IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/201210010700001001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from U.S. beef production

Author

Listed:
  • Capper, Judith L.
  • Hayes, Dermot J.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to quantify the environmental and economic impact of withdrawing growth-enhancing technologies (GET) from the U.S. beef production system. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the beef population was used to quantify resource inputs and waste outputs per 454 × 106 kg of beef. Two production systems were compared: one using GET (steroid implants, in-feed ionophores, in-feed hormones, and beta-adrenergic agonists) where approved by FDA at current adoption rates and the other without GET use. Both systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, population dynamics, and production data from U.S. beef systems. The economic impact and global trade and carbon implications of GET withdrawal were calculated based on feed savings. Withdrawing GET from U.S. beef production reduced productivity (growth rate and slaughter weight) and increased the population size required to produce 454 × 106 kg beef by 385 × 103 animals. Feedstuff and land use were increased by 2,830 × 103 t and 265 × 103 ha, respectively, by GET withdrawal, with 20,139 × 106 more liters of water being required to maintain beef production. Manure output increased by 1,799 × 103 t as a result of GET withdrawal, with an increase in carbon emissions of 714,515 t/454 × 106 kg beef. The projected increased costs of U.S. beef produced without GET resulted in the effective implementation of an 8.2% tax on beef production, leading to reduced global trade and competitiveness. To compensate for the increase in U.S. beef prices and maintain beef supply, it would be necessary to increase beef production in other global regions, with a projected increase in carbon emissions from deforestation, particularly in Brazil. Withdrawing GET from U.S. beef production would reduce both the economic and environmental sustainability of the industry.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:201210010700001001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/1448e70a-5c70-4adc-97f0-c01c70fcf385/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Fathi, Fatemeh & Bakhshoodeh, Mohammad, 2021. "Economic and environmental strategies against targeting energy subsidy in Iranian meat market: A game theory approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    3. Pereira, Carolina H. & Patino, Harold O. & Hoshide, Aaron K. & Abreu, Daniel C. & Alan Rotz, C. & Nabinger, Carlos, 2018. "Grazing supplementation and crop diversification benefits for southern Brazil beef: A case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1-9.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    More about this item

    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:isu:genstf:201210010700001001. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.html .

    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.