Logan Thompson

In recent years, growing concern over the climate impact of ruminant livestock production has caused a drastic shift in corporate actions. Companies that are involved in the production of beef now commonly have company climate goals aimed at some level of greenhouse gas emission reduction or outright “net-zero” or “climate neutrality” targets. Setting these targets have also caused considerable concern with some stakeholders, with claims of greenwashing and lawsuits arising. Additionally, the individuals who will ultimately be responsible for these companies achieving their targets, the producer, has little idea they are being set let alone the practice suite needed to achieve them. This has created an environment that leads to confusion for stakeholders and ever-evolving benchmarks for what is acceptable. We discuss this complicated science of ruminant livestock climate goal setting, within the larger framework of achieving the goals set by the Paris Climate Accord and companies’ desires to improve their social license to operate. Viewing this process as an extension of the industries desire to extend and/or improve their social license to operate, the desire for companies to set goals is rational and, conversely, the push back is fair and a part of the evolving value set of society. However, all parties would benefit by improving on key aspects of the social license, such as improving transparency, engaging with those stakeholders with differing views, and maintaining a science-based approach.

Cow efficiency is vitally important to beef sustainability, and computer simulation models may be useful tools to identify characteristics of the most efficient cow genotypes for a given production environment. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether the Beef Cattle Systems Model could replicate empirical research demonstrating a genotype–nutritional environment interaction for efficiency of feed conversion to calves weaned. Combinations of cow genotypes for lactation potential (8, 10, and 12 kg/d at peak milk) and growth potential (450, 505, and 650 kg mature weight) were simulated across four dry matter intake levels (58, 76, 93, and 111 g/kg BW^0.75). At lower dry matter intakes, cows had lesser body condition scores and weight and longer postpartum intervals, but dry matter intake had minimal influence on pregnancy percentage or calf-weaning weight. These trends match empirical research except for pregnancy percentage, where decreasing dry matter intake had a dramatic effect on pregnancy percentage in high-milking, high-growth-potential genotypes. Efficiency of feed conversion was greatest at low dry matter intake for the model simulation with no evidence of a genotype–dry matter intake interaction, which is in contrast to empirical research demonstrating a genotype–dry matter intake interaction. In conclusion, standard nutrition equations do not replicate the genotype–nutritional environment interaction observed in empirical research studies.

The objective of this analysis was to compare the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from contemporary grazing cattle production with bison grazing, both modern and historical. The data sets used in this analysis were derived from existing research and conservation properties located outside of Manhattan, KS (USA), which are home to stocker cattle, cow–calf production (CCS), and grazing bison. For stocker cattle, 10 years of animal production data (2007–2016) from season-long stocking (SLS, grazing 156 d) and intensive early stocking systems (IES; 76 grazing d and 2× stocking density) were used for GHG calculations. Enteric CH₄, manure CH₄, and direct nitrous oxide emissions were estimated using the IPCC tier 2 methodology. Historic bison (HGB) enteric CH₄ estimates were calculated using a stocking density of 0.15 ha/animal and assuming that only 13% of grassland was used by bison each year. Within contemporary systems, IES had the lowest emissions (463.3 kg CO₂-eq./ha/yr), while SLS, CCS, and MGB had the highest estimates (494.7, 493.9, and 595.9 kg CO₂-eq./ha/yr, respectively). HGB had the lowest estimated annual emissions at 295.7 kg CO₂-eq./ha/yr. These results imply that the historic grazing baseline of this grassland system is lower but similar to that of contemporary grazing cattle in the Great Plains region.

The objective of this review and modeling effort is to define climate neutrality as it relates to beef and dairy production, and to introduce accounting methods that will help guide the livestock industry’s ability to achieve climate targets, to summarize emission mitigation strategies, and present potential scenarios to achieve climate neutral emissions for the beef and dairy industries. The global target to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2050 has resulted in many companies, including agribusiness companies, setting voluntary emission reduction targets. The main concept behind these goals is that GHG emissions do not exceed the GHG removed from the atmosphere by GHG sinks. Where multiple greenhouse gases are involved, the quantification of climate neutral emissions depends on the climate metric and time horizon chosen to place these gases on an equivalent basis (e.g., global warming potential, and global warming potential-star). As the ruminant supply chain emits both short-lived (methane; CH₄) and long-lived (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) GHGs, how companies choose to account for these gases will impact their progress toward these goals. Further, mitigation strategies for beef and dairy systems have predominantly focused on enteric CH₄ emissions and soil C sequestration. However, several hurdles still exist to reduce emissions by the magnitude required to realistically achieve a net zero supply chain. Determining the ability of a system to be climate neutral is a complicated and complex process and will not be achieved by a “silver bullet” approach. The scientific community will need to develop multiple mitigation strategies that are regionally and contextually adaptable.

The objective of this experiment was to demonstrate the effectiveness of a commercially available tannin product (Silvafeed^® ByPro, 70% tannic acid) as an enteric methane (CH₄) mitigation and preventative animal health strategy in Holstein heifers (BW = 219 ± 17 kg; 9 mo), reared under organic production system requirements. Twenty heifers were randomly assigned to one of four commercial tannin supplementation treatments as follows: 0% (0 g/hd/d; CON), 0.075% (~5 g/hd/d; LOW), 0.15% (~10 g/hd/d; MED), and 0.30% (~21 g/hd/d; HIG) of dry matter intake (DMI). Heifers received their treatment in individual animal feeding stanchions and were fed a basal total mixed ration (TMR) through four SmartFeed Pro intake measurement bunk systems (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA) for 45 d. An automatic head chamber system (AHCS; i.e., GreenFeed, C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA) was used to continuously evaluate enteric CH₄ production. No effect was observed among the treatments for CH₄ emissions (p ≥ 0.55), animal performance (p ≥ 0.38), or oxidative stress biomarker concentration (p ≥ 0.55). Superoxide dismutase (SOD) and reduced glutathione (GSH) concentrations exhibited a linear response to increasing tannin dose (p = 0.003), indicating a potential tannin effect on the antioxidant status of dairy heifers. This observation may encourage future tannin research relating to animal health, which may be of particular interest to organic dairy systems. The results of this study suggest that tannin supplementation at 0%, 0.075%, 0.15%, and 0.30% of DMI, did not alter CH₄ emissions, animal performance, or oxidative stress biomarker concentration in organic Holstein heifers when assessed under an on-farm research approach. Further, the results of this study affirm the challenges associated with on-farm research and the development of climate-smart strategies that are capable of mitigating climate impacts in less controlled environments under standard working conditions.