Department of Animal Sciences, 116 Clark Hall, Washington State University, Pullman 99164.
J Anim Sci. 2013 Dec;91(12):5801-12. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-6632. Epub 2013 Oct 21.
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.
本研究旨在评估三种不同效率水平的牛肉生产系统的环境影响、经济可行性和社会可接受性。使用美国牛肉生产的确定性模型来预测生产 1×10(9)kg 去骨牛肉所需的动物数量。比较了三种生产处理方式，一种代表美国平均生产水平（对照），一种是 ADG 提高 15%，一种是 FW 提高 15%。对于每种处理方式，比较了各种社会经济情景，以考虑生产者和消费者行为的不确定性。环境影响指标包括饲料消耗、土地利用、水利用、温室气体排放（GHGe）和 N 和 P 排泄。饲料成本、动物购买成本、动物销售收益和成本收益（IOVC）用作经济可行性的指标。支付意愿（WTP）用于确定社会可接受性的提高或降低。当 ADG 提高时，与对照相比，饲料消耗、土地利用和水利用分别减少了 6.4%、3.2%和 12.3%。碳足迹减少了 11.7%，N 和 P 排泄分别减少了 4%和 13.8%。当 FW 提高时，饲料消耗（12.1%）、水利用（9.2%）和土地利用（15.5%）减少，总 GHGe 减少 14.7%，N 和 P 排泄减少 10.1%和 17.2%与对照相比。IOVC 的变化取决于社会经济情景。当 ADG 情景与对照相比时，牛群利润在 51%到 117%（奶牛场）、-38%到 157%（育肥场）和 37%到 134%（育肥场）之间变化，饲料利润在 37%到 134%之间变化。当比较改进的 FW 时，牛群利润变化范围为 67%至 143%，育肥场利润变化范围为-41%至 155%，饲料场利润变化范围为 37%至 136%。当 WTP 基于更有效地生产牛肉的营销时，WTP 提高了 10%，因此，社会可接受性增加。当基于生产效率和消费者对生长增强技术使用的知识进行营销时，WTP 下降了 12%-导致社会可接受性下降。结果表明，提高效率也改善了环境影响，但对经济可行性和社会可接受性的影响在很大程度上取决于消费者和生产者对效率提高的反应。
