage Footprint: Full-cost Accounting outlines the methodological approach for full-cost accounting (FCA) of food loss and food waste (“food wastage”). Based on the best knowledge and techniques available, FCA measures and values the externality costs associated with the environmental impacts of food wastage. The FCA framework incorporates several elements: market-based valuation of the direct financial costs, non-market valuation of lost ecosystem services, and well-being valuation to assess the social costs associated with natural resource degradation related to agriculture (FAO, 2014). The FAO (2014) report includes a preliminary assessment of the full costs of food wastage on a global scale. In addition to the US$1 trillion of economic costs per year, environmental costs reach around US$700 billion and social costs around US$900 billion. The report found that environmental and social costs of food wastage include:

• 3.5 Gt CO2e of greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the social cost of carbon, these are estimated to cause US$394 billion in damages per year.

• Increased water scarcity, particularly for dry regions and seasons. Globally, this is estimated to cost US$164 billion per year.

• Risks to biodiversity including the impacts of pesticide use, nitrate and phosphorus eutrophication, pollinator losses and fisheries overexploitation are estimated to cost US$32 billion per year.

• Increased risk of conflict due to soil erosion, estimated to cost US$396 billion per year.

• Loss of livelihoods due to soil erosion, estimated to cost US$333 billion per year.

• Adverse health effects due to pesticide exposure, estimated to cost US$153 billion per year

The report specifies that further research should focus on specific contexts, at national or supply chain level; however, the FCA framework can serve as a template for more targeted research to inform mitigation policies (FAO, 2014).

36 Meatingplace May 13, 2016. Confusion over date labels as big factor in food waste.

http://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Consumer-Perceptions-on-Date-Labels_May-2016.pdf


53

TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

Technology and innovation should enhance the ability of the beef industry to adapt to internal and external challenges. Increased efficiency through education, partnerships and shared knowledge, and experiences should be underpinned by scientific evidence that ensures environmentally sound and socially responsible beef production, while allowing and improving economic viability. It should be recognized that technology and innovation is an ‘enabler’ for other advances.

Cattle are selected and managed to continually optimize available resources and suit their environment, while meeting market demand and consumer preferences. Producers should have the freedom to utilize animal health products (vaccines, parasite control), productive technologies (artificial insemination, genetics, hormones), and equipment (RFID tags, remote sensors) as appropriate for their situation, when they are legal within their country.

Better genetics and management practices have reduced the risk of crop failure and contributed to higher productivity on semi-arid land. But this does not mean all crop production in semi-arid areas are sustainable (Clay et al. 2014). In these cases, adoption of technology can drive further land use change.

There are significant productivity gains that can occur in pastoral, low stocking rate and mixed production systems through grazing management, reproductive efficiency gains, reducing the age to slaughter and increase offtake rates, heavier carcass weights. Lobato et al. (2014) reported higher profits, higher employment rates, use of by-products, efficiency use of machinery, labour and other benefits which make adoption of technology and innovation frequently a triple win addressing environmental, social and economic issues.

Many technologies, even though used for decades (e.g., antimicrobials, hormones), are being questioned by consumers and viewed as unsafe. Removing these technologies and innovation potentially limit further advances and improvement in the environmental, social, and economic aspects of beef production.

Responding to Climate Change

A longer, warmer growing season predicted by climate models for Northern climates will increase access to crops like corn and soybeans. Higher yielding grains have the potential to reduce the costs of gain during beef finishing. However, negative impacts such as water scarcity, reduced yields of traditional crops for the region and pasture productivity would also occur. It should be remembered that grasslands provide services that are difficult to quantify, and extreme climate events may provide the trigger that converts an apparently sustainable system to a non-sustainable system (Clay et al. 2014).

For beef production, where an estimated 78-90% of the ration over the lifetime of an animal comes from roughage (e.g., grass, leaves, fodder crops, crop residuals) (Mottet et al 2017, Gerber et al. 2015), reduced productivity on these acres will negatively impact profitability, particularly in the cow/calf and backgrounding sectors. Mitigation and adaptation by adopting drought tolerant species and focusing on increasing soil carbon which improves resilience by reducing the negative yield from both flooding and drought on pasture are encouraged.

Shifts in weather patterns have the potential to spread diseases into previously unseen areas (e.g. ticks, parasites) and have cattle exposed to diseases that they had no immunity to.


54

Regulations

There is ongoing debate about how certain technologies should be used. Some countries have implemented regulations to limit use of some technologies, notably growth enhancing technologies (GET). In other countries where they are not regulated, it is difficult to assess how industry can use them responsibly and in a sustainable manner. While important, measuring regulatory limitations to various technology and innovation is outside the scope of this report.

ECONOMIC

Economic sustainability is the ability of a system to maintain productivity in spite of a major disturbance, as well as slow shifts in consumer preferences (adapted from Conway, 1985). Such a definition focuses on the resilience of the industry as a whole and the ability to adapt to changing market conditions. In terms of the probability of persistence into some future moment in time - the best proxy is the past, and as such we will be relying primarily on historical evidence in this analysis as a basis for how the beef industry might respond to major disturbances (e.g., disease outbreak, market shocks, weather impacts, changing consumer preferences) in the future.

It is recognized that the beef industry has operations of various sizes and structures with single or multiple producers of various ages that are profitable. One type of operation is not better or worse than another and this diversity in the industry provides a measure of sustainability as each operation handles market shocks differently.

Producer profitability addresses the supply side of the beef industry. In any market, there must be both a buyer and a seller. Consumer demand is the ultimate driver for the long-term development of the cattle industry. A sustainable cattle industry has to evolve with the consumer market and respond to changes in consumer preferences. Failure to do so leaves an industry without a market, and without a market an industry will eventually cease to exist.

Continuous Improvement

The beef industry is a small margin business. Margins are not anticipated to increase continually over time, nor are producers expected to be profitable each year. Continuous improvement requires the ability to constantly adapt to the market conditions in which a producer operates. Higher input costs may require not just productivity improvements, but changes in marketing practices to ensure the type of product demanded is the product supplied. Failure to respond to changing consumer preferences can result in a shrinking market share, and reduced consumption.

Indicators

The indicators being assessed in this study are intended not to be a complete list of economic conditions evaluated by an operation or even industry, but rather the key data points that drive the industry. Individual countries will need to address their own analysis, recognizing most have data limitations.

Global Beef Demand

Global protein demand has been nothing short of explosive over the last decade, with multiple rising stars on the production side (e.g., Brazil, India, Mexico, Paraguay). This unprecedented increase, driven by a growing middle class that spurred consumption, primarily in China, is not expected to continue for most commodities – beef and dairy are the exceptions. The OECD-FAO Agriculture Outlook for 2018-27 is forecasting that global per capita beef consumption will remain steady with demand driven by population growth – resulting in annual consumption increasing by 9 Mt in the coming decade


55

compared to 6 Mt in the last decade (OECD/FAO, 2018). In addition, a portion of the increased production will come from dairy cows as demand for dairy products sees accelerated growth over the next decade. Lower feed grain prices will be supportive to further expansion in animal protein as profit margins improve. However, larger supplies and competition is anticipated to keep pressure on prices.

Beef consumption is forecast to grow significantly over the next five years in MENA (Middle East, North Africa), Sub-Saharan Africa, China and other Asia. These markets cannot supply their demand from domestic production and are expected to increase imports. With multiple exporting countries expanding production there will be competition as they fight for market share.

Producer Economic Viability

Producer viability refers to producer’s financial ability and incentive to continue producing a product. Profitability provides the signal for producers to maintain or grow the business. The entire beef supply chain (cow-calf, feedlot, and packer) is rarely profitable all at the same time. This is partly due to the fact that when feeder prices are high and supporting cow-calf profitability, the input cost is high for feedlots, squeezing the margins. Similarly, when fed cattle prices are high, supporting feedlot margins, the input cost is also high for packers, again squeezing the margins. Recognizing this dynamic, the following analysis focuses on long-term profitability of the cow/calf and finishing sectors. Producers are, in general, price takers. Therefore, profitability is often impacted by how producers control their cost of production.

Short, Medium and Long-term Profitability

The theory of the firm would suggest that over the short-term a firm may continue to operate as long as variable (cash) costs are covered. If these costs are not covered they will cease to operate. Over the long term both variable and fixed costs must be covered. However, agri benchmark37 has found beef operations around the world continue to operate for a certain time, even when cash costs are not covered. Cow/calf producers frequently only cover short (cash) and medium (depreciation) term costs. Long term opportunity costs are only covered in high price years38. Assuming an economically rational behaviour, farmers should give up those enterprises at least in the long-run – the latest at the moment of farm succession. In many countries, this does not occur quickly and only with generational change and farmers – often young farmers – continue beef production. Obviously, there are a number of reasons for this including: opportunity costs particularly for labour not being considered, lifestyle, other farm income including government payments, off-farm income, and increasing land values. All of these factors slow down structural change in the sector.

Mclean et al. (2014) put forth eight criteria for an economically sustainable beef operation. They note that farming is capital intensive (land and infrastructure) and it is possible to continue operating a long

37 agri benchmark is a global, non-profit and non-political network of agricultural economists, advisors, producers, multi-disciplined farm experts and specialists. They provide a consistent methodology to compare production systems, cost of production and profitability around the world. This is a challenge given the wide variety of different production practices include: grain-finished, silage, and grass-finished beef that range from less than two years to over four years to get a calf to finish weight. The cattle and sheep network has 34 member countries, covering 75 percent of world beef production with 170 typical farms and 15 years of historical data. It is recognized that this data is ‘typical’ and not representative, given the small sample size and data limitations.

38 http://www.agribenchmark.org/beef-and-sheep.html

http://www.agribenchmark.org/beef-and-sheep.html


56

time by eroding equity. This is possible when producers fail to distinguish between permanent capital and working capital. This raises financial risks and discourages new entrants.

In the highly competitive feedlot sector, long-term margins are frequently driven to zero, or close to that while staying marginally positive, in many countries (agri benchmark, 2017).

Opportunity costs

In several countries, farmers are not considering the opportunity cost in decision making, particularly for labour. They focus on cash costs (e.g., Brazil, Spain). The producers have chosen the lifestyle and therefore the opportunity cost, and potentially earning more elsewhere is not relevant (e.g., Australia, Canada). The target of the farmer is not covering opportunity costs, but a remuneration of the capital and the work to ensure an existence worthy of human dignity for themselves and their family (e.g., Switzerland). Some countries have a heavy reliance on the unpaid labour of the retired generation.

Non-monetary benefits of being a beef producer

The choice to be a beef producer is partly social and the lifestyle that comes with the farm as long as there is enough cash to put food on the table. It provides good conditions for children to grow up and in many cases allows one parent to stay at home. The tradition of family being on the farm is a draw, as is living in rural areas. There is desirability in the succession of land ownership, as well as the ability to be one’s own boss and having a way of life that provides flexibility.

Other Farm Incomes including government payments

In general, cow/calf operations tend to be part of mixed operations that have other commodities grown (e.g., cash crops, beef finishing, biogas, coupled and decoupled payments as well as ecosystem service payments, etc.). Multi-enterprise operations mean that beef only needs to cover part of the labour expenses. Enterprise diversification has been a strong risk management tool historically. In some landscapes where arable farming is not possible, beef cow herds and cattle farming will continue to be an important component of the land use system.

Vertical and horizontal integration has supported the competitiveness of farms. A lack of positive returns is also encouraging consolidation in some countries, while others are anticipating decreasing farm size moving forward as farms are split through succession with multiple children. In these cases, the ownership of the land is often separate from the use of the land due to a higher proportion of leasing.

Off-Farms Income

It is not uncommon for beef operations to have off-farm income sources from non-agricultural businesses. In fact, in some countries it’s more common for wives or other family members to work off-farm. Off-farm income can be key for young producers as it provides a reliable income stream for getting loan approval. Off-farm income accounted for an average of 37% of net cash income to Australian specialist beef cattle farms with an annual range between 25% and 60%. The shifting of family labour to alternative uses off-farm is also likely to be in response to the aforementioned high opportunity costs of labour – family members, especially if well-educated and skilled, can often earn more per hour off the farm.

Land Values and debt levels

Appreciation in land values can increase producer wealth faster than profits. There is no reason to sell land due to an inability to make a return farming when the appreciation from the land investment is covering both cash and opportunity costs as well as providing a better return compared to off-farm


57

investment alternatives. Land appreciation contributes around 80% of the long-term wealth generation of Australian farmers. As land values appreciate producers are able to increase total dollars of debt.

CONCLUSION

Production systems have developed in various regions of the world to suit their environmental conditions and feed resources. There tends to be a range of cost of production in each country and hence for each production system leaving no one production system with a clear low-cost advantage. While grass-fed systems tend to have lower cost than grain-fed systems, increasing land and labour costs in countries that dominate grass-fed production has narrowed that gap over the last decade. Similarly, various beef breeds are used throughout the world, but there is no single superior breed that performs in all environments. The breeds most suited to the environment (including the market conditions) and management practices tend to dominate in each region.

There are a variety of beef cost of production estimates around the world, from low cost to high cost. This creates the typical upward sloping supply curve (see Figure 23).

Figure 23. Beef Supply Curve (agri benchmark Result Data base 2018)

Production in each country is limited by the availability of natural resources and intensification of production practices. Not all systems are suited to intensification. Recognizing and working within the limitations of the environment is critical to sustainable beef production.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

810

900

180

90

450

360

270

720

630

540

Share of agri benchmark countries in global production

UACO, MX

RU

Rest of world

25 %

agri benchmark

countries75 %

ES, AR

US, CA

IT

ID

DE

TN

UK

MA, ATCN

NA

ZA

PE, BW

PY, KZ BR

AU

NZ

SEUY

FR

CZ

PL

IE


58

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTIONS AND IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES (GERBER ET AL. 2015)


59

Overview of context, issues and options in addressing environmental interactions in beef production systems.


60

APPENDIX 2: SOLUTIONS TO DEFORESTATION IN BEEF SUPPLY CHAINS

The beef industry has played a role in reducing deforestation in South America through zero deforestation sourcing programs, sustainable intensification, and crop-livestock-forestry systems.

Sourcing Programs

Private supply chain actors have introduced eco-labeling, certification, and sustainable sourcing measures to combat deforestation. Some examples include:

• The MPF-TAC Agreement, in 2009 the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office in Pará state (Ministério Público Federal MPF‐Pará) and NGOs pressured the beef and leather retailers and meatpacking companies, to reduce deforestation associated with cattle production. The MPF‐Pará sued ranchers who cleared forest illegally and the slaughterhouses that bought from them and used threats of litigation to convince Brazilian retailers to boycott slaughterhouses connected to illegal deforestation. In response, individual meatpacking companies began signing legally binding TAC agreements with the MPF (Terms of Adjustment of Conduct) in July 2009. Such agreements forestall prosecution in return for the meatpackers’ commitments to avoid purchases from properties with illegal deforestation and are now in place for two-thirds of the federally inspected slaughterhouses (SIFs) in the Legal Amazon (Gibbs et al. 2015).

• The G4 Cattle Agreement, in October 2009 Brazil's largest meatpacking companies, Marfrig, Minerva, JBS, and Bertin (the latter was subsequently purchased by JBS), also signed the “G4” zero‐deforestation agreement with Greenpeace in response to high‐profile campaigning that leveraged pressure from retailers and brands concerned about the reputational risks of being associated with deforestation (Gibbs et al. 2015)

Sustainable Intensification

Sustainable intensification can increase beef production while reducing the land-base needed. However, to be effective they must be anchored to robust zero-deforestation policies (both public and private) to avoid rebound effects and other unintended consequences. (i.e. Jevons Paradox).

• The Brazilian Novo Campo Program, a voluntary program to improve sustainable livestock practices in the Amazon region, where producers must comply with a set of requirements (animal welfare, social responsibility, and environmental conservation); must conserve remaining natural areas and restore degraded ones; and comply with the Brazilian Forest Code. The program carries out an assessment of forest management practices and designs farm-specific projects.

• The Nature Conservancy is supporting the implementation of a model for sustainable livestock production in Brazil, emphasizing the need for producers to comply with environmental regulations, intensify production, track their production and achieve zero deforestation. A pilot project has been implemented to act on social (e.g., capacity-building), economic (e.g., a low-carbon agriculture credit program), and environmental aspects, and has led to an 83% reduction in deforestation rates within the area over the last eight years (Maia de Souza et al., 2017).

• The National Breeding Program, in Paraguay involves the genetic improvement of species and replacement of native grass species with more productive Pangola grass, aims to improve beef production efficiency. The key objective is to increase productivity per unit area in order to decrease the pressure to convert remaining forests and savannah for use in beef production (Maia de Souza et al., 2017).


61

Crop-Livestock-Forestry Systems

In Argentina, the Argentinian Ministry of Agroindustry is working to provide guidance on the establishment of forest management practices that are integrated with cattle ranching at the farm level (e.g., regeneration of natural areas, and fire prevention and control). Some companies are also making efforts to reduce deforestation, acting on responsible sourcing of their products (e.g., beef, coffee, palm oil and fish) and using only fiber-based certified/recycled packaging (Maia de Souza et al., 2017).

Public Policy

Given the beef industry’s influence in advancing zero deforestation, continuing to monitor progress and impact is critical to future success. The private sector has an important role in influencing adoption rates of the above options, but also around public policy.

Policy changes that result in improvements in agricultural profitability may lead to increased deforestation due to land competition. For example, better transportation networks for access to markets, the development of new markets (e.g., biofuels), new and/or improved technologies, and weaker local currencies resulting in increased export demand. In addition, preferential access to land, tax concessions, uncertain or insecure land tenure, and soft loans (FAO, 2016b). Forests are also vulnerable when there are high levels of poverty and non-efficient agricultural production systems, as people exploit forest resources for economic gain (FAO, 2016b).

Poor governance can drive deforestation due to competing sectors (e.g., agriculture, mining, energy, industrial development) influencing the policies for the use of the land. Further, poor governance might contribute to deforestation through inadequate land-use, resource planning and monitoring, inadequate capacity for enforcing forest policies and combating illegal logging, inadequate involvement of local people and external stakeholders in decision-making processes, corruption, legal or regulatory frameworks, and inadequate investment in research and education (FAO, 2016b).


62

APPENDIX 3: BY-PRODUCTS FROM CATTLE


APPENDIX 4: SUMMARY OF GLOBAL METRICS LITERATURE REVIEW

Global Metric Baseline Summary Recommendations Measurement consensus

Natural Resources:

Land Use 1.29 billion hectares (1 billion ha of grassland)

Globally, cattle production uses significant land resources. While considered poor feed converters in comparison, cattle are able to upcycle and digest plant matter and nutrients unavailable to monogastric animals.

Land conversion often have implications on soil carbon sequestration and biodiversity. The GRSB’s principles and criteria apply to all regions where cattle are produced (e.g., open grasslands, agro-forestry, mixed farmland, and other regions).

Yes; global inventories for arable and non-arable land, further disaggregated by type (e.g., grasslands, cereal production, etc.)

Biodiversity In 2003, only 4% of degraded land was found in mosaics with woodland /grassland

Well managed extensive beef production systems (i.e., grasslands) have some of the highest biodiversity levels. However, poorly managed lands are prone to various degradations. Grasslands provide grazing, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, and other environmental goods and services

Match grazing systems to carry capacity of the land; consider external grazing pressures; use robust and long-term monitoring systems to measure management impact on biodiversity levels.

None standardized. Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are a useful method, but there are challenges.

Forests Deforestation in the Amazon 2009-16 average 6,319 km2 per year

Global forests provide numerous environmental services including sequestration, water filtration, and evapotranspiration. Forested areas have been diminishing due to competing uses, resulting in various negative environmental consequences.

Stronger laws and enforcement; stronger rights for indigenous peoples; private sector agreements; public-private partnerships; reduction of the intrusion of road networks into remote forests; target protected areas to regions where forests face higher threats; payments for ecosystem services; insulate the forest frontier from the price effects of demand for agricultural commodities (conversion for cropland and pasture).

Yes; global and country specific measurements of forests, further disaggregated by region and biomes.


64

Carbon Emissions

Beef production contributes approximately 3.0 gigatonnes CO2-eq (includes producing meat and non-edible products)

Cattle (all uses) contribute 62% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock, but there are large variations in emission intensities by species, region, and production system. Methane is the dominant GHG and the most concerning due to it's high warming potential.

Target highest emission producers to improve efficiencies at the rate of the top 10-25% globally and regionally; reduce idle cattle, as is possible, while accounting for agro-ecological conditions, management practices, and supply chain logistics. Be aware of trade-offs, such as high emissions from regions that have no other feasible food production uses of the land.

Yes, various; most representative possibly is the Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM)--a GIS framework that simulates the bio-physical processes and activities in livestock supply chains.

Carbon Sequestration

IPCC estimates that grasslands alone could sequester 54 to 216 million tons of carbon annually by 2030

Global soils are the largest reservoir of carbon. Reducing atmospheric GHGs requires both emission reduction and carbon sequestration; beef production plays a role in both. Soil carbon content varies geographically in the speed and ability to sequester carbon and in the storage potential.

Managed grazing and improved pasture management (e.g., stocking rates, intensity and timing of grazing), but further research is needed as there are many variations of 'best' practices.

Yes; IPCC methods.

Nutrient Management

Global estimates of manure N range between 75 and 138 Trillion grams (Tg) N per year with 56% being from beef cattle and 16% from dairy cattle.

The addition of organic matter from manure on cropland and pasture can positively impact soils and contribute to higher productivity; however, long term application in excess can lead to reduced soil and water quality. Hormones are also a byproduct of beef production and must be managed appropriately.

Decrease nitrogen losses by improving feed efficiency (e.g., feed quality and animal genetics) and manure management, including best application methods. Decrease other nutrient losses by limiting cattle access to moving water; store manure properly to limit leaching; use feeding practices that reduce the amount of manure producers. Reduce leached hormone risks at every level from excretion rates, storage systems, and application that reduces risk of transport and runoff within the environment.

None standardized; mostly anecdotal.


65

Water 550 L/kg beef of blue water

Water is a renewable resource, but there are limitations, challenges with timing of discharge and recharge, and regional scarcity. While advantages of beef production include high quality protein often from plants indigestible to humans and other ecological benefits, livestock consume more water.

Adoption of innovations that improve the efficiencies of plants, as the plant matter (grains and/or residues) can then be used for cattle. Adoption of water conservation management practices and efficiency irrigation practices.

Yes. Water Footprint Assessment. Livestock Water Productivity. Life Cycle Assessment. Water Productivity (WP) or water consumption (direct and indirect). Water Scarcity, AWARE method and Blue Water Scarcity Index (BWSI)

People & the Community:

Idle Animals A better understanding of the number of idle animals globally and their environmental, social, and economic impact is needed.

Idle animals are cattle that are not growing, not producing dairy, not pregnant and not being used for draught work.

Improving the socioeconomic and political landscape may be a better use of resources here; overall, a better understanding of the number of idle animals their impact is needed.

None; definition for idle animals by FAO should be reviewed.

Employment Agriculture is the second largest source of employment globally representing 26% of jobs (858 million).

Agriculture is the second largest source of employment globally (26%), but plays a larger role in low income situations (68.5%).

There is large disparity in income in agriculture and only 2% is "high income"; however agriculture is an important driver of employment globally, and particularly important in low-income situations. More research of the impact is needed.

Yes, general: International Labour Organization (general).

Health & Safety

Agriculture is frequently one of the most unsafe occupations

Livestock production and agri-food industries have relatively high physical and mental health risks.

More research is needed to provide a comprehensive recommendation.

Yes, general: International Labour Organization (2011) Code of Practice for occupational health and safety in agriculture.

Human Rights N/A United Nations Human Rights (UNHR, 2018) has 18 International Human Rights Treaties.

Some countries have not signed onto UN treaties because of the laws within their own country; country-by-country considerations may be necessary.

United Nations Human Rights International Human Rights Treaties


66

Animal Health & Welfare:

Morbidity and Mortality

Global ‘losses’ for cattle, was calculated from USDA FAS data, at 19.3% (2008-17 average) of total slaughter.

Morbidity, mortality and reproductive efficiency serve as important direct outcomes that can be measured for animal health and welfare; cattle losses vary regionally but have been trending slightly down, globally.

Improve reproductive efficiency which is negatively impacted by poor nutrition, reduce venereal diseases and heat stress; respiratory disease which impacts 75% of cattle; reduce emerging diseases and new threats from climate volatility, and zoonotic disease control.

OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code; although compliance is not consistently followed. Mostly data limitation globally, but losses calculated using USDA FAS data.

Cattle Handling

N/A Animal handling is the main aspect of how a producer contributes to animal welfare.

Livestock handlers should be trained in understanding flight zone, general principles of behaviour and responses, as well as the variations that can occur. Simple improvements in facilities should also be incorporated.

None standardized; mostly anecdotal.

Cattle Transportation Injury and mortality rates during

cattle transport by road are reported to be very low across several countries with data available

Transportation of animals is one of the most frequently regulated aspects of animal production. Understanding regional differences is important in achieving optimal animal welfare.

Recommendations are often local (e.g., related to temperature, geography, borders/boundaries, distance traveled). Unacceptable animal welfare outcomes can be minimized by taking careful consideration of journey duration, space allowances, ambient temperature, and quality of driving; high risk cattle should be provided extra care.

None standardized; regional studies.

Production Efficiencies

Between 1973 and 2013 FAO cattle carcass weights increased by 13% and buffalo by 14%. Off-take rates, calculated with USDA FAS data, have increased from 0.15 in 1960 to 0.24 in 2017; rates have been steady at 0.24 since 2012.

Animal health impacts performance and resource efficiency. There are increasing emerging and re-emerging zoonoses due to climate change and increasing globalization.

Healthy animals contribute to improved resource efficiency, production capacity, and the contribution of beef to resilient livelihoods, economic growth, and food/nutrition security.

None standardized; regional studies (health and production have generally both improved over time)


67

Antimicrobial Use

Van Boeckel et al. (2015) estimated antimicrobial use (AMU) in food animals in 2010 at 45 mg per kg of animal produced for cattle, compared to 148 mg/kg for chickens and 172 mg/kg for pigs.

While antimicrobials are essential for animal health and welfare, there are concerns about their prophylactic use, contributing to development of resistance. Maintaining effectiveness of existing antibiotics and antimicrobials in veterinary practice is important for treatment of animal disease, food security, and the livelihood of producers; resistant strains are also an important element in human health.

Alternatives to antimicrobials include nutritional adaptation, hygiene, housing, vaccines, enzymes, environmental adaptation, transport conditions, animal handling, and preconditioning. Management options and practices to responsibly use antimicrobials and reduce the potential of resistance should be considered. Current research will contribute to future discussions.

Currently, there are significant gaps in surveillance and a lack of standards for methodology, data sharing and coordination. However, some efforts by World Health Organization (WHO) 2014 Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance; OECD (global); and regional studies.

Food:

Nutrition of Beef

Mottet et al. (2017) found that producing 1 kg of boneless meat required an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed in ruminate systems and 3.2 kg in monogastric systems.

Cattle are 'upcyclers' in our food system, converting foodstuff that is indigestible to monogastrics into a nutrient dense product that is high in protein and essential micronutrients, including iron, zinc and B vitamins.

Further research using the nutrient content of meat as the metric to measure impact of beef production. For instance, using nutrients available by food source, as comparable to the recommended daily intake to compare different food and nutrient sources on a level playing field.

Current use of life cycle analysis may be flawed (nutrient density and availability is not assessed; nor is it compared to the recommended daily intake).

By-Products N/A

By-products (approximately 44% of the liveweight of cattle) include all parts of a live animal that are not part of the dressed carcass including edible offal (variety meats), inedible offal, hides and skins, blood, fats, and tallow.

As the sale of by-products contributes to the value and profitability of the meat processing industry supporting higher prices for livestock producers, it should be valued as such.

None standardized; anecdotal and regional studies.


68

Food Loss and Waste

In industrialized regions consumer meat waste makes up approximately half of total losses. In developing regions losses are distributed quite equally throughout the food supply chain.

One-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, representing a waste of resources such as land, water, energy, and inputs, as well as unnecessary CO2 emissions. Reasons for food losses and waste vary by region

Food losses in low-income countries: strengthen food supply chains diversification and scaling-up production and marketing; investments in infrastructure, transportation, food industries and packaging industries are also required. Food losses and wastes in higher-income countries: better coordination in the supply chain, including sales agreements; better communication of quality standards and consumer behaviour impact.

FAO (2014), Food Wastage Footprint: Full-cost Accounting (FCA)

Technology & Innovation:

Economic

Beef production is a small margin business regardless of the sector (cow-calf, feedlot or packer) or country. Other commodities or off-farm income are frequently relied upon for long-term profitability due to volatility in the markets.

A sustainable beef system must consider both producer profitability and consumer demand. The beef industry is a small margin business; continuous improvements and the ability to respond to market changes are necessary in order to be sustainable.

Adoption of and continuous improvement in use of technologies (e.g., animal health products, productive technologies, equipment, and management strategies). Other recommended practices might include enterprise diversification, off-farm income sources, and policy to reflect the importance of producers as stewards of the land.

agri benchmark (a global, non-profit and non-political network of industry and academic experts and specialists who provide a consistent methodology to compare production systems, cost of production and profitability around the world)


REFERENCES

agri benchmark, 2017. Beef and Sheep Report: understanding agriculture worldwide. Braunschweig, Germany. http://www.agribenchmark.org/home.html date accessed: September 19, 2018

Alkemade, R., R.S., Reid, M. van den Berg, J. de Leeuw, M. Jeuken,. 2013. Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110, 20900–20905. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011013108.

Asner, G.P., A.J. Elmore, L.P. Olander, R.E. Martin, A.T. Harris. 2004. Grazing Systems, Ecosystem Responses, and Global Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 29, 261–299. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142.

Baber J.R., J.E. Sawyer, T.A. Wickersham. 2018. Estimation of human-edible protien conversion efficiency, net protien contribution, and enteric methane production from beef production in the United States. Transl. Anim. Sci 2:439-450 doi:10.1093/tas/txy086

Bai ZG, DL Dent, L Olsson, ME Schaepman. 2008. Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use and Management 24:223-234 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00169.x

Bai ZG, Jong de R, van Lynden GWJ 2010. An update of GLADA – Global assessment of land degradation and improvement. ISRIC report 2010/08, ISRIC – World Soil Information, Wageningen, 58p PDF

Báldi, A., P. Batáry, D. Kleijn. 2013. Effects of grazing and biogeographic regions on grassland biodiversity in Hungary – analysing assemblages of 1200 species. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Landscape ecology and biodiversity in agricultural landscapes 166, 28–34. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.03.005.

Baldock, D., G. Beaufoy, G. Bennett, J. Clark, 1993. Nature conservation and new directions in the EC Common Agricultural Policy: the potential role of EC policies in maintaining farming and management systems of high nature value in the Community. Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Balamurugan B., V. Tejaswi, K. Priya, R. Sasikala, T. Karuthadurai, M. Ramamoorthy, J. Dayanidhi . 2017e. Effect of Global Warming on Livestock Production and Reproduction: An Overview. Research and Reviews: Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology 6(3):12-18.

Baptista A., A. Rezende, P. de Fonseca, R. Massi, G. Nogueira, L. Magalhães, S. Headley, G. Menezes, A. Alfieri, J.P. Saut. 2017. Bovine respiratory disease complex associated mortality and morbidity rates in feedlot cattle from southeastern Brazil. Journal of Infection in developing countries 11(10)791-799.

Baber J.R., J.E. Sawyer, T.A. Wickersham. 2018. Estimation of human-edible protein conversion efficiency, net protein contribution, and enteric methane production from beef production in the United States. Tranlational Animal Science 2(4):439-450 https://academic.oup.com/tas/article/2/4/439/5050230

Bartelt-Hunt S.L., S. DeVivo, L. Johnson, D.D. Snow, W.L. Kranz, T.L. Mader, C.A. Shapiro, S.J. van Donk, D.P. Shelton, D.D.

Tarkalson, T.C. Zhang. 2014. Effect of Composting on the Fate of Steroids in Beef Cattle Manure. Journal of Environmental Quality 42:1159-1166.

Bartelt-Hunt, S.L., D.D. Snow, W.L. Kranz, T.L. Mader, C.A. Shapiro, S.J. van Donk, D.P. Shelton, D.D. Tarkalson, and TC. Zhang. 2012. Effect of Growth Promotants on the Occurrence of Endogenous and Synthetic Steroid Hormones on Feedlot Soils and in Runoff from Beef Cattle Feeding Operations. Environmental Science and Technology 46:1352-1360. West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte, 61.

Baumann Matthias, Ignacio Gasparri, María Piquer‐Rodríguez, Gregorio Gavier Pizarro, Patrick Griffiths, Patrick Hostert, Tobias Kuemmerle. 2017. Carbon emissions from agricultural expansion and intensification in the Chaco. Global Change Biology 23(5):1902-1916. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13521

BCRC (Beef Cattle Research Council), 2018. Antimicrobial Resistance. http://www.beefresearch.ca/research-topic.cfm/antimicrobial-resistance-11 Accessed August 27, 2018.

Beuchle René, Rosana Cristina Grecchi, Yosio Edemir Shimabukuro, Roman Seliger, Hugh Douglas Eva, Edson Sano, Frédéric Achard. 2015. Land cover changes in the Brazilian Cerrado and Caatinga biomes from 1990 to 2010 based on a systematic remote sensing sampling approach. Applied Geography 58:116-127.

Bignal, E.M., D.I. McCracken. 2000. The nature conservation value of European traditional farming systems. Environmental Reviews 8, 149–171. doi:10.1139/a00-009.

http://www.agribenchmark.org/home.html

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00169.x

http://isric.org/sites/default/files/isric_report_2010_08.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/tas/article/2/4/439/5050230

https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13521

http://www.beefresearch.ca/research-topic.cfm/antimicrobial-resistance-11

http://www.beefresearch.ca/research-topic.cfm/antimicrobial-resistance-11


70

Binnie M. L., K. Barlow, V. Johnson, C. Harrison. 2014. Read meats: Time for a paradigm shift in dietary advice. Meat Science 98: 445-451

Biswas S., C.A. Shapiro, W.L. Kranz, T.L. Mader, D.P. Shelton, D.D. Snow, S.L. Bartelt-Hunt, D.D. Tarkalson, S.J. Van Donk, T.C. Zhang, S. Ensley. 2013. Current knowledge on the environmental fate, potential impact, and management of growth-promoting steroids used in the US beef cattle industry. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68(4):325-336.

Bonan, G. 2008. Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks and the Climate Benefits of Forests. Science 320, 1444.

Bohrer, Ben. 2017. Review: Nutrient density and nutritional value of meat products and non-meat foods high in protein. Trends in Food Science and Technology 65:103-112

Boucher D., S. Roquemore, E. Fitzhugh. 2013. Brazil’s Success in Reducing Deforestation. Tropical Conservation Science Special Issue 6(3):426-445.

Bouwman, L., K. Klein Goldewijk, K.W. Van Der Hoek, A.H.W. Beusen, D.P. Van Vuuren, J. Willems, M.C. Rufino, and E. Stehfest. 2013. Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production of the 1900-2050 period. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(52):20882-20887.

Broad E.B.,C. Rice, R. Neff, M. Spiker, A. Schklair, S. Greenberg. May 2016. Consumer Perceptions of Date Labels: National Survey. Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, National Consumers League, Johns Hopkins Center for a Liveable Future. http://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Consumer-Perceptions-on-Date-Labels_May-2016.pdf Accessed February 28, 2017.

Broocks A., K. Branham, S. Place, M. Rolf, and M. Calvo-Lorenzo. 2015. How does the carbon footprint of U.S. beef compare to global beef? Oklahoma State University. Fact Sheet 1 in the Series: Tough Questions about Beef Sustainability http://beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability_FactSheet_TopicBriefs/Fact%20Sheet%201-Carbon.pdf Accessed January 6, 2017.

Butterworth A. November 2005. Welfare Quality conference proceedings. Science and society improving animal welfare.

Cady, R. 2016. Personal Communication. Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef meetings. Banff, AB, Canada.

CAIR, 2016. Canadian Agricultural Injury Report. https://www.cair-sbac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CASA-CAIR-Report-English-FINAL-Web.pdf Accessed: October 5, 2018 visit CAIR’s website at www.casa-acsa.ca for latest statistics.

Capper J.L. (2011) The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 89: 4249–4261.

CAST, July 1999. Animal Agricultural and Global Food Supply. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force Report No.135. Castello L., D.G. McGrath, L.L. Hess, M.T. CoeP.A. Lefebvre, P. Petry, M.N. Macedo, V.F. Renó, C.C. Arantes. 2013. The vulnerability of Amazon Freshwater ecosystems. Conservation Letters 6:4 July/August 217-229.

Centrec Consulting Group, LLC. September 2014. Biodiesel Demand for Animal Fates and Tallow Generates an additional revenue stream for the livestock industry. For the National Biodiesel Board. http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/news---supporting-files/animal-fats-and-tallow-bd-demand-impact-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Date Accessed: October 17, 2018

Clark, M. and D. Tilman. 2017. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Resource Letters 12:064016.

Clay David E., Sharon A. Clay, Kurtis D. Reitsma, Barry H. Dunn, Alexander J. Smart, Gregg G. Carlson, David Horvath, James J. Stone. 2014. Does the conversion of grasslands to row crop production in semi-arid areas threaten global food supplies? Global Food Security 2:22-30.

Collignon, P.C., J.M. Conly, A. Andremont, S.A. McEwen, A. Aidara-Kane. 2016. World Health Organization Ranking of Antimicrobials According to Their Importance in Human Medicine: A Critical Step for Developing Risk Management Strategies to Control Antimicrobial Resistance From Food Animal Production. Clinical Infectious Diseases 63(8):1087–93. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw475. Accessed August 27, 2018.

Conway, G.R. 1985. Agroecosystems analysis. Agricultural Administration 20: 31-55.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1999. Animal agriculture and global food supply. Task force report No. 135 July 1999, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.

https://nebraska.pure.elsevier.com/en/persons/daniel-d-snow

http://www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Consumer-Perceptions-on-Date-Labels_May-2016.pdf

http://beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability_FactSheet_TopicBriefs/Fact%20Sheet%201-Carbon.pdf

https://www.cair-sbac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CASA-CAIR-Report-English-FINAL-Web.pdf

https://www.cair-sbac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CASA-CAIR-Report-English-FINAL-Web.pdf

http://www.casa-acsa.ca/

http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/news---supporting-files/animal-fats-and-tallow-bd-demand-impact-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/news---supporting-files/animal-fats-and-tallow-bd-demand-impact-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.publish.csiro.au/an/OpenURL_BaseURL


71

Cremene, C., G. Groza, L. Rakosy, A.A. Schileyko, A. Baur, A. Erhardt, B. Baur. 2005. Alterations of Steppe-Like Grasslands in Eastern Europe: a Threat to Regional Biodiversity Hotspots. Conservation Biology 19, 1606–1618. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00084.x.

CRSB (Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef). 2016. National Beef Sustainability Assessment - Environmental and social assessments. Calgary, AB: Deloitte LLP.

De Sy, V., M. Herold, F. Achard, R. Beuchle, J.G.P.W. Clevers, E. Lindquist, L.V. Verchot. 2015. Land use patterns and related carbon losses following deforestation in South America. Environmental Research Letters 10(12): 124004.

De Vries M., C.E. van Middelaar and I.J.M. de Boer. 2015. Comparing environmental impact of beef production systems: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 178: 279-288.

Dennis, E.J., T.C. Schroeder, D.G. Renter, D.L. Pendell. 2018. Value of Arrival Metaphylaxis in U.S. Cattle Industry. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 43(2):233–250

Devictor, V., R. Julliard, J. Clavel, F. Jiguet, A. Lee, D. Couvet. 2008. Functional biotic homogenization of bird communities in disturbed landscapes. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17, 252–261. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00364.x

Dirzo, R., P.H. Raven. 2003. Global State of Biodiversity and Loss. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28, 137–167. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105532.

Dumont, Bertrand, Pierre Dupraz, Rodolphe Sabatier. March 2017. A collective scientific assessment of the roles, impacts and services associated with livestock production systems in Europe. INRA Science and Impact.

Dumont, B., A. Farruggia, J.P. Garel, P. Bachelard, E. Boitier, M. Frain. 2009. How does grazing intensity influence the diversity of plants and insects in a species-rich upland grassland on basalt soils? Grass Forage Science 64, 92–105. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2008.00674.x.

Dumont, B., N. Rossignol, G. Loucougaray, P. Carrère, J. Chadoeuf, G. Fleurance, A. Bonis, A. Farruggia, S. Gaucherand, C. Ginane, F. Louault, B. Marion, F. Mesléard, N. Yavercovski. 2012. When does grazing generate stable vegetation patterns in temperate pastures? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 153, 50–56. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.03.003.

Elferink, E.V., S. Nonhebel. 2007. Variations in land requirements for meat production. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 1778–1786. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.04.003.

Erlt P., W. Knaus and W. Zollisch. 2016. An approach to including protein quality when assessing the net contribution of livestock to human food supply. Animal 10:11 pp. 1883-1889.

Eshel, G., A. Shepon, T. Makov, R. Milo. 2014. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 11996–12001. doi:10.1073/pnas.1402183111.

Eshel, G., A. Shepon, E. Noor, and R. Milo. 2016. Environmentally optimal, nutritionally aware beef replacement plant-based diets. Environmental Science & Technology 50:8164-8168.

Ewers, R.M., J.P.W. Scharlemann, A. Balmford, R.E. Green. 2009. Do increases in agricultural yield spare land for nature? Global Change Biology 15, 1716–1726. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01849.x.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2004. Carbon Sequestration in Dryland Soils. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2010. Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture: Contributing to food security and sustainability in a changing world. Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/ or http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2017.

Ferguson D. and A. Fisher. May 2008. AHW.055 Animal Welfare Outcomes of Livestock Road Transport Practices. Meat and Livestock Australia. date accessed: September 17, 2018.

Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

FAO. 2014. Food wastage footprint: full cost accounting. Final Report. Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3991e.pdf.

http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/

http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3991e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3991e.pdf


72

FAO. 2015. Animal Production and Health, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department. Available at http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/animal_health.html. Accessed: August 30, 2018.

FAO. 2016. Climate Smart Agriculture. Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/en/. Accessed January 2, 2017.

FAO. 2016b. State of the World’s Forests 2016. Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges and opportunities. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2017. Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM), Version 2.0 (data reference year, 2010). Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/.

FAO. 2018. Water use of livestock production systems and supply chains – Guidelines for assessment (Draft for public review). Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2018b. Shaping the future of livestock sustainable, responsibly, efficiently. The 10th Global Forum for Food and Agriculture, Berlin, Germany, January 2018. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/i8384en/I8384EN.pdf.

FAOSTAT. 2014. Live Animals. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA. Accessed September 30, 2018.

FAOSTAT. 2018. Live Animals. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA. Accessed September 30, 2018.

Ferretti-Gallon, K. and J. Busch. 2014. What drives deforestation and What stops it? A Meta-Analysis of Spatially Explicit Econometric Studies. Working Paper 361. Center for Global Development (CGD) Climate and Forest Paper Series #2. Available at: http://www.cgdev.org/.

Firbank, L.G., S. Petit, s. Smart, A. Blain, R.J. Fuller, 2008. Assessing the impacts of agricultural intensification on biodiversity: a British perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363, 777–787. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2183.

Foley, J.A., N. Ramankutty, K.A. Brauman, E.S. Cassidy, J.S. Gerber, M. Johnston, N.D. Mueller, C. O’Connell, D.K. Ray, P.C. West, C. Balzer, E.M. Bennett, S.R. Carpenter, J. Hill, C. Monfreda, S. Polasky, J. Rockström, J. Sheehan, S. Siebert, D. Tilman & D.P.M. Zaks. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342.

Gelband, H., M. Miller-Petrie, S. Pant, S. Gandra, J. Levinson, D. Barter, A. White, R. Laxminarayan. 2015. The State of the World’s Antibiotics 2015. Wound Healing Southern Africa 8(2):30-34.

Gerber P.J., A. Mottet, C.I. Opio, F. Teillard. 2015. Environmental impacts of beef production: review of challenges and perspectives for durability Meat Science 109: 2-12.

Gibbs, H.K., Munger, J., L’Roe, J., Barreto, P., Pereira, R., Christie, M., Amaral, T. and Walker, N.F. (2015). Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Zero Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12175

Gibson, D.J., 2009. Grasses and grassland ecology. 320p. Oxford University Press.

Graesser, J., T.M. Aide, H.R. Grau, N. Ramankutty. 2015. Cropland/pastureland dynamics and the slowdown of deforestation in Latin America. Environmental Research Letters 10: 2-11.

Gregory, R.D., A. van Strien, P. Vorisek, A.W.G. Meyling, D.G. Noble, R.P.B. Foppen, D.W. Gibbons. 2005. Developing indicators for European birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360, 269–288. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1602.

Hall, Simon. 2018. Personal Communication. National Wildlife Federation. Tropical Forests and Agriculture.

Hallberg et al. 2018. Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Care Model for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes at 1 year: An Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study. Diabetes Ther 9:583-612.

Herrero, M., P. Havlík, H. Valin, A. Notenbaert, M.C. Rufino, P.K. Thornton, M. Blümmel, F. Weiss, D. Grace, M. Obersteiner. 2013. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 20888-20893.

Herring, A.D. 2014. Beef Cattle Production Systems. Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas USA.

HLPE. 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy.

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/animal_health.html

http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/en/

http://www.fao.org/gleam/en/

http://www.fao.org/3/i8384en/I8384EN.pdf

http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA

http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA

http://www.cgdev.org/

https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12175


73

ILO (International Labour Organization). 2011. Safety and Health in Agriculture, Code of practice. 348p. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_159457/lang--en/index.htm.

ILO. 2018. World Employment and Social Outlook – Trends 2018. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/2018/lang--en/index.htm.

Isselstein, J., B. Jeangros, V. Pavlu. 2005. Agronomic aspects of extensive grassland farming and biodiversity management. Presented at the Grassland Science in Europe Volume 10, Estonian Grassland Society, pp. 211–220.

Johnson K.K. and D.L. Pendell. 2017. Market Impacts of Reducing the Prevalence of Bovine Respiratory Disease in United States Beef cattle Feedlots. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 4: Article 189: 1-9.

Labato J.F.P, A.K. Freitas, T. Devincenzi, L.L. Cardoso, J.U. Tarouco, R.M Vieira, D.R. Dillenburg, I.Castro. 2014. Brazilian beef produced on pastures: Sustainable and healthy. Meat Science 98:336-345

Laiolo, P., F. Dondero, e. Ciliento, A. Rolando. 2004. Consequences of pastoral abandonment for the structure and diversity of the alpine avifauna. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 294–304. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00893.x.

Lambin, E.F., H.J. Geist, E. Lepers. 2003. Dynamics of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in Tropical Regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28, 205–241. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105459.

Layman, D.K. 2018. Assessing the Role of Cattle in Sustainable Food Systems. Nutrition Today 53(4):160-165

Laxminarayan, R., P. Matsoso, S. Pant, C. Brower, J.-A. Røttingen, K. Klugman, S. Davies. 2015. Antimicrobials: access and sustainable effectiveness: Access to effective antimicrobials: a worldwide challenge. Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton, NJ, USA and Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India; Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy, Washington, DC, USA. Published Online November 18, 2015 Available at: https://courses.edx.org/c4x/KIx/KIGlobalHx/asset/Lancet_1.pdf Accessed August 27, 2018.

White Robin R. and Mary Beth Hall. 2017. Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Nov 2017, 201707322 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1707322114

Laxminarayan, R., T. Van Boeckel, A. Teillant. 2015b. “The Economic Costs of Withdrawing Antimicrobial Growth Promoters from the Livestock Sector”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 78, OECD Publishing. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js64kst5wvl-en.

LEAP, 2015. Principles for the assessment of livestock impacts on biodiversity. Livestock Environmental Assessment Partnership. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Lee T.L. and D.U. Thomson. 2015. Improving beef cattle welfare. The AABP (American Association of Bovine Practitioners) Proceedings (48): 24-25.

Legesse, G., K.H. Ominski, K.A. Beauchemin, S. Pfister, M. Martel, E.J. McGeough, A.Y. Hoekstra, R. Kroebel, M.R.C. Cordeiro, T.A. McAllister. 2017. Board Invited Review: Quantifying water use in ruminant production. J. Anim. Sci. 2017.95:2001–2018. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1439.

Legesse G., K.A. Beauchemin, K.H. Ominski, E.J. McGeough, R. Kroebel, D. MacDonald, S.M. Little, T A. McAllister. 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Canadian Beef Production in 1981 as Compared to 2011. Animal Production Science 56(3) 153-168. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN15386.

Legesse Getahun, Marcos R.C.Cordeirob, Kim H.Ominski, Karen A. Beauchemin, Roland Kroebel, Emma J. McGeough, Sarah Pogue, Tim A. McAllister. April 2018. Water use intensity of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared to 2011. Science of The Total Environment (619-620):1030-1039 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.194

LiveCorp. 2018. Review of Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL)-Stage 1. Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd. North Sydney. Available at: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal/lae/asel/livecorp.pdf.

Machovina, B., K.J. Feeley. 2014. Taking a Bite Out of Biodiversity. Science 343, 838–838. doi:10.1126/science.343.6173.838-a

Maia de Souza, D., R. Petre, F. Jackson, M Hadarits, S. Pogue, C.N. Carlyle, E. Bork, T. McAllister. 2017. A Review of Sustainability Enhancements in the Beef Value Chain: State-of-the-Art and Recommendations for Future Improvements. Animals 7, 26; doi:10.3390/ani7030026 Available at: www.mdpi.com/journal/animals.

Marti DL, Johnson RJ and Mathews KH. 2011. Where’s the (not) meat? Byproducts from beef and pork production (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.) Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook Report LDP-M-209-01.

http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_159457/lang--en/index.htm



https://courses.edx.org/c4x/KIx/KIGlobalHx/asset/Lancet_1.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1707322114

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js64kst5wvl-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN15386

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.194

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal/lae/asel/livecorp.pdf

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals


74

McAuliffe GA, Takahashi T, Lee MRF. 2018. Framework for life cycle assessment of livestock production systems to account for the nutritional quality of final products. Food Energy Secur. 7:e00143. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.143

McLean I., P. Holmes, D. Counsel. 2014. The Northern beef report: 2013 Northern beef situation analysis, Prepared for Meat and Livestock Australia.

McNeill, S.H. 2014. Inclusion of red meat in healthful dietary patterns. Meat Science 98:452-460.

Mekonnen, M.M. and A.Y. Hoekstra. 2012. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems 15: 401-415.

Molden, D.J., K. Frenken, R. Barker, C. Fraiture, B. Mati, M. Svendsen, C. Sadoff, M. Finlayson. 2007. Trends in water and agricultural development. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. 57-89.

Monfreda, C., N. Ramankutty, J.A. Foley. 2008. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22, GB1022. doi:10.1029/2007GB002947.

Mottet, A., C. de Haan, A. Falcuccia, G. Tempioa, C. Opioa, P. Gerberac. 2017. Livestock: On our plate or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Global Food Security 14:1-8.

Mottet Anne and Henning Steinfeld. September 2018. Cars or livestock which contribute more to climate change? Thomson Reuters Foundation News. http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0 Date Accessed: November 2, 2018

Murray P., F.V. Crotty, N.W. Eekeren. 2012. Management of Grassland Systems, and Soil and Ecosystem Services. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575923.003.0024.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, Eight Revised Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nepstad, D., B.S. Soares-Filho, f. Merry, A. Lima, P. Moutinh, J. Carter, M. Bowman, A. Cattaneo, H. Rodrigues, S. Schwartzman, D.G. McGrath, C.M. Stickler, R. Lubowski, P. Piris-Cabezas, S. Rivero, A. Alencar, O. Almeida, O. Stella. 2009. Environment. The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 326, 1350–1351. doi:10.1126/science.1182108.

Noakes T. D., and J. Windt. 2016. Evidence that supports the prescription of low-carbohydrate high-fat diets: a narrative review. Br. J. Sports Med 51:133-139 NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). 2013. The Dating Game: How Confusing Food Date Labels Lead to Food Waste In America. September 2013. New York. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/dating-game-report.pdf.

OECD/FAO. 2018. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018-2027. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Oenema, O., N. Wrage, G.L. Velthof, J.W. van Groenigen, J. Dolfing, P.J. Kuikman . 2005. Trends in global nitrous oxide emissions from animal production systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 72:51-65.

Oenema, O. 2006. Nitrogen budgets and losses in livestock systems. International Congress Series 1293:262-271.

OIE (World Organization for Animal Health). 2013. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Chapter 7.9 Animal Welfare and Beef Cattle Production Systems. Avaiilable at: http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_beef_catthe.htm. Accessed June 20, 2018.

OIE World Organization for Animal Health. 2016. OIE Annual report on the use of antimicrobial agents in animals: Better understanding of the global situation. Available at: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientific_expertise/docs/pdf/AMR/Survey_on_monitoring_antimicrobial_agents_Dec2016.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2017.

Olff, H., M.E. Ritchie. 1998. Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 261–265. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01364-0

Oltjen, J.W. and J.L. Beckett. 1996. Role of ruminant livestock in sustainable agricultural systems. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1406-1409.

Petrie M.D., Brunsell N.A., Vargas R., Collins S.I., Flanagan I.B., Hanan N.P., Litvak M.E., Suyker A.E. 2016. The sensitivity of carbon exchanges in Great Plains grasslands to precipitation variability. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121:280-294.

https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.143

http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/dating-game-report.pdf

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_beef_catthe.htm

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientific_expertise/docs/pdf/AMR/Survey_on_monitoring_antimicrobial_agents_Dec2016.pdf

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientific_expertise/docs/pdf/AMR/Survey_on_monitoring_antimicrobial_agents_Dec2016.pdf


75

Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, R.E. Green. 2011. Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared. Science 333, 1289–1291. doi:10.1126/science.1208742.

Phillips, S.M., V.L. Fulgoni, R.P. Heaney, T.A. Nicklas, J.L. Slavin and C.M. Weaver. 2015. Commonly consumed protein foods contribute to nutrient intake, diet quality, and nutrient adequacy. Am J. Clin Nutr 101(Suppl)1346S-52S

Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive

species in the United States. Integrating Ecology and Economics in Control Bioinvasions: IEECB S.I. 52, 273–288. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002.

Place S. 2017. How does beef fit into a sustainable food system? Fact Sheet 18 in the Series: Tough Questions about Beef Sustainability. National Beef Cattlemen’s Association. Available at: https://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability_FactSheet_TopicBriefs/ToughQA/FS18SustainableFoodSystem.pdf. Accessed: July 4, 2018.

Pogue Sarah J., Roland Krobel, H. Henry Janzen, Karen A. Beauchemin, Getahun Legesse, Danielle Maia de Souza, Majid Iravani, Carrie Selin, James Byrne, Tim A. McAllister. 2018. Beef production and ecosystem services in Canada’s prairie provinces: A review. Agricultural Systems 166:152-172

Poláková, J., G. Tucker, K. Hart, J. Dwyer, M. Rayment. 2011. Addressing biodiversity and habitat preservation through measures applied under the Common Agricultural Policy. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development, External Studies. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/biodiversity-protection_en. Accessed August 2018.

Reichel M.P. and C.G.B. Caraguel. 2015. Chapter 27: Important National and International Diseases of Cattle. Bovine Medicine, Third Edition, Edited by Peter D. Cockcroft. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Richter, V., K. Lebl, W. Baumgartner, W. Obritzhauser, A. Käsbohrer, B. Pinior. 2017. A systematic worldwide review of the direct monetary losses in cattle due to bovine viral diarrhoea virus infection. The Veterinary Journal 220: 80-87.

Rook, A.J., B. Dumont, J. Isselstein, K. Osoro, M.F.W. DeVries, G. Parente, J. Mills. 2004. Matching type of livestock to desired biodiversity outcomes in pastures – a review. Biological Conservation 119, 137–150. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.010.

Rotz C.A., S. Asem-Hiablie, S. Place, G. Thoma. 2019. Environmental Footprints of Beef Cattle Production in the United States. Agricultural Systems 169:1-13

Safe Work Australia. Table 2 - number and incidence rate of work-related fatalities by industry (2012 to 2016). Work-related Traumatic Injury Fatalities database, Safe Work Australia. Explanatory notes are available on the following webpage: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/explanatory-notes-safe-work-australia-datasets Date Accessed: September 28, 2018

Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. and T. Grandin. 2014. Livestock Handling and Transport, 4th Edition. Chapter 9: Cattle Transport by Road. CAB International.

Seré, C. and H. Steinfeld. 1996. World Livestock Production Systems. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 127. Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/W0027E/W0027E00.HTM.

Shyma K.P., Jay Prakash Gupta, Veer Singh. 2015. Breeding Strategies for tick resistance in tropical cattle: a sustainable approach for tick control. J. Parasite Dis 38:1-6

Sims J.T., R.R. Simard, B.C. Joern. 1998. Phosphorus Loss in Agricultural Drainage: Historical Perspective and Current Research. Journal of Environmental Quality 27:277-293.

Smith G.W. 2015. Avoiding drug residues in cattle – clearance time considerations in sick cows. The AABP (American Association of Bovine Practitioners) Proceedings 48: 99-103.

Souza, D.M., R.F.M. Teixeira, O.P. Ostermann. 2015. Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with Life Cycle Assessment: are we there yet? Global Change Biology 21, 32–47. doi:10.1111/gcb.12709.

Stanford K., D.J. Gibb, K.S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, F. Van Herk, and T.A. McAllister. 2015. Feeding subtherapeutic antimicrobials to low-risk cattle does not confer consistent performance benefits. Can J. Animal Science 95:589-597

Steinfeld, H., T. Wassenaar, S. Jutzi. 2006. Livestock production systems in developing countries: status, drivers, trends. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties 25(2): 505-516.

Steinfeld, H. 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.

https://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability_FactSheet_TopicBriefs/ToughQA/FS18SustainableFoodSystem.pdf

https://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Sustainability_FactSheet_TopicBriefs/ToughQA/FS18SustainableFoodSystem.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/biodiversity-protection_en

https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/explanatory-notes-safe-work-australia-datasets

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/W0027E/W0027E00.HTM


76

Stoate, C., A. Báldi, P. Beja, N.D. Boatman, I. Herzon, A. van Doorn, G.R. de Snoo., L. Rakosy, C. Ramwell. 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – A review. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 91, 22–46. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005.

Sulc, R.M. and A.J. Franzluebbers. 2014. Exploring integrated crop-livestock systems in different ecoregions of the United States. European Journal of Agronomy 57:21-30.

Teillard, F., A. Falcucci, P.J. Gerber. 2014. Synergies and trade-offs between the greenhouse gas emissions and bio-diversity performances of global livestock production, in: 9th International Conference LCA of Food San Francisco, USA. pp. 8–10.

Teixeira, R.F. 2014. Integrating Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment: Methodological Proposals for New Challenges. Chemical Engineering 42.

Thomson D.U., J. Eisenbarth, J. Simroth, D. Frese, T. Lee, M. Stephens, M. Spare. 2015. Beef cattle transportation issues in the United States. The AABP (American Association of Bovine Practitioners) Proceedings 48:17-21.

Thornton, P., J. van de Steeg, A. Notenbaert, M. Herrer. 2009. The Impacts of Climate Change on Livestock and Livestock Systems in Developing Countries: A Review of What We Know and What We Need to Know. Agricultural Systems 101: 113-127. 10.1016/j.agsy.2009.05.002.

Tillman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Naylor, S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671-677.

Toensmeier, E. 2016. The Carbon Farming Solution: A Global Toolkit of Perennial Crops and Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, United States of America.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013. http://nasdonline.org/7242/d002469/ashca-2015-ag-safety-fact-sheet.html Date accessed: October 5, 2018.

UN (United Nations). 2017. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

UNHR (United Nations Human Rights). 2018. Status of Ratification: Ratification of 18 International Human Rights Treaties. Available at: http://indicators.ohchr.org/.

Vallejos María, José N. Volante, María J. Mosciaro, Laura M. Vale, M. Laura Bustamante, José M. Parueloa. 2015. Transformation dynamics of the natural cover in the Dry Chaco ecoregion: A plot level geo-database from 1976 to 2012. Journal of Arid Environments 123:3-11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.11.009

Van Boeckel, T.P., C. Browerb, M. Gilbert, B.T. Grenfella, S.A. Levina, T.P. Robinsoni, A. Teillant, R. Laxminarayan. 2015. Global Trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(18): 5649-5654. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/18/5649.full.pdf.

Van Donk S.J., S. Biswas, W.L. Kranz, D.D. Snow, S.L. Bartelt-Hunt. 2013. Transport of Steroid Hormones in the Vadose Zone after Land Application of Beef Cattle Manure. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 56(4):1327-1338.

Vickery, J.A., J.R. Tallowin, R.E. Feber, E.J. Asteraki, P.W. Atkinson, R.J. Fuller, V.K. Brown. 2001. The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 647–664. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00626.x.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2014. Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance. 256p. France.

Wiedemann S.G., BK., Henry, E.J. McGahan, T. Grant, C.M. Murphy, G. Niethe. 2015. Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010. Agricultural Systems 133, 109–118.

Williams, J.E., R.J. Price. 2010. Impacts of red meat production on biodiversity in Australia: a review and comparison with alternative protein production industries. Animal Production Science 50, 723. doi:10.1071/AN09132

World Bank. 2015. Agricultural land https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.K2?end=2015&start=1961&view=chart. Accessed July 20, 2018.

World Bank. 2015b. Land under Cereal production https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.CREL.HA?end=2015&start=1961&view=chart. Accessed July 20, 2018.

http://nasdonline.org/7242/d002469/ashca-2015-ag-safety-fact-sheet.html

http://indicators.ohchr.org/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.11.009

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/18/5649.full.pdf

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.K2?end=2015&start=1961&view=chart

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.CREL.HA?end=2015&start=1961&view=chart

· Board of Directors Meeting . Wednesday, February 27, 2019 . 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Central...

Documents

Transcript of · Board of Directors Meeting . Wednesday, February 27, 2019 . 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Central...