Sarah C. Klopatek

Livestock’s environmental footprint has become a pivotal concern for both consumers and investment corporations. To stay competitive in the sustainable foods movement, the beef industry has sought to improve sustainability within their own supply chains. However, before system sustainability can be achieved, more sustainability practices must be adopted and implemented by the foundation of the system. Therefore, to gain insight into motivations of ranchers for adopting new sustainable practices we administered an online multi-state survey to cattle ranchers in collaboration with state Cattlemen’s Associations. In total, the survey consisted of 45 questions and was divided into four sections including: 1) rancher demographics, 2) ranching educational resources, 3) current best management practices, and 4) willingness to join new rancher sustainability program. Of the survey participants (n = 884), when asked what made them trust/ believe in a ranching educational program, 64% of ranchers stated they trusted (very or extremely) science, 55% or ranchers stated they trusted a ranching educational program if the program was partnered with state cattlemen’s associations, and 32% of ranchers stated they trusted the program if other ranchers they knew were currently enrolled in the program. When survey participants were asked who they trusted most to dispense ranching educational information 79% trusted veterinarians (very or extremely), 63% trusted extension agents/ farm advisors, 57% trusted professors (very or extremely), and 54% trusted other cattle producers. In regards to where cattlemen acquired ranching information 94% utilized trade publications or magazines, 90% utilized university or extension, 70% utilized state or national cattlemen’s meetings, and 52% utilized social media. The top three reasons why survey participants would choose to adopt a new ranching practice included increases profitability 79%, improves animal health 78%, and expected benefits greatly outright the cost or effort to implement 51%. Meanwhile, only 18% of ranchers selected improving environmental health as one of their top 3 reasons for adopting a new ranching practice. In terms of best management practices, 77% of producers stated they had a grazing management practice, however only 29% had their plane written down. Finally, the survey indicated that ranchers who were male, had been through the Beef Quality Assurance training, and were enrolled in a land assistance program were more likely to state that joining a sustainability program would be beneficial to their operation (P < 0.05). Overall, this survey provides the necessary insight into why and how ranchers learn about new ranching practices and provides a possible framework for how to develop successful ranching educational and sustainability programs in the future.

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

Till date, with over 137,000 certified members, the most successful rancher educational program has been the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program. The BQA program was established in the mid-1990’s to improve animal health and welfare with a primary objective to reduce the incidence of injection site lesions by instructing producers to administer injections in the neck only. The present study investigated the drivers of this success to inform future rancher education programs around agricultural sustainability. An online multistate survey was administered to cattle ranchers in collaboration with state cattlemen’s associations to better understand rancher motivations for adopting new practices and to gain insight on current involvement in BQA. In total, the survey consisted of 45 questions and was divided into 3 sections: (1) rancher demographics, (2) BQA participation and current best management practice (BMP) application, and (3) willingness to join new rancher educational programs. Data from 842 respondents are including in this study. Of the survey participants, 70% were currently BQA certified or had been BQA certified at one time, and 30% had never been certified. Ranchers who were BQA certified at any time were less likely to administer injections in areas other than the neck compared to ranchers who were not certified (P < 0.05), demonstrating the effectiveness of the BQA program. More than 80% of survey respondents who joined the BQA program stated they believed the BQA program improved animal health and welfare on their operation (n = 617). Among those who had not joined the BQA program, 40% believed BQA practices did not align with their ranching operation, while 38% had not heard of the BQA program (n = 256). The survey indicated that male ranchers, those with more years ranching, those with a larger percent of income coming from ranching, and ranches with larger total acres grazed were more likely to be BQA certified at any time (P < 0.05). Finally, ranchers who were BQA certified at any time were more likely to state that joining a rancher sustainability program would be beneficial to their operation. In conclusion, not only did the survey provide valuable insight into BQA program adoption but highlighted how BQA pedagogy and program structure may be a suitable framework for creating future rancher sustainability programs.

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

Between increasing public concerns over climate change and heightened interest of niche market beef on social media, the demand for grass-fed beef has increased considerably. However, the demand increase for grass-fed beef has raised many producers' and consumers' concerns regarding product quality, economic viability, and environmental impacts that have thus far gone unanswered. Therefore, using a holistic approach, we investigated the performance, carcass quality, financial outcomes, and environmental impacts of four grass-fed and grain-fed beef systems currently being performed by ranchers in California. The treatments included: 1) steers stocked on pasture and feedyard finished for 128 days (CON); 2) steers grass-fed for 20 months (GF20); 3) steers grass-fed for 20 months with a 45-day grain finish (GR45); and 4) steers grass-fed for 25 months (GF25). The data were analyzed using a mixed model procedure in R with differences between treatments determined by Tukey HSD. Using carcass and performance data from these systems, a weaning-to-harvest life cycle assessment (LCA) was developed in the Scalable, Process-based, Agronomically Responsive Cropping Systems model framework, to determine global warming potential (GWP), consumable water use, energy, smog, and land occupation footprints. Final body weight varied significantly between treatments (P ) with the CON cattle finishing at 632 kg, followed by GF25 at 570 kg, GR45 at 551 kg, and GF20 478 kg. Dressing percentage (DP) differed significantly between all treatments (P < 0.001). The DP was 61.8% for CON followed by GR45 at 57.5%, GF25 at 53.4%, and GF20 had the lowest DP of 50.3%. Marbling scores were significantly greater for CON compared to all other treatments (P < 0.001) with CON marbling score averaging 421 (low-choice ≥ 400). Breakeven costs with harvesting and marketing for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were $6.01, $8.98, $8.02, and $8.33 per kg hot carcass weight (HCW), respectively. The GWP for the CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 4.79, 6.74, 6.65 and 8.31 CO₂e/kg HCW, respectively. Water consumptive use for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 933, 465, 678 and 1250 L /kg HCW, respectively. Energy use for CON, GF20, GR45, and GF25 were 18.7, 7.65, 13.8 and 8.85 MJ /kg HCW, respectively. Our results indicated that grass-fed beef systems differ in both animal performance and carcass quality resulting in environmental and economic sustainability tradeoffs with no system having absolute superiority.