An environmental, economic, and social assessment of improving cattle finishing weight or average daily gain within U.S. beef production.

The objective of this study was to assess environmental impact, economic viability, and social acceptability of 3 beef production systems with differing levels of efficiency. A deterministic model of U.S. beef production was used to predict the number of animals required to produce 1 × 10(9) kg HCW beef. Three production treatments were compared, 1 representing average U.S. production (control), 1 with a 15% increase in ADG, and 1 with a 15% increase in finishing weight (FW). For each treatment, various socioeconomic scenarios were compared to account for uncertainty in producer and consumer behavior. Environmental impact metrics included feed consumption, land use, water use, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), and N and P excretion. Feed cost, animal purchase cost, animal sales revenue, and income over costs (IOVC) were used as metrics of economic viability. Willingness to pay (WTP) was used to identify improvements or reductions in social acceptability. When ADG improved, feedstuff consumption, land use, and water use decreased by 6.4%, 3.2%, and 12.3%, respectively, compared with the control. Carbon footprint decreased 11.7% and N and P excretion were reduced by 4% and 13.8%, respectively. When FW improved, decreases were seen in feedstuff consumption (12.1%), water use (9.2%). and land use (15.5%); total GHGe decreased 14.7%; and N and P excretion decreased by 10.1% and 17.2%, compared with the control. Changes in IOVC were dependent on socioeconomic scenario. When the ADG scenario was compared with the control, changes in sector profitability ranged from 51 to 117% (cow-calf), -38 to 157% (stocker), and 37 to 134% (feedlot). When improved FW was compared, changes in cow-calf profit ranged from 67% to 143%, stocker profit ranged from -41% to 155% and feedlot profit ranged from 37% to 136%. When WTP was based on marketing beef being more efficiently produced, WTP improved by 10%; thus, social acceptability increased. When marketing was based on production efficiency and consumer knowledge of growth-enhancing technology use, WTP decreased by 12%-leading to a decrease in social acceptability. Results demonstrated that improved efficiency also improved environmental impact, but impacts on economic viability and social acceptability are highly dependent on consumer and producer behavioral responses to efficiency improvements.