IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4283-d534661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity-Enhancing Technologies. Can Consumer Choices Affect the Environmental Footprint of Beef?

Author

Listed:
  • Isaac A. Aboagye

    (Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, 201-12 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
    National Centre for Livestock and the Environment, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada)

  • Marcos R. C. Cordeiro

    (Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, 201-12 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
    National Centre for Livestock and the Environment, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada)

  • Tim A. McAllister

    (Lethbridge Research and Development Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada)

  • Kim H. Ominski

    (Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, 201-12 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
    National Centre for Livestock and the Environment, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada)

Abstract

Use of productivity-enhancing technologies (PET: growth hormones, ionophores, and beta-adrenergic agonists) to improve productivity has recently garnered public attention regarding environmentally sustainability, animal welfare, and human health. These consumer perceptions and increased demand for PET-free beef offer opportunities for the beef industry to target niche premium markets, domestically and internationally. However, there is a need to critically examine the trade-offs and benefits of beef raised with and without the use of PETs. This review contains a summary of the current literature regarding PET products available. The implications of their use on resource utilization, food safety and security, as well as animal health and welfare are discussed. Furthermore, we identified gaps in knowledge and future research questions related to the sustainability of these technologies in beef production systems. This work highlights the tradeoffs between environmental sustainability of beef and supplying the dietary needs of a growing population.

Suggested Citation

  • Isaac A. Aboagye & Marcos R. C. Cordeiro & Tim A. McAllister & Kim H. Ominski, 2021. "Productivity-Enhancing Technologies. Can Consumer Choices Affect the Environmental Footprint of Beef?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4283-:d:534661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4283/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4283/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian J Lean & John M Thompson & Frank R Dunshea, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of Zilpaterol and Ractopamine Effects on Feedlot Performance, Carcass Traits and Shear Strength of Meat in Cattle," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-28, December.
    2. Karen E. Lewis & Carola Grebitus & Gregory Colson & Wuyang Hu, 2017. "German and British Consumer Willingness to Pay for Beef Labeled with Food Safety Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 451-470, June.
    3. Wiedemann, S.G. & Henry, B.K. & McGahan, E.J. & Grant, T. & Murphy, C.M. & Niethe, G., 2015. "Resource use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 109-118.
    4. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    5. William A. Kerr & Jill E. Hobbs, 2002. "The North American–European Union Dispute Over Beef Produced Using Growth Hormones: A Major Test for the New International Trade Regime," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 283-296, February.
    6. Sylvain Charlebois & Simon Somogyi & Janet Music & Isabelle Caron, 2020. "Planet, Ethics, Health and the New World Order in Proteins," Journal of Agricultural Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 8(3), pages 171-192, September.
    7. Capper, Judith L. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2012. "The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from U.S. beef production," ISU General Staff Papers 201210010700001001, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M. Jordana Rivero & Luis Araya & Marcelo Oyarzo & Andrew S. Cooke & Sarah A. Morgan & Veronica M. Merino, 2021. "Efficacy of Hormonal Growth Promoter Implants on the Performance of Grazing Steers of Different Breeds in Southern Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-9, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. José Felipe Orzuna-Orzuna & Griselda Dorantes-Iturbide & Alejandro Lara-Bueno & Germán David Mendoza-Martínez & Luis Alberto Miranda-Romero & Pedro Abel Hernández-García, 2021. "Effects of Dietary Tannins’ Supplementation on Growth Performance, Rumen Fermentation, and Enteric Methane Emissions in Beef Cattle: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, July.
    2. Andreas Tsakiridis & Michael Wallace & James Breen & Cathal O'Donoghue & Kevin Hanrahan, 2021. "Beef quality assurance schemes: Can they improve farm economic performance?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 451-471, July.
    3. Akinwehinmi, Oluwagbenga & Ogundari, Kolawole & Amos, Taiwo, 2021. "Consumers' Food Control Risk Perception and Preference for Government-Controlled Safety Certification in Emerging Food Markets," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Sylvain Charlebois & Mark Juhasz & Janet Music, 2021. "Supply Chain Responsiveness to a (Post)-Pandemic Grocery and Food Service E-Commerce Economy: An Exploratory Canadian Case Study," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-19, July.
    5. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Thøgersen, John, 2023. "How does origin labelling on food packaging influence consumer product evaluation and choices? A systematic literature review," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    7. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2019. "Technology and evolving supply chains in the beef and pork industries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 346-354.
    8. Smyth Stuart & Kerr William & Phillips Peter, 2017. "Labeling Demands, Coexistence and the Challenges for Trade," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, January.
    9. Kofi Britwum & Amalia Yiannaka, 2019. "Labeling food safety attributes: to inform or not to inform?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, December.
    10. Kelvin Balcombe & Dylan Bradley & Iain Fraser, 2021. "Do Consumers Really Care? An Economic Analysis of Consumer Attitudes Towards Food Produced Using Prohibited Production Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 452-469, June.
    11. Smyth, Stuart J. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose, . "Socio-economic Considerations and International Trade Agreements," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 14(01), pages 1-21.
    12. Putman, Ben & Thoma, Greg & Burek, Jasmina & Matlock, Marty, 2017. "A retrospective analysis of the United States poultry industry: 1965 compared with 2010," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-117.
    13. Simon Tielkes & Brianne A. Altmann, 2021. "The Sustainability of Bison Production in North America: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Sigurdsson, Valdimar & Larsen, Nils Magne & Folwarczny, Michał & Fagerstrøm, Asle & Menon, R.G. Vishnu & Sigurdardottir, Freyja Thoroddsen, 2023. "The importance of relative customer-based label equity when signaling sustainability and health with certifications and tags," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    15. Kirsty Joanna Blair & Dominic Moran & Peter Alexander, 2024. "Worldviews, values and perspectives towards the future of the livestock sector," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(1), pages 91-108, March.
    16. Binod Khanal & Sunil P. Dhoubhadel, 2025. "A Brief Review of Climate-Smart Technologies in the Beef Sector: Potentials and Development Status," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, April.
    17. Wen Lin & David L Ortega & Vincenzina Caputo, 2023. "Experimental quantity, mental budgeting and food choice: a discrete choice experiment application," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 457-496.
    18. Francisco Ascui & Theodor F. Cojoianu, 2019. "Implementing natural capital credit risk assessment in agricultural lending," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1234-1249, September.
    19. White, Robin R., 2016. "Increasing energy and protein use efficiency improves opportunities to decrease land use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 20-29.
    20. Kerr, William A., 2004. "Sanitary Barriers And International Trade Governance Issues For The Nafta Beef Market," Proceedings of the 8th Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshop, 2002: Keeping the Borders Open 16918, Farm Foundation, Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshops.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4283-:d:534661. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.