Supply Chain Options for Beef Cattle from the Southwestern U.S. Content Expansion & Additional References

Content Expansion

Environmental Impact Clarification:
Please note that in this simulation the Criollo/Angus crossbreds had the smallest overall environmental impact when all factors were considered together. However, this does not mean that they outperformed in every single area.
Spider Graph Clarification:
Please note that the data presented in all the spider graphs in this video have been adjusted onto a scale of 0-1 to allow them to be compared directly to one another.
Reactive Nitrogen:
Nitrogen is essential for the development of protein and other functions in living organisms, but it is unavailable to plants and animals in its stable gaseous state (N2) and must therefore be accessed in one of its many other forms including as ammonia (NH3), ammonium (NH4), nitrite (NO2) and nitrate (NO3), nitric oxide (NO) and nitrous oxide (N2O) which are collectively referred to as reactive nitrogen or Nr (MSU Extension, 2011). Cattle don’t process the nitrogen in what they eat very efficiently and ultimately, it’s released from their waste into the atmosphere and can also find its way into surface and groundwater if not properly managed. Without proper management, reactive nitrogen can become a significant environmental problem, therefore producers must take measures to prevent it from accumulating and disrupting the surrounding ecosystems (Rotz, 2020).
Blue Water:
From a scientific perspective, there are two types of freshwater on earth: blue water and green water. ‘Blue water’ is water in rivers and lakes, groundwater, and the water frozen in glaciers and the polar ice caps. Freshwater is also found in plants, the soil, and rain which is called ‘green water’ (Helmholtz Climate Initiative, 2022). Because blue water can be utilized for many different purposes including agriculture, drinking water, manufacturing, and ecosystem services it is important to understand how blue water is being used to plan for its sustainable use over time (Soil Science Society of America, 2022).
Feedlot Locations:
Despite many calves from the Southwestern U.S. ultimately ending up in feedlots located in the Southern Plains region, there are feedlots located throughout the U.S. and an animal can conceivably be sent to any one of them, thus we did not verbally specify a feedlot location in the video.
Additional References
Battagliese, T., Andrade, J., Stackhouse-Lawson, K., Rotz, A., Dillon, J., 2015. Submission for Verification of Eco-Efficiency Analysis under NSF Protocol P352, Part B U.S. Beef—Phase 2 Ecoefficiency Analysis. BASF (1-35p).
Capper, J.L., 2012. Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animals, 2(2), pp.127-143.
Capper, J.L., 2011. The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. J. Anim. Sci. 89, 4249–4261.
Castaño-Sánchez, J.P., Rotz, C.A., McIntosh, M.M., Tolle, C., Gifford, C.A., Duff, G.C., Spiegal, S.A., 2023. Grass finishing of Criollo cattle can provide an environmentally preferred and cost effective meat supply chain from United States drylands. Agri. Syst. 210, 0308-521.
Drouillard, J.S., 2018. Current situation and future trends for beef production in the United States of America – a review. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci. 31, 1007–1016.
Guerrero, B., Amosson, S., McCollum, T., 2013. The Impact of the Beef Industry in the Southern Ogallala Region. Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, College Station, Texas.
Hayek, M.N. and Garrett, R.D., 2018. Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population. Environmental Research Letters, 13(8), p.084005.
Hristov, A.N., Hanigan, M., Cole, A., Todd, R., McAllister, T.A., Ndegwa, P.M., Rotz, A., 2011. Review: Ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 1–35.
Klopatek, S.C., Marvinney, E., Duarte, T., Kendall, A., Yang, X.C., Oltjen, J.W., 2022. Grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef systems: performance, economic, and environmental trade-offs. J. Anim. Sci. 100, 1–16.
Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., Rasmussen, R., 2010. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the upper Midwestern United States. Agric. Syst. 103, 380–389.
Rotz, A., 2020. Environmental sustainability of livestock production. Meat Muscle Biol. 4 https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.11103.
Rotz, C.A., Isenberg, B.J., Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R., Pollak, E.J., 2013. A simulation-based approach for evaluating and comparing the environmental footprints of beef production systems. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 5427–5437.
Rotz, C.A., Montes, F., Hafner, S.D., Heber, A.J., Grant, R.H., 2014. Ammonia emission model for whole farm evaluation of dairy production systems. J. Environ. Qual. 43, 1143–1158.
Rotz, C.A., Asem-Hiablie, S., Dillon, J., Bonifacio, H., 2015. Cradle-to-farm gate environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. J. Anim. Sci. 93, 2509–2519.
Rotz, C.A., Asem-Hiablie, S., Place, S., Thoma, G., 2019. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric. Syst. 169, 1–13.
Sawalhah, M.N., Geli, H.M.E., Holechek, J.L., Cibils, A.F., Spiegal, S., Gifford, C., 2021. Water footprint of rangeland beef production in New Mexico. Water (Switzerland) 13, 1–16.
Sitienei, I., Gillespie, J. and Scaglia, G., 2015. Producer perceptions of the importance of challenges currently facing the United States grass-finished beef industry. The Professional Animal Scientist, 31(4), pp.315-323.